Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 227

Thread: OFFICIAL: ANTI-D'Antoni Thread

  1. #106
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Smile

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    I understood exactly. Spin. His useless points about MDA and defense werent working. Heck, MDA and defense shouldnt even be mentioned in the same thread. Why try to change the topic now? A coach being more important than NBA players is not even a debatable topic. High school possibly, even less so in college.

    Pile on? If you're siding with Black on this your the one getting chitted on just like he is.

    So what's your impression about the quotes I provided from MDA?
    I think Kblack made a lot of well-constructed points. Infact I'm glad we tend to agree because truthfully, I wouldn't want to debate him.

    I think your quotes merely say what we all know already. Mike D has a style. Yes it is offensively centered. Could defense be emphasized more? Maybe. Is it emphasized quite a bit already? Absolutely.

    Where you and others tend to lose me is w your overvaluing/misevaluating of our young big men, when 1. You don't know what they're doing in practice and coaches like Mike D and our assistants have a MUCH better vantage point. And 2. You've, just like us, seen them perform poorly at the beginning of the year when our coach gave them a chance, resulting in the early season skid. Why continue to go on about coach not wanting to play BAD bigs? He's shown he's willing to play bigs that can execute the offense adequately as has been the case w Turiaf and Moz more recently. Why continue to harp on this when you have evidence to the contrary?

    On defense, we run so stats that apply to more conventional teams prolly shouldn't be used to determine whether we're a good or bad defensive team. A more UNconventional stat like points per 100 possessions is more applicable IMO. Try to open your mind a little Clydeandthepearl. Mike D isnt trying to reinvent the wheel, but he is tweaking the Hell out of it. We are not a conventional team.

  2. #107
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    He'll NEVER have everything he needs player wise. Not many coaches do. Even perennial championship winning teams dont have everything they desire. Know what they do have? Flexability. Versatility. MDA is telling you right here that he is totally inflexible and non versatile.

    But hey you're happy with this so whats the biggee...
    What do they have versatility and flexibility in the form of? Great playerz bra.. That's where it all begins and ends. Let Mike D get a Melo, a Paul or Williams to go w Amare. See how they take this system and run w it. It's always been about the playerz.

  3. #108
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    I think Kblack made a lot of well-constructed points. Infact I'm glad we tend to agree because truthfully, I wouldn't want to debate him.
    Yea they might be well constructed for a different argument. Its like building a beautiful well constructed house 100 ft from the river when you needed to build a dam 100 ft up river. When it rains the house is TOAST.

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    I think your quotes merely say what we all know already. Mike D has a style. Yes it is offensively centered. Could defense be emphasized more? Maybe. Is it emphasized quite a bit already? Absolutely.
    Lordy, lordy. Ron? Really? What part of "As we said in Phoenix, the team with the most points is the one that played the best defense.” even suggests that defense is emphasized?
    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Where you and others tend to lose me is w your overvaluing/misevaluating of our young big men, when 1. You don't know what they're doing in practice and coaches like Mike D and our assistants have a MUCH better vantage point. And 2. You've, just like us, seen them perform poorly at the beginning of the year when our coach gave them a chance, resulting in the early season skid. Why continue to go on about coach not wanting to play BAD bigs? He's shown he's willing to play bigs that can execute the offense adequately as has been the case w Turiaf and Moz more recently. Why continue to harp on this when you have evidence to the contrary?
    So because a big cant shoot he's considered bad? He has nothing else he can offer? I'm not harping.

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    On defense, we run so stats that apply to more conventional teams prolly shouldn't be used to determine whether we're a good or bad defensive team. A more UNconventional stat like points per 100 possessions is more applicable IMO. Try to open your mind a little Clydeandthepearl. Mike D isnt trying to reinvent the wheel, but he is tweaking the Hell out of it. We are not a conventional team.
    As I pointed out in a previous post our defensive rating (PP 100) is 21st. Why dont you try looking at things a bit more objectively?

  4. #109
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    What do they have versatility and flexibility in the form of? Great playerz bra.. That's where it all begins and ends. Let Mike D get a Melo, a Paul or Williams to go w Amare. See how they take this system and run w it. It's always been about the playerz.
    So you think that Melo, STAT, and CP3 can WIN come playoff time against Wade, Bron and Bosh playing one end of the floor? Thats what your suggesting.

    I cant see it bro.
    Last edited by Clyde & The Pearl; Feb 20, 2011 at 13:36.

  5. #110
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    Yea they might be well constructed for a different argument. Its like building a beautiful well constructed house 100 ft from the river when you needed to build a dam 100 ft up river. When it rains the house is TOAST.
    Your analogies are funny in that - it doesn't really match the situation - kind of way. The concepts you use are cool tho..



    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    Lordy, lordy. Ron? Really? What part of "As we said in Phoenix, the team with the most points is the one that played the best defense.” even suggests that defense is emphasized?
    I think your reading too much into the above quote Clydeandthepearl. Coach has a way of being a bit of smart ass to his detractors for saying things that aren't really based in reality. He coaches defense dude, evidence to follow.


    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    So because a big cant shoot he's considered bad? He has nothing else he can offer? I'm not harping.
    That's not what I said. I said a big needs to be able to execute our offense adequately. Shooting helps, but being able to simply contribute to our flow is really what i mean. The flow= making the right pass, setting a proper pick, making yourself available for a pass off of said pick etc. Moz couldn't do these things early on. it became apparent fairly quickly. AR still can't.



    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    As I pointed out in a previous post our defensive rating (PP 100) is 21st. Why dont you try looking at things a bit more objectively?
    No, actually we're 20th (109.4) currently.

    This is the beginning and good progress from where we were last season (111.6).

    We'll make strides as Mike D gets better players, they become more accustomed to his schemes, and he employs a longer rotation IME.

    Food for thought-- in the seasons where Mike D took Phoenix to the playoffs his Drating (def per 100 possessions) was pretty good, and I think where we'll ultimately end up.

    During the 2007-08 season his Suns had a drating of 108.1, good for 16th in the league; 06-07 - 106.4, good for 13th in the league; 05-06 - 105.8, good for 16th in the league; 04-05 - 107.1, good for 17th in the league. So it's safe to say based on evidence that w his unconventional high scoring system his teams were in the middle of the pack according to the most useful and accurate defensive stat. That would mean there's an emphasis on defense. Don't believe Orating and Drating are the best ways to judge teams offensively and defensively?? Then ya'll need to wake up..

    Check this:

    Points per Possession Rating
    Definition
    Points divided by possessions times 100. Also called simply "Rating", "Offensive Rating" for points scored per 100 possessions, or "Defensive Rating" for points allowed per 100 possessions. A related term is Adjusted Points per Game

    Applicability
    This method applies in a straightforward manner to teams. It can also be applied to individuals, but the method is more complex.

    Discussion
    Points per possession is the best way available to measure the quality of offenses and defenses. The method takes into account points scored, field goal percentage, turnovers, offensive rebounds, and free throw percentage - everything (except for assists and, maybe, fouls) that can justifiably be looked at in measuring offensive or defensive quality. Possessions, as they were defined previously, make such a complete measurement possible. Repeating what is so important: When a team has the ball, its whole purpose is to score as many points as possible before it becomes the defense. If it were easily accomplished, teams would try to get fouled every time, miss the last free throw, get the offensive rebound, try to get fouled, miss the last free throw, etc., never having to play defense. Score lots of points in a possession and you are not giving the opposition a chance to catch up. The most common way to do that now is to score two points every time down the court. Points per possession shows which offenses do it best and which defenses stop it best.



    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    So you think that Melo, STAT, and CP3 can WIN come playoff time against Wade, Bron and Bosh playing one end of the floor? Thats what your suggesting.

    I cant see it bro.
    A core of Melo, Stat and CP3, IMO, could definitely contend and get past Miami or Boston. Not year in and year out, but we'd have a good chance @ winning atleast one chip dude.
    Last edited by ronoranina; Feb 20, 2011 at 14:50.

  6. #111
    Veteran STAT1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,361
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Most of the coaches we consider to be great have had some of most legendary players available, or an extremely balanced, deep team of really good ones. How people continue to not make this connection is baffling to me.

    People: STOP OVERVALUING WHAT THESE COACHES CAN DO FOR TEAMS. THEY ALL NEED GREAT PLAYERZ TO WIN A CHIP..
    Obviously no coach can win championships without great players, that goes without saying. I think the argument is more geared towards D'Antoni's teams traditionally struggling to play defense which is a concern in postseason play.

  7. #112
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    The very fact that:

    1. This thread exists

    2. You (in general) keep making claims about D'Antoni's defense being poor and using obviously tongue-in-cheek comments to make your claim

    3. You criticize us for not playing good interior defense when literally the 2 centers on our team are an undersized Ronny Turiaf and an undrafted rookie Free Agent Center from Europe who had to learn the American game

    4. You ignore that D'Antoni has us where our talent/experience dictates we should be

    5. You are begging for Anthony Randolph, so much so that you will massage the facts to show he never played (no response to that Clyde)

    6. You refuse to watch videos of D'Antoni coaching defense because you "don't care about" learning all the facts about the coach, you know what you know even with your lack of total knowledge.

    All indicators that you think coaching is more important than the players.

  8. #113
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by StatVP
    Obviously no coach can win championships without great players, that goes without saying. I think the argument is more geared towards D'Antoni's teams traditionally struggling to play defense which is a concern in postseason play.
    We have GREAT players?

    We have no back up PG, our centers are an undersized Ronny Turiaf and an undrafted free agent rookie from Europe...

  9. #114
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by StatVP
    Obviously no coach can win championships without great players, that goes without saying. I think the argument is more geared towards D'Antoni's teams traditionally struggling to play defense which is a concern in postseason play.
    Jesus.. Does the debate have to stay trained in stone on one thing for people to stay focused?? Did you read the whole thread? I was merely expanding on the larger point that focusing on Mike D's defense game to game when he has a developing young team, w one star is pointless. He starts two rookies for crying out loud. We've made progress defensively in spite of this as I've shown. My point fits because he needs more and better players.

  10. #115
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Jesus.. Does the debate have to stay trained in stone on one thing for people to stay focused?? Did you read the whole thread? I was merely expanding on the larger point that focusing on Mike D's defense game to game when he has a developing young team, w one star is pointless. He starts two rookies for crying out loud. We've made progress defensively in spite of this as I've shown. My point fits because he needs more and better players.
    Thank you!

    As has been rehashed over and over on this board, we are in Phase 2 of a long term rebuilding process, the process has just begun to occur. We spent two years (!) trying to get under the cap to make a play for free agents and attain cap flexibility. Now, we are 40-something games into the first season where we are (1) trying to win games, and (2) have even one star player, with a rookie center, a rookie SG, and a bunch of guys all learning right now how to play with one another...

    This whole thread of D'Antoni hate just shows they hate the guy, they want to blame the coach for being a SIX seed (because it is easier to blame the coach than look at the entire roster as, right now, pretty deficient), and that they really think coaching is more important than the players.

    If they really didn't think coaching was more important than the players the argument: "If we had Coach X we would be so much better" would not apply.

  11. #116
    Veteran STAT1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,361
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    We have GREAT players?

    We have no back up PG, our centers are an undersized Ronny Turiaf and an undrafted free agent rookie from Europe...
    I didn't say we had great players. I said the problem people have with D'Antoni is his lack of focus on preaching defense as a priority. He had great players in Phoenix with a deep bench. Just because you have great players doesn't mean squat, you also need to play defense.

  12. #117
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    I understood exactly. Spin. His useless points about MDA and defense werent working. Heck, MDA and defense shouldnt even be mentioned in the same thread. Why try to change the topic now? A coach being more important than NBA players is not even a debatable topic. High school possibly, even less so in college.

    Pile on? If you're siding with Black on this your the one getting chitted on just like he is.

    So what's your impression about the quotes I provided from MDA?
    YOU are the one who brought up MDA and defense in the first place!

    No one here is trying to evade points (except for you, see: your 60%/80% "facts" about confidence, your avoidance of you massaging the facts re: Anthony Randolph), my theory about there being two different types of people on this board EXPLAINS the dichotomy.

    There are people here who are simply more likely to blame a coach when a team struggles, and people here who are simply more likely to blame players. You are the former, I am the latter. These diamterically opposed personality traits dictate our ideas and opinions, creating ideas and opinions that are (quite obviously) different from one another. Those traits INFORM every opinion on here, on way or another and is the root cause of our differences.

  13. #118
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by StatVP
    I didn't say we had great players. I said the problem people have with D'Antoni is his lack of focus on preaching defense as a priority. He had great players in Phoenix with a deep bench. Just because you have great players doesn't mean squat, you also need to play defense.
    So you think that a coach is more important than the players on the floor?

  14. #119
    Veteran STAT1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,361
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Jesus.. Does the debate have to stay trained in stone on one thing for people to stay focused?? Did you read the whole thread? I was merely expanding on the larger point that focusing on Mike D's defense game to game when he has a developing young team, w one star is pointless. He starts two rookies for crying out loud. We've made progress defensively in spite of this as I've shown. My point fits because he needs more and better players.
    I'm sort of new here, didn't read through the entire thread nor do I think that's really important, I have been following along on the past few pages though if that counts for anything. I'm just giving my viewpoint on why I have a problem with D'Antoni's coaching style in general. Yes, I realize the team has been doing a better job of blocking shots this season so there has been some improvement defensively from last year, but that's not really the point. The point is this system in general doesn't place enough importance on playing defense because the main focus is on scoring points through a high volume of possessions. This coach has never been known to stress defense first, that's not his philosophy. It's the philosophy I question, nothing more. No need to take offense or to throw a hissy fit.

  15. #120
    Veteran STAT1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,361
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    So you think that a coach is more important than the players on the floor?
    No, I realize the talent is what makes the team first & foremost, but the coaching is definitely an important part of the formula, & playing defense is absolutely essential to achieve any real success at this level.

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
  •