Dude, Musketeer's research is legit. Those championship teams did solid play D and they won in part because of it. You're right about them having legendary playerz, but that is part of the reason why they won. The fact most of those teams were in the top ten in d-rating is also integral to those teams winning it all.
Some of us on the forum tend to overplay the player aspect, while others overplay coaching and strategy. But one thing is certain, (pay attention) no defensive coach, or defensive strategy can overcome having bad defensive players.
What puts you in the best position to win w a solid, consistent team defense is if your best players are also capable, or even great defenders. This makes a coach's job so much easier because you DON'T HAVE TO SCHEME AROUND BAD DEFENSIVE PLAYERS THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TO GIVE BIG MINUTES TOO. This is such a basic, fundamental point that people don't understand. Guys like Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, Pippen, Isiah Thomas, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Wade, Garnett, Pierce were all great two-way players. U need them to win it all. If you have bad defenders you have to give minutes to because you need them on offense your screwed.
Another thing about Mike D's old teams that kept them from being better defensively is you had Nash on the perimeter, who ideally you'd like to have just funnel guys to a shot blocker. But Mike D had no shot blocker. Amare sucked at blocking shots back then and Diaw was no shot swatter by any means. They tried to bring in Shaq but he caused the Ssol offense to sputter and never quite meshed w Nash and Amare, especially Amare who often found the paint clogged as he looked to go into his faceup move.
The type of center Mike D needs is one that can shoot it some from the outside for when Amare gets doubled, who doesn't need to establish his game in the paint where Amare needs lanes. He needs to be able to run and block shots or take charges on D. If that kind of player was available when Mike D was coaching in Phoenix, I think they could have -again- been better defensively.
Everything you wrote I agree with. Majorly agree with; and is actually the backbone for what I wrote. The one thing I disagree with, and what my post was about:
That Muskateer's research, legit? Most definitely. The facts? True and honest. The effort and presentation? Terrific and commendable.
Their conclusion -- that a good to very good defensive team is a likely requirement to have the best shot at winning chips? (obviously) True.
His conclusion -- that this reflects directly on D'anton in some major or obvious wayi; that it any way reflects that those coaches are superior to D'antoni (though most are); that the statistics have most to do coaching wizardy and defensive genius, and the ensuing tethering to a D'antoni Fatal Flaw,
bullshit.
Stated facts, which are true, and have true causalities and conclusions tied to them (which you detailed in your post above), and that bear signficence to a discussion on the Knicks's winning a title and what the Knicks need,
instead warped, and desperately tethered to a separate speculation, and attempt to justify an arbitrary conclusion, creating a logical fallacy.
Another logical fallacy -- 1STAT's post, which I too agree with at the end of the day. But, mentioning that one team out of this all-powerful list won a chip, without "legendary players"....Totally true,
But doesn't disprove you "need "legendary players. First, I never said that, and if i messed up and said "you need legendary players" i was wrong, and didn't intend to state that as an absolute.
*But*, just like Muskateer is trying to say you generally need a good defensive team to win a title (true, of course), and that outliers; freakish occurrences; and that which is *unlikely* shouldn't be relied on to best win a championship. Ergo, MDA should go ASAP because the bottom-line is that he represents the course of most resistant, and *the least likely* way we can ever win a chip.
The Piston team you mentioned is just that -- an unlikely, rare occurrence. Based on the exceptionally rare depth/quantity of sick defensive players. Even here, we are talking about players -- and elite players. In this case, elite players regarding defense/team defense.
This still opposed to the most likely necessary, and important of things -- "legendary players". Which let's simplify to say Really Good Players.
And for the purpose of this discussion, that you need (good) players above all else. And the examples Muskateer provided, and detailed, show that it is the players -- above all else -- that dictate the championships,
Including dictating the defense a team needs to win them. Which, I'll give total credit, Muskateer perfectly and totally elucidated and described. And did so in really ****ing good presentation.
The buffer for all this, is that regardless of speculations (mine included) about MDA on defense...on offense...how his past can be interpret, how it can be used to forecast our future,
The most undeniable metrics for a team's success and the subsequent evaluation of it's coach....are undeniably in MDA's favor with the Knick's at this point.
When MDA actually begins to truly underwhelm (the playoffs, and at the latest early next season seems like it'd be a valid time to re-evaluate his job with our latest roster)....but when our team and our team's players....underperform to the expectations of Knick fans and analysts at large, the massive influx of anti-MDA threads and talk wouldn't just be expected...but for me, would be most appropriate.
Just like Doc Rivers was a donkey about to be fired who couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag. His team wins, and you forget about everything except the performance of players, their expectations, and if they are ultimately winning.