OFFICIAL: ANTI-D'Antoni Thread

KBlack25

Starter
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


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 said:
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?
 

MusketeerX

Rotation player
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:
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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/randoan01/gamelog/2011/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z85vHk5cc98

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...
 

KBlack25

Starter
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...

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?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/091027&sportCat=nfl

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 super-ultra-masterminds in control of events, 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.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/phil_taylor/11/16/genius/index.html

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...

Clyde & The Pearl said:
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:

KBlack25

Starter
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.


MusketeerX said:
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?
 
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:

KBlack25

Starter
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.
 

MusketeerX

Rotation player
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.
 
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.
 

KBlack25

Starter
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.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. If you think I was being serious, you should read this:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sarcasm

Oh, so Larry Brown suffered b/c we had a low talent level ("worse team" - AmareForPrez) and a bunch of shitty personalities ("huge ego" - AmareForPrez)? So you are saying at least on some level LB suffered here because of PLAYERS? So PLAYERS matter in the success of a team? Well, thank you for agreeing with me.
 

KBlack25

Starter
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.

So you have to factor in pace! Am I crazy, why wouldn't you just use a stat that DOES factor in pace by it's nature.

And you are giving a bastardized reading to Amare's quote. HE said the team isn't playing with energy at the defensive end, you read that as MDA's system does not promote defense...

I don't think we are a good defensive team I never said we did, but I believe our players top to bottom for the most part are bad defensive players...
 
I'm not sure what you're responding to. If you think I was being serious, you should read this:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sarcasm

Oh, so Larry Brown suffered b/c we had a low talent level ("worse team" - AmareForPrez) and a bunch of shitty personalities ("huge ego" - AmareForPrez)? So you are saying at least on some level LB suffered here because of PLAYERS? So PLAYERS matter in the success of a team? Well, thank you for agreeing with me.
We have the good players now now we just need the defensive minded coach.
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
Kblack,

As I've said before, you can seperate the real heads from the fake by what you read/hear from them. All of the BS over-emphasis on coaching shows they don't really know the game of basketball.

I had never read any of those quotes you posted on the illogical perception people tend to hold on coaching. But if you've digested enough basketball and use logic, it becomes easy to make the connection between winning and great playerz over winning and great coaching..

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..
 
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...



So most sports buffs would say that coaching in sports is more important than the players? Is that what you are saying?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/091027&sportCat=nfl

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:

No where will you find that I said a COACH is more IMPORTANT than its PLAYERS. You're trying to spin the argument to your advantage. As usual. My contention is that a team in just about any sport takes on the image of its coach and its coaches philosophies. All anyone is trying to explain to you is that if MDA had a defensive philosophy you'd see it resonate in his teams play. If MDA taught, drilled, and preached defense we would be a better defensive team

Take a look at these links. Ones a NBA coaching lineage article, the other is about coach himself.

http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=450

http://www.mensjournal.com/mike-dantoni

I the one about MDA I extracted these DIRECT QUOTES for you:

“People call it small ball, and that pisses me off. It’s skill ball, plain and simple. I’d start two 7-footers if they could run and shoot. But better five midgets than stiffs who can’t push it, and I’ll live with how many we give up."

"As we said in Phoenix, the team with the most points is the one that played the best defense.”

MDA could couldnt care less about defense. Also, the first quote explains why AR and Moz dont get burn. They cant shoot well enough.

Kinda funny finding this article. It goes against everything you're preaching about your beloved coach. Directly from the coach himself.:teeth:


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/phil_taylor/11/16/genius/index.html

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.

Yea it does. To bad thats not the argument on the table...
 
Last edited:

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
No where will you find that I said a COACH is more IMPORTANT than its PLAYERS. You're trying to spin the argument to your advantage. As usual. My contention is that a team in just about any sport takes on the image of its coach and its coaches philosophies. All anyone is trying to explain to you is that if MDA had a defensive philosophy you'd see it resonate in his teams play. If MDA taught, drilled, and preached defense we would be a better defensive team

Take a look at these links. Ones a NBA coaching lineage article, the other is about coach himself.

http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=450

http://www.mensjournal.com/mike-dantoni

I the one about MDA I extracted these DIRECT QUOTES for you:

?People call it small ball, and that pisses me off. It?s skill ball, plain and simple. I?d start two 7-footers if they could run and shoot. But better five midgets than stiffs who can?t push it, and I?ll live with how many we give up."

"As we said in Phoenix, the team with the most points is the one that played the best defense.?

MDA could couldnt care less about defense. Also, the first quote explains why AR and Moz dont get burn. They cant shot well enough.

Kinda funny finding this article. It goes against everything you're preaching about your beloved coach. Directly from the coach himself.:teeth:


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/phil_taylor/11/16/genius/index.html

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.

Yea it does. To bad thats not the argument on the table...

Clydeandthepizearl,

Kblack's point about the importance of coaching is not exactly part if this argument, but it goes to a larger, overarching theme re: flawed perceptions about coaching in general.

He's basically highlighting what you and others do after almost every game and why its retarded. You see, it fits. Or did you not make that connection either?
 

MusketeerX

Rotation player
So you have to factor in pace! Am I crazy, why wouldn't you just use a stat that DOES factor in pace by it's nature.

And you are giving a bastardized reading to Amare's quote. HE said the team isn't playing with energy at the defensive end, you read that as MDA's system does not promote defense...

I don't think we are a good defensive team I never said we did, but I believe our players top to bottom for the most part are bad defensive players...

To read that quote and say it has nothing to do with a system that is known for putting more emphasis on the offensive end and running the players ragged is wishful thinking my friend.

Look at the point differential stats, ppg, and number of wins. Large point differentials mean good defense. Low point differential mean crappy defense and ppg helps give pace.Spurs and Miami lead the list. Spurs score more and. Run a quicker paced set. But their defense is also amazing. It puts them at the top of the NBA and an elite team. Miami is the same way. Boston, LA, Nd Celts are not far behind.

Wins tend to follow the point differential, but they don't have to. You could win every game with a plus 1 point differential, but it shows you there are serious flaws in your system. Practically this would never happen because flaws lead to losses but you get my point.
 
Clydeandthepizearl,

Kblack's point about the importance of coaching is not exactly part if this argument, but it goes to a larger, overarching theme re: flawed perceptions about coaching in general.

He's basically highlighting what you and others do after almost every game and why its retarded. You see, it fits. Or did you not make that connection either?

What did Black lawyer up? You must be his mouth piece. Explain to me how we went from what I posted first in this thread, which was this:
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->[FONT=&quot]1) Teams getting to the rim repeatedly with no defensive resistance
2) I've seen us take 5 charges all year (MAYBE) Not man on man charges but charges where someone steps in front of someone heading to the basket and takes one for the team.
3) A lack of defensive philosophy
4) A total lack of effort on defense most games
5) Absolutely no defensive adjustments in game (zones, half court traps) unless we're down a bunch at which point we'll press full court
6) A blatant disregard for utilizing our bigs, because of this we get HAMMERED in the paint
7) A coach that doesn't utilize some of his reserve players strengths
8) A coach that will bench you if you're offensively challenged and cant play his system
9) Because of his system he has to over use certain players in order for it to run at an optimum level.


I'm sure I'm missing some things. I'll add to them if necessary. Would you like to dispute anything that I'm seeing?

I dont hate MDA. I'd love to hire another head coach and have him as an offensive consultant if that means anything..
.[/FONT]

To him insinuating that I said a coach is more important than players, which is reprinted here:

So most sports buffs would say that coaching in sports is more important than the players? Is that what you are saying?

Which I never even mentioned. Those articles I posted are definite proof of exactly what I'm trying to convey to you all about MDA and his defensive philosophy as well as his use of bigs. From MDA's mouth himself.

I guess this is the point where I gloat and say


GAME, SET and MATCH!!!
 
Top