Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 227

Thread: OFFICIAL: ANTI-D'Antoni Thread

  1. #76
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    You didn't read well enough KBlack. PPG in combo with point differential. When you take all the games we've played this seeason, our average win total is by less than a point. It shows a lack of consistent defense. If you scored 80ppg but held the other team to 70ppg, it shows that your're a horrible offensive team, but a consistently good defensive team. If you hold them to 79ppg then it indicates that you just play a slow system and can dupe people into that system, but are not a good defensive team.
    Or you are a team that holds the ball for 24 seconds before taking a shot, wasting and killing time.

    Honestly, you won't convince me that ppg is a more well-rounded/applicable stat than points per 100 possessions, because points per 100 possessions necessarily eliminates at least 1 extraneous factor that directly impacts PPG. I honestly can't respect an opinion that goes off PPG when a much better stat that corrects for at least 1 more variable is available. Nothing personal.

    And I don't get your point differential argument: we are +.4 on the season...what's your point? We are 2 games over .500, meaning we win a little bit more than we lose. It's only logical that we score, on the whole, a little bit more than we give up.

  2. #77
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    KBlack -- anyone can be taught how to play team defense. Look at Carlos Boozer on the Bulls.

    Mike D'Antoni doesn't want to teach defense. He prefers offense. Did you see what Amar'e said:

    "We have to be able to have the same energy at the defensive end," Stoudemire said Friday at one point. "Sometimes, when you're playing so offensively, you tend to step away from the defensive end. We can't afford to do that if we want to be an elite team."

    Read more: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    Or you are a team that holds the ball for 24 seconds before taking a shot, wasting and killing time.
    And, then you may have less PPG, and if you keep on average other teams to a consistently wide point differential, then you are a good defensive team.

    If you keep them to a closer PPG, but still win, then you're not a good defensive team, and rather just having them play a slow system.

    Same goes for a quick offensive system. You score 120 points per game and the other teams score a 119 ppg you are a bad defensive team. You score 120 ppg and hold them to 110, you are a good defensive team.

    Yes, we outscore them by .4 ppg -- meaning we dupe them into a fast pace system and will win roughly .500 of our games -- where we are now: a poor defensive team with a lot of possessions.
    Get it?

  3. #78
    Veteran STAT1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,361
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    KBlack -- anyone can be taught how to play team defense. Look at Carlos Boozer on the Bulls.

    Mike D'Antoni doesn't want to teach defense. He prefers offense. Did you see what Amar'e said:

    "We have to be able to have the same energy at the defensive end," Stoudemire said Friday at one point. "Sometimes, when you're playing so offensively, you tend to step away from the defensive end. We can't afford to do that if we want to be an elite team."

    Read more: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    I believe Amare was quoted earlier in the season as saying he was never taught how to play defense until D'Antoni left Phoenix & he was coached by Alvin Gentry. That's a pretty damning statement against this coach in terms of the way he drills his teams.

  4. #79
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    KBlack -- anyone can be taught how to play team defense. Look at Carlos Boozer on the Bulls.

    Mike D'Antoni doesn't want to teach defense. He prefers offense. Did you see what Amar'e said:

    "We have to be able to have the same energy at the defensive end," Stoudemire said Friday at one point. "Sometimes, when you're playing so offensively, you tend to step away from the defensive end. We can't afford to do that if we want to be an elite team."

    Read more: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



    We have a different reading of this statement. Nowhere in that statement does STAT even MENTION D'Antoni. Looks to me like he is blaming the players on the floor, not the coach.


    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    And, then you may have less PPG, and if you keep on average other teams to a consistently wide point differential, then you are a good defensive team.

    If you keep them to a closer PPG, but still win, then you're not a good defensive team, and rather just having them play a slow system.

    Same goes for a quick offensive system. You score 120 points per game and the other teams score a 119 ppg you are a bad defensive team. You score 120 ppg and hold them to 110, you are a good defensive team.

    Yes, we outscore them by .4 ppg -- meaning we dupe them into a fast pace system and will win roughly .500 of our games -- where we are now: a poor defensive team with a lot of possessions.
    Get it?

    This statement just PROVES my point. PPG alone does not tell the story, 110 points for many teams is a bad night, but when u give the other team a ton of possessions and they aren't scoring nearly as frequently on them, that is indicative of a better defensive team. Sorry, I cannot and will not even begin to give credence to a theory based on a flawed stat; when the underlying facts are flawed, so too will be the conclusion. Numbers and stats can't be perfect, but when there are better numbers and stats out there, to continue to use the flawed ones is beyond foolish. It's really nothing personal, I would feel the same if we were arguing baseball and you were giving me Pitcher W-L and Hitter RBI as relevant.

    And .4 ppg is an aggregate number, meaning that if we beat a team by 10 and then lose by 10 the average ppg differential is 0. So when you are a bit over .500, and are a middle of the pack team - as I believe our talent and experience DICTATES that we are, .4 ppg differential is not even merely expected, I would be shocked if it was much different. Get it?

  5. #80
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25


    We have a different reading of this statement. Nowhere in that statement does STAT even MENTION D'Antoni. Looks to me like he is blaming the players on the floor, not the coach.



    This statement just PROVES my point. PPG alone does not tell the story, 110 points for many teams is a bad night, but when u give the other team a ton of possessions and they aren't scoring nearly as frequently on them, that is indicative of a better defensive team. Sorry, I cannot and will not even begin to give credence to a theory based on a flawed stat; when the underlying facts are flawed, so too will be the conclusion. Numbers and stats can't be perfect, but when there are better numbers and stats out there, to continue to use the flawed ones is beyond foolish. It's really nothing personal, I would feel the same if we were arguing baseball and you were giving me Pitcher W-L and Hitter RBI as relevant.

    And .4 ppg is an aggregate number, meaning that if we beat a team by 10 and then lose by 10 the average ppg differential is 0. So when you are a bit over .500, and are a middle of the pack team - as I believe our talent and experience DICTATES that we are, .4 ppg differential is not even merely expected, I would be shocked if it was much different. Get it?
    First off... with the Amar'e statement -- he saying the team concentrates so much on offense they don't have the energy to play defense. There is no other interpretation.

    And .4 ppg is an aggregate number, meaning that if we beat a team by 10 and then lose by 10 the average ppg differential is 0. So when you are a bit over .500, and are a middle of the pack team - as I believe our talent and experience DICTATES that we are, .4 ppg differential is not even merely expected, I would be shocked if it was much different. Get it?
    Exactly my point. Consistent defensive teams won't do that. When an sole offensive team loses they lose by a lot. When they win, they tend to win by a lot. It balances itself out to close to .00 point differential.

    Again it is ppg and point differential.

    Not just PPG.

    If you are a consistently good defensive team, then when you lose, its by very little, but when you win, its by a lot. So you have a wider point differential.

    Make sense yet?

  6. #81
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    That quote still didn't mention MDA, again it looks to me like he is blaming the players for their lack of energy on Defense, they have energy for offense but have no energy for defense, even on back to back plays...that's the fault of the players


    Originally Posted by MusketeerX;158593
    Exactly my point. Consistent defensive teams won't do that. When an sole offensive team loses they lose by a lot. When they win, they tend to win by a lot. It balances itself out to close to .00 point differential.

    [B
    Again it is ppg and point differential.

    [/b]Not just PPG.

    If you are a consistently good defensive team, then when you lose, its by very little, but when you win, its by a lot. So you have a wider point differential.

    Make sense yet?
    Again your statistics are flawed. What numbers do you have to go on? That Boston, one of the best teams in the league, with maybe the best depth at PF/C in terms of head bangers in the league has the lowest points allowed per game?

    If a team wins more, clearly their point differential is going to be bigger, because they have more games where they finish + than other teams, that's only logical and to be expected. If you broke down the numbers in a chart or a table backing up your hypothesis I would be willing to look, but without much proof besides the obvious (teams that win more have a higher point differential than teams that win less), nothing really backs up your assertion.

    But I will do a case study to disprove your theory:

    By your flawed stat the Bucks are the 3rd best defensive team in the league (third lowest PAPG). They have a point differential in the negatives and have lost games by: 9 (two times), 10 (two times), 11 (five times), 12, 13 (two times), 14, 15 (three times), 18, 21, 26. This accounts for 19 of their 34 losses. Yet they have the third lowest PPG allowed and a point differential of -1.5 (not bad for a team that is 13 games below .500). By your metrics they should be good defensively and good consistently (relatively good point differential, third best points allowed per game this year), yet over half their losses are by 9 or more...care to explain? IF the Bucks are a consistently good defensive team, then how can we explain these monster blowouts? Doesn't this disprove that if you are consistently good on defense you tend to lose by very little?

  7. #82
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    That quote still didn't mention MDA, again it looks to me like he is blaming the players for their lack of energy on Defense, they have energy for offense but have no energy for defense, even on back to back plays...that's the fault of the players




    Again your statistics are flawed. What numbers do you have to go on? That Boston, one of the best teams in the league, with maybe the best depth at PF/C in terms of head bangers in the league has the lowest points allowed per game?

    If a team wins more, clearly their point differential is going to be bigger, because they have more games where they finish + than other teams, that's only logical and to be expected. If you broke down the numbers in a chart or a table backing up your hypothesis I would be willing to look, but without much proof besides the obvious (teams that win more have a higher point differential than teams that win less), nothing really backs up your assertion.

    But I will do a case study to disprove your theory:

    By your flawed stat the Bucks are the 3rd best defensive team in the league (third lowest PAPG). They have a point differential in the negatives and have lost games by: 9 (two times), 10 (two times), 11 (five times), 12, 13 (two times), 14, 15 (three times), 18, 21, 26. This accounts for 19 of their 34 losses. Yet they have the third lowest PPG allowed and a point differential of -1.5 (not bad for a team that is 13 games below .500). By your metrics they should be good defensively and good consistently (relatively good point differential, third best points allowed per game this year), yet over half their losses are by 9 or more...care to explain? IF the Bucks are a consistently good defensive team, then how can we explain these monster blowouts? Doesn't this disprove that if you are consistently good on defense you tend to lose by very little?
    Ok. one more time... you have to take into account the ppg with the point differential. PPG alone do not make you a good or bad defensive team. But, when taken into account with the point differential, then you get a clear idea of what kind of team they are.

    And, note, you have to look at both the offensive and defensive ppg.

    With the bucks, they shoot 91.8 ppg. This tells you its a slow paced game. The fact that they give up more than that shows they are a poor defensive team. However, if their opponents scored 85 ppg. Then they are an above average defensive team when you take into account their slow paced game.

    Great defensive teams will consistently hold teams to less points, by a wide margin. If it helps to just look at Point Differential, you can, but it doens't give you the whole picture... but PPG will help you determine the pace and how good the team actually is -- especially when in combo with the point differential.

    And to go towards your first point. If you win more, it doesn't mean you are going to have a greater point differential.

    If you won every game for the season by one point, you would only have a one point differential... BUT, great defensive teams will have a much wider point differential.
    Last edited by MusketeerX; Feb 20, 2011 at 00:57.

  8. #83
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Okay, but even by this you admit that it is the players' natural abilities, not the coach...The players haven't been instilled with this in the past, it's not like taking a charge should be calculus to these guys, it should be second nature. I blame the current state of BBall in the United States/Europe for this more than I blame the coaches. These players obviously weren't taught this in high school, nor in college when it should be a fundamental part of the game. To me it's an issue with players.
    So they werent taught in HS or college. Most players in todays game doesnt spend a lot of time in college. Not like in the past. In todays NBA you have to teach things more than ever. Things that were 2nd nature for old school players may not have even crossed these kids mind. These kids are making millions now. If you require them, teach them, drill them to play defense they'll learn.



    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    I think he would say I am right. Not only for the facts I am about to outline, but because of your admission that you don't care to learn as many facts about the team and establish the most-educated hypothesis possible about the coach/team.

    Look at the guys MDA had to work with during the early part of his career with NYK. He had Crawford and ZBo for 9 games. He was hampered his coaching career with a bloated contract for a bloated Eddy Curry, a bloated contract for a bloated Jerome James. His "best" player never played and was out of the league the very next season (Stephon Marbury). His PG sucked, and while I thought he should have played Nate and Hill, these guys aren't world beaters on a good team. His actual best player was David Lee, who has seen a significant drop in numbers on a below .500 GSW team. The team that signed another big-minute guy, Al Harrington, is now desperate to get rid of him. Darko admitted he wasn't trying the early part of his career, and only when he got to Minnesota did he start trying. All we were trying to do for the last 2 seasons was make trades to get under the cap, it's VERY difficult to be relevant while you are doing that.
    An independent arbitrator wouldnt take 2 minutes to find in my favor.

    You're wrong Black. Any team will take the image of the coach. If Hubie Brown had those same players you speak of above they'd be a top five defensive team.

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Once he actually got under the cap and got more of his guys in there (and if you think for one second STAT's anxiousness to sign here didn't have anything to do with the fact that his best seasons came under D'Antoni, I think you are crazy), through a bit over halfway through the season, he has us right where we should be based on talent. I will ask again: Are we better than Boston, Miami, Orlando, Chicago? We are maybe as talented as Atlanta, though their front court is better, but they have much more experience playing with one another. That leaves us at 6, I believe where our talent and experience as a team dictates we should be. If I told you at the beginning of the year we would be at the 6 seed and win 42-ish games (what we are on pace for), you wouldn't have been ecstatic?
    I'm not comparing us to any teams at this point. I'm only concerned with can we win a chip in the next 3-5 years, if not sooner. The way we play defense winning a chip is not going to happen.

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    And I believe it is because we have below average defensive players on the whole...Again it comes back to whether or not you want to blame the coach or blame the players, a difference in opinion diametrically opposed. You will never convince me that the coach affects the game more than the players, I'm sorry but it's not something I am going to move from, just like you won't move from your stance that the coach is more responsible for on-the-court occurrences than the players. That's fine, that's your opinion. But that's all it is.
    Again Black believe it or not a defensive minded coach would have these same players playing better defense. Just like MDA preaches take the first uncontested shot, if he preached take the charge these players would. I mean if they want to get some burn they would. This little tidbit is obvious to most sports buffs, I cant see why it isnt obvious to you.

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    A nice tight resume? He played 33 games last year! Less than 100 on his career before showing up!

    This isn't a case of killed confidence, the kid was terrible in the pre-season when he was playing for minutes. He got a good amount of time in early November as well. The fact is this kid's shot selection is awful. So much so that someone made a thread about it, and I believe I am in the thread saying he can contribute near the paint and rebounding, if he just narrows his game to that he will be fine, I have stated that over and over and over again. You really think MDA is encouraging a guy who clearly lacks a steady jumper to keep taking shots? You say he is a great offensive coach, why would he do that?
    A good amount of time? Check the link below. Its his game log. He got over eleven minutes ONCE. That was in an eleven game span. Not enough time to evaluate his game properly.

    Check the 2nd link. We havent seen this player at all. He looks VERY CONFIDENT to me. Does he look confident to you.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    You keep saying all coach wants is the 3...then how do you explain Turiaf and Mozgov getting burn now? They have close to the hoop game. I promise you, if AR did what he was good at, rebounding, blocking/changing shots, and scoring close to the basket, the coach would find minutes for him. This kid's shot slection were suspect in the preseason (when he wasn't getting benched), in the early part of the season (when he was getting time) and is suspect now...and rather than stay involved in the huddle, he stares into space at the camera, unlike Mozgov who tried to get involved with the talks in the huddle. I don't know how much more evidence you need that this kid is NOT doing the right things even with the limited minutes he has. To me he has a choice, even in the small # of minutes he gets: continue to shoot Js and miss, or do what I know, and he knows, he can do, contribute on the defensive end, grab a ton of rebounds and score buckets near the hoop. If he does the latter, he will get minutes. But he continues to do the former.[/quote]

    Right now. Moz couldnt hold AR's jock. Moz was in the same predicament as AR and got lucky as hell he blew up against Detroit. Otherwise he'd still be riding the pine also. Hell he still may get there. He played 14 mins last game, and was benched for the forth quarter the game before that.

    How can you have a suspect shot selection when the coach preaches SSOL? Now if you said he cant shoot, I'd agree. Which is why he doesnt play. Its not his selection its his production from 15ft or more...

  9. #84
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Again, you bring nothing new or interesting beyond your opinion, which we can debate in circles over and over. Nothing you said convinced me to change my opinion.

    One thing I will address is the following, as I have already addressed and debunked all your points, and rehashing them would send us in circles.

    By the way, an arbitrator who read your statement that you don't care about gaining the full spectrum of knowledge would take 15 seconds to find in my favor, you admit yourself you do not have, or care to have, all available information...

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    Again Black believe it or not a defensive minded coach would have these same players playing better defense. Just like MDA preaches take the first uncontested shot, if he preached take the charge these players would. I mean if they want to get some burn they would. This little tidbit is obvious to most sports buffs, I cant see why it isnt obvious to you.
    So most sports buffs would say that coaching in sports is more important than the players? Is that what you are saying?

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Now, since you admit you won't read, or care to read, to expand your mind and your knowledge, proof positive alone that an arbitrator looking at the facts would think you are shortsighted and are CHOOSING to use less facts and details, a fundamental flaw in argument and Lesson 1 of Law School, I will take some quotes out for you:

    One factor here is the Illusion of Coaching. We want to believe that coaches are [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], and coaches do not mind encouraging that belief. But coaching is a secondary force in sports; the athletes themselves are always more important.
    TMQ's immutable Law of 10 Percent holds that good coaching can improve a team by 10 percent, bad coaching can subtract from performance by 10 percent -- but the rest will always be on the players themselves, their athletic ability and level of devotion, plus luck. If the players are no good or out of sync, it won't matter what plays are called; if the players are talented and dedicated, they will succeed no matter what the sideline signals in. Unless they have bad luck, which no one can control.
    When a season is going poorly, or just went poorly, you can't fire the whole team. Significantly revamping the team will take at least a year, probably two. But you can fire a coach or front-office executive -- if only you could fire the owner, right Redskins fans? -- or announce a reshuffling of sideline authority. That's quick and easy, and creates an impression that dramatic action is being taken.
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    None of these coaches suddenly lost some special gift -- the truth is, they probably never had any. They're simply proof that there is no such thing as coaching genius. The whole idea is just a myth, one that we latch on to in an attempt to explain any run of coaching success. That's not to say that all coaches are created equal -- there are outstanding ones and lousy ones, some who are better strategists than others, some who have more of a knack for managing egos -- but in the end, they are more alike than they are different.
    Winning multiple championships seems to automatically elevate a coach to genius status, but sometimes just one is enough. Larry Brown was known more for his job hopping than for the quality of his coaching until he led the Pistons to a title two years ago. After that, he was suddenly everyone's choice as the best coach in the league. When Belichick led the Pats to three Super Bowl titles in four years, he was no longer the guy who had a mediocre tenure with the Cleveland Browns, he was a fascinating leader of men who was worthy of a David Halberstam biography.
    True genius in any area is a rare commodity, and we often confuse it with mere success. If the San Antonio Spurs win another NBA championship, Gregg Popovich will be up for the title. Tony Dungy may start to hear the word associated with his name if the Indianapolis Colts make it through the regular season undefeated. But with all due respect to both, they're not geniuses now and they won't be even if they take their teams all the way. They're just smart, hard-working men who made the most of their resources. There's no shame in that, but there's no genius in it, either.
    This all provides support for my opinion that Coaching is overvalued...it is fools gold and changing the coach is just easier than changing the personnel.


    Also you state that AR got over 11 minutes once...

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    He got over eleven minutes ONCE. That was in an eleven game span.
    By my count he got 11:55 and 11:53, respectively and a 28 minute game where he shot 2 for 7 from the floor. For those of you who did not take elementary math (Clyde, pay attention, this pertains to you), when a guy plays 11 minutes and 55 seconds and 11 minutes and 53 seconds that means he played OVER 11 minutes (55 seconds over and 53 seconds over, to be exact). So by my count he got OVER 11 minutes three times. But you don't "massage" the facts right? LOL.
    Last edited by KBlack25; Feb 20, 2011 at 10:20.

  10. #85
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    Ok. one more time... you have to take into account the ppg with the point differential. PPG alone do not make you a good or bad defensive team. But, when taken into account with the point differential, then you get a clear idea of what kind of team they are.
    So being third in PPG allowed and having a -1.5 point differential while being 13 games under .500 isn't good? According to your #s and hypothesis I would think it would be. By your hypothesis the Bucks should not get blown out, but they do, pretty consistently.


    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    With the bucks, they shoot 91.8 ppg. This tells you its a slow paced game. The fact that they give up more than that shows they are a poor defensive team. However, if their opponents scored 85 ppg. Then they are an above average defensive team when you take into account their slow paced game.
    Thank you for literally proving my point. You have to take into account pace. Defensive and Offensive rating takes that pace into account. So, if you have to adjust for pace, why wouldn't you just use defensive and offensive rating which, by their nature, account for this variable account for the variable you say you have to factor in. Again, my point is that PPG and PAPG is flawed, it doesn't take into account pace. You say you have to take into account pace, but you do so by trying to read into the numbers and make a logical leap or guess.

    But the variable you are trying to account for IS factored in in the stat Defensive/Offensive rating, again. You ADMIT you have to factor in pace, but then continue to use a stat that does not, by its nature, factor it in, while ignoring a stat that DOES by its nature factor it in...I don't get why you hold steadfast in using archaic #s, when you clearly admit/know that the number is flawed and you clearly know (at least you know now) that one that at least starts to factor in your concerns exists?

  11. #86
    Veteran AmareForPresident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Queens,NY
    Posts
    1,791
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    This all provides support for my opinion that Coaching is overvalued...it is fools gold and changing the coach is just easier than changing the personnel.
    Yeah thats why Portland has a better record than us even though their team is full of injuries?And Philadelphia is catching up to us even though we have a way better roster than them?Scott skiles got the bucks a a 46-36 record last season without Michael redd because he is a defensive minded coach.
    Last edited by AmareForPresident; Feb 20, 2011 at 10:21.

  12. #87
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by AmareForPresident
    Yeah thats why Portland has a better record than us even though their team is full of injuries?And Philadelphia is catching up to us even though we have a way better roster than them?Scott skiles got the bucks a a 46-36 record last season without Michael redd because he is a defensive minded coach.
    That's why Larry Brown had such a great season with NY. That's why Phil Jackson won all those titles without the best player ever, and the best player in the leagues at the time he won them. It's why Joe Torre won all those titles without having the best crop of talent in the league. That's why Bill Belichick won all those Super Bowls without the best or 2nd best QB in the league, and why Tony Dungy won his title without the best QB on the planet.

  13. #88
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    So being third in PPG allowed and having a -1.5 point differential while being 13 games under .500 isn't good? According to your #s and hypothesis I would think it would be. By your hypothesis the Bucks should not get blown out, but they do, pretty consistently.




    Thank you for literally proving my point. You have to take into account pace. Defensive and Offensive rating takes that pace into account. So, if you have to adjust for pace, why wouldn't you just use defensive and offensive rating which, by their nature, account for this variable account for the variable you say you have to factor in. Again, my point is that PPG and PAPG is flawed, it doesn't take into account pace. You say you have to take into account pace, but you do so by trying to read into the numbers and make a logical leap or guess.

    But the variable you are trying to account for IS factored in in the stat Defensive/Offensive rating, again. You ADMIT you have to factor in pace, but then continue to use a stat that does not, by its nature, factor it in, while ignoring a stat that DOES by its nature factor it in...I don't get why you hold steadfast in using archaic #s, when you clearly admit/know that the number is flawed and you clearly know (at least you know now) that one that at least starts to factor in your concerns exists?
    Jjust goes to show the inconsistency of the Bucks. The point differential shows true defensive teams, and what it takes to win. The smaller the point differential the lack of consistency and thus you get yourself a bad defensive team.

    The ppg allows you to check the pace, but the pointt differential gives you abetter overall idea of how good the team's defense acually is. When you take into account the point differentia of the Knicks, compare it to the elite teams who actually play defense. You will notice a trend: consistentcy. Then you get quotes with what Amar'e said... something I've been telling you all along... MDA's system doesn't promote defense, and you still deny how horrible of a defensive team we are, then there is no helping you.

    A winning record and a close point differential = either lack of defense or offense. Because we score so much you know it is lack of defense.

  14. #89
    Veteran AmareForPresident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Queens,NY
    Posts
    1,791
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    That's why Larry Brown had such a great season with NY.
    I stopped reading after this sentence,the knicks had a worse team than what we have now and we were stuck with players with huge egos.not to mention larry brown sits any player that he doesn't like.

  15. #90
    Veteran AmareForPresident's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Queens,NY
    Posts
    1,791
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by MusketeerX
    Jjust goes to show the inconsistency of the Bucks. The point differential shows true defensive teams, and what it takes to win. The smaller the point differential the lack of consistency and thus you get yourself a bad defensive team.

    The ppg allows you to check the pace, but the pointt differential gives you abetter overall idea of how good the team's defense acually is. When you take into account the point differentia of the Knicks, compare it to the elite teams who actually play defense. You will notice a trend: consistentcy. Then you get quotes with what Amar'e said... something I've been telling you all along... MDA's system doesn't promote defense, and you still deny how horrible of a defensive team we are, then there is no helping you.

    A winning record and a close point differential = either lack of defense or offense. Because we score so much you know it is lack of defense.
    I love this post.

Similar Threads

  1. D'antoni Accepts Offer to Coach Knicks
    By MSGKnickz33 in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: Jan 26, 2012, 16:27
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: May 17, 2011, 10:40
  3. Official I support Mike D'Antoni thread
    By metrocard in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: Dec 13, 2010, 13:40
  4. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 12, 2010, 11:50

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •