Mike says "he didn't know"...The funny thing is, Lin almost didn't get a chance with the Knicks.
Head coach Mike D'Antoni said on Tuesday that he was "afraid" to play the 23-year-old guard because the Knicks had fallen seven games under .500 just six weeks into the season, and he didn't know what to expect from Lin.
D'Antoni had seen "bits and pieces" of what Lin could do during team scrimmages, "but there were other things I questioned just because I didn't know. And I was afraid to do anything. We're already in a little bit of a crisis and I just couldn't be, you know, pulling straws," the coach said.
Thing is, the Knicks (11-15) were in a crisis in large part because of poor point guard play. Entering the season, they'd hoped*Toney Douglas
could run the show with*Carmelo Anthony
*filling in as a part-time point forward. But that didn't work. So they were left holding their breath as*Baron Davis
*recovered from a herniated disk in his back. And the result was one mess of an offense.
Before Lin's breakout Saturday night, the Knicks were 24th in offensive efficiency, 24th in field goal percentage and 25th in assist percentage.
But Lin's ability to spread the floor, finish at the rim and run the pick-and-roll made those numbers seem like misprints.
Article states "Lins ability".
Not Mikes uber genius
Not Mike coached him up, or transformed him, or worked with him, etc...
Mike didn't know. Therefore Mike cannot get credit.
For finally playing Lin at the behest of angry fans, sure give him credit.
But the unintended, ancillary consequences resulting from Lin's ability, can in no way be attributed to coach.
Period. End of story.
Nice try though. (Although it looks desparate)
But that assumption about Lin being the real deal is both a petty big assumption...and was NOT a foregone conclusion until very recently.
Though I'd agree with you -- if Lin is the real deal, and assuming Melo isn't a total punk (I don't think he is), I believe we should be able to compete and look on the level of anyone in the league....
And I put responsibility on MDA at that point to make that so.
2) even when lin was on the bench shump and td made more sense as pg until lin got garbage minutes a couple times and showed the skills that he used to blow up
3) if mda was gm he would have had more than shump, td and an injured inconsistent BD
i dont really see any reason to blame mda for trying to turn them into players theyre not, he really had no choice BEFORE we saw lins high motor, ability to drive, see the court, keep his dribble, etc
if you're implying mda's system has nothing to do with lin's success then i can conclude you're on the side of hate rather than logic, and there is no point to you spewing such nonsense.
You need someone to agree that Mike's system had something to do with Lin... I'll throw you a bone and agree.
But that's anecdotal. Obviously Lin has the skills (and had them without the help of Mike) to be successful in most any system.
Lin's demonstration of his decision making has superseded Mike's system. Why do you think the high % numbers increased? Logic.
Why do you think Mike COULDN'T transform umpteen guards prior? Logic.
Why do you think we shot 40+ threes in games prior? Logic.
Why do you think 6'10 Jorts shot more threes than anything? Logic.
Please stop wasting everyones time. We know you have an unconditional love for Mike. Its ok. But you can NEVER convince us that Mike's sysem deserves more credit than we already gave it. Never. Your attempts are futile.
1) where is your proof that lin would be successful in any system? the closest i can find is his time in GSW where he did absolutely nothing. do not confuse this with proof that it is all dantoni, it is merely contradictory to your notion that jeremy lin would succeed anywhere. yes, they have steph curry but he does not play 48 minutes and there is nobody else on that roster that you can say "lin should never play over him." if he was good enough to turn any team around he would have at least been a successful backup to curry.
2) if some other coach turned douglas or shumpert into a pg you may have a point. until we have a similar situation with another coach turning these guys into pgs, the failure to do so cannot logically be attributed to mda. where is your proof that toney douglas will ever be capable of dribbling without looking down the whole time? has he ever shown an ability to keep his dribble and avoid traps or bad shots?
3) how were we supposed to get high % shots against the heat? in order to put this on lin you need to have samples showing that mda will have players chuck 3s regardless of his pg situation, and that lin can come into some other coach's offense and decrease the number of 3s taken. all we know is that lin + mda is better at getting high % shots than mda without a pg and lin without dantoni. who are you to decide which is better when there is no proof lin will come into any situation and decrease the number of low % shots?
4) there are three reasons for jorts shooting 3s. a big that can shoot 3s makes it easier on the other big in the lane and he shot well enough that a defender has to contest his shot, he is an underrated shooter and there was no one to create higher % shots for him. if he comes back and plays with lin and still shoots more bad % shots than high % shots you can deduce that either mda or jorts is at fault (or some combination of the two), not that lin is the difference.
its easy to manipulate evidence to point to conclusions you want but i've made it very obvious that we cannot be certain which factors attribute to our recent success more.
maybe youre better with math than words. have you ever heard of linear systems of equations? lets say mda is x and lin is y. w represents success and l represents losing.
mike without lin this year is not successful, therefore
x + 0 = L
on the other hand, lin has never done anything at the pro level with any other coach
0 + y = L
the combination of lin and mda works
x + y = W
try to use any of the 3 methods (elimination, graphing, or substitution) of solving this system and tell me whether x or y is of bigger significance.
obviously you need a lesson in logic. x is a condition, y is a result. nobody is telling you y did not happen. nobody is telling you x cannot be a possible cause of y. what i am saying is that y could be a result of a, b, c, d, e, f, or x and you are the last person here that should be telling anyone which it is.
please do not confuse x and y from this post with my previous post
Listen there are only a select few people that can admit when they're wrong. You're not one of them.
You're incorrect. Face it. No matter how many lines you post. We can respect your opinion, but when you look so desparate for acquiescence you fail.
State your case and keep it moving. Realize there are peopl who know more than you. You lost face it. The cacophony of evidence, recent admissions not withstanding say different.
Learn when to fold'em.
Why did I ever think creating a thread about MDA was a good idea