I'm beating a dead horse but Mike D is probably the problem

knicksman20

Benchwarmer
I disagree. Reason being is there are only a few GREAT individual defenders in the NBA. Artest, Ariza to name two. Without hand checking defense has become more of a team accomplishment. It's too hard trying to stay in front of your man each and every possession.

Last nights game we played excellent team defense. Which should be something that they're coached to do. BUT, we KNOW for a fact that this isnt MDA's strength.

I wouldnt be surprised if it comes out that Billups and MELO kinda lead the defensive practice the day before. Or that MDA at least got some serious input from these guys.

So if you look at it objectively you can see that it truly is the coaching or non coaching that leads to good or bad defensive play...

True! An objective person will look at the recent trades & wonder why NOW is there such as emphasis on the defensive end all of the sudden when there wasn't much at all for the last 2 years. We sure as hell know it's not MDA having an epiphany thinking defense wins championships. It's Billups the new floor leader who knows first hand that defense wins games & that can help you win when the offense isn't clicking. Also wth George Karl taking shots at Melo for his lack of defensive focus, I'm sure that gave him motivation as well. I'll give MDA props for letting Billups take more control but you can bet MDA knows if he pisses our big 3, chances are he's gone before any of them would be traded or waived.
 

MusketeerX

Rotation player
Not trying to spin anything...here's a tip for you in the future:

When you read a quote, think: what is that person's angle? Why are they saying the things they are saying?

Its surprising because I know you can and do think about these things, look at the way you responded to the Billups quote. Its shocking to me how blindly biased you are, so biased you refuse to even acknowledge the bias. Hubie has an angle, as a coach do you expect him to sit there and say "Coacing isn't that important, its really on the players."?

Billups has an angle as well, I just wish you would be fair and realize everyone has an angle and there are reasons why people say the things they do.


As for moneyg - yikes. Wow. Any proof to the statement "Amare almost didn't come here because of D'antoni"? Or is this just more conjecture with no evidence or proof?

KBlack, are you really trying to discredit Hubie Brown and the fact that Amar'e only signed here b/c of the money?
 

iSaYughh

Starter
Sabathia signd with the Yankees/Girardi under much more dubious terms, and because of getting as many bones as possible. He quickly grew to love his decision -- and the coach.

Past is the past. Current reality is Amare likes playing for the Knicks under MDA.

Amare says he was never taught D, yet then was taught as a NBA veteran?

:rofl:

Smh. If anyone truly believes that at face value there's a bridge in the back of my apartment I'm looking to sell...

Either way, his defense has been typically poor is year -- aside from a career high type block/steal numbers.

So....
 

moneyg

Starter
The same sitdown where afterwards Amare admitted whatever beef they had was a "result of his immaturity"? That sitdown? Where amare took the nlame for any problems between them? Yep his admission that he was immature and had since grown up from a teenager to a man in the time he knew D'antoni sure sounds like he "almost didn't come here." So much so that within the first few days of free agency, he put ink to paper.


yeah that one... and if you think it was one sided.. ur wrong...why would amare need to sitdown to talk to him about somethin he did wrong....amare took the high road....Oantoni wanted to make sure that amare would buy into this bs of a system.. he just signed 100 mil contract.. you think he gonna say..
"I signed for the money.. but i hate this coaches system"

u guys live in a fantasy world.. and belive eevrythin printed.. word for word...

try analyzing ang reading the fine print...


"Mike was a quiet guy. Sometimes he didn't talk to a certain players. Didn't communicate as well to the players which sometimes can be a little frustrating because you want to build that relationship with your coach. You want to build that friend(ship) so you can sit down with him and talk about personal thoughts and also basketball. You want that friendship with your coach. Mike was a quiet guy.
...Then you bring in Alvin, a guy who is definitely a players coach. A guy you can talk to and say 'hey man you know', 'family situation here', 'or my kids here', 'my kids are doing great in school', 'how are your kids'. That's the type of conversation you want to have with your coach. Alvin's that guy.
You want a coach that you can really hug and hold and high five and really have fun with. That makes it fun play. You can high five and hug your team mates. You don't want to have fear of your coach. You want to be respectable with him but you also want to be a friend with him."

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2010/7/5/1553792/amare-stoudemire-and-mike-dantoni

i can pull up more.. if you like
 

KBlack25

Starter
yeah that one... and if you think it was one sided.. ur wrong...why would amare need to sitdown to talk to him about somethin he did wrong....amare took the high road....Oantoni wanted to make sure that amare would buy into this bs of a system.. he just signed 100 mil contract.. you think he gonna say..
"I signed for the money.. but i hate this coaches system"

u guys live in a fantasy world.. and belive eevrythin printed.. word for word...

try analyzing ang reading the fine print...
"Mike was a quiet guy. Sometimes he didn't talk to a certain players. Didn't communicate as well to the players which sometimes can be a little frustrating because you want to build that relationship with your coach. You want to build that friend(ship) so you can sit down with him and talk about personal thoughts and also basketball. You want that friendship with your coach. Mike was a quiet guy.
...Then you bring in Alvin, a guy who is definitely a players coach. A guy you can talk to and say 'hey man you know', 'family situation here', 'or my kids here', 'my kids are doing great in school', 'how are your kids'. That's the type of conversation you want to have with your coach. Alvin's that guy.
You want a coach that you can really hug and hold and high five and really have fun with. That makes it fun play. You can high five and hug your team mates. You don't want to have fear of your coach. You want to be respectable with him but you also want to be a friend with him."

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2010/7/5/1553792/amare-stoudemire-and-mike-dantoni

i can pull up more.. if you like

Define irony: Bashing someone for believing something they read and then posting an article (and offering to post more) to prove it.

Why would Amare sitdown to talk about something he did wrong? I don't know, maybe because he is a mature human being who actually has remorse for his immature actions of the past? Maybe because before committing himself for the next 5 years he thought it wise to clear up any issues he had? If D'Antoni was really a problem for him he would have taken more money to play in PHX...

Musketeer: Not trying to discredit Hubie Brown, but when you read a quote like that you have to think where he came from, why he says the things he says,etc. Also, if you are saying that Amare ONLY signed in NY for the money, that just proves that he didn't almost stay away b/c of D'Antoni because $ was his sole motivator, which proves my point.
 

moneyg

Starter
Define irony: Bashing someone for believing something they read and then posting an article (and offering to post more) to prove it.

Why would Amare sitdown to talk about something he did wrong? I don't know, maybe because he is a mature human being who actually has remorse for his immature actions of the past? Maybe because before committing himself for the next 5 years he thought it wise to clear up any issues he had? If D'Antoni was really a problem for him he would have taken more money to play in PHX...

Musketeer: Not trying to discredit Hubie Brown, but when you read a quote like that you have to think where he came from, why he says the things he says,etc. Also, if you are saying that Amare ONLY signed in NY for the money, that just proves that he didn't almost stay away b/c of D'Antoni because $ was his sole motivator, which proves my point.


Phx offered him only 3 years fully guaranteed not 5.. why would he stay in PHX..

money had alot to do with it.. but if the money was the same... guaranteed..

amare doesnt come here with oantoni in place.. guaranteed
 

KBlack25

Starter
Phx offered him only 3 years fully guaranteed not 5.. why would he stay in PHX..

money had alot to do with it.. but if the money was the same... guaranteed..

amare doesnt come here with oantoni in place.. guaranteed

Ladies and gentlemen, another EPIC fail from MoneyG.

You GUARANTEE things in the hypothetical? For a person you do not know beyond interviews and watching him play basketball? Yikes. So tell me, what is it like being Amare's psychologist and personal confidant? How did you garner such incredible inside info?

Seriously moneyg, with insight into how Amare thinks and being a member of his camp, you should be on here posting daily about all the things you see, hear and know about him? What is Amare's workout regimen? Was he happy that The Kings Speech won best picture? What TV shows is he watching now? What is he going to have for dinner? I mean, you can guarantee that Amare doesn't sign here if PHX offers him the same $ and D'Antoni is still in place, despite the fact that he clearly loves NY. What other inside tidbits can you give us?
 

moneyg

Starter
Ladies and gentlemen, another EPIC fail from MoneyG.

You GUARANTEE things in the hypothetical? For a person you do not know beyond interviews and watching him play basketball? Yikes. So tell me, what is it like being Amare's psychologist and personal confidant? How did you garner such incredible inside info?

Seriously moneyg, with insight into how Amare thinks and being a member of his camp, you should be on here posting daily about all the things you see, hear and know about him? What is Amare's workout regimen? Was he happy that The Kings Speech won best picture? What TV shows is he watching now? What is he going to have for dinner? I mean, you can guarantee that Amare doesn't sign here if PHX offers him the same $ and D'Antoni is still in place, despite the fact that he clearly loves NY. What other inside tidbits can you give us?


its a fact


read it and weep..

i dont make these things up..

another foolish post by kblack

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....would-have-stayed-in-phoenix-with-a-max-deal/

go do your research

O.N.E.
 

KBlack25

Starter
its a fact


read it and weep..

i dont make these things up..

another foolish post by kblack

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....would-have-stayed-in-phoenix-with-a-max-deal/

go do your research

O.N.E.

LMFAO - EPIC FAIL AGAIN! CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER HIS OWN ARGUMENT!

You do know the max deal in Phoenix would be worth more than the max deal in NY right? Not to mention, that article does NOT say he would have stayed in PHX and NOT come to New York BECAUSE OF Mike D'Antoni, which was your point.

In addition - it does not PROVE that D'ANTONI was the defining factor in his decision to stay in PHX (which was your point). As I stated the PHX deal would have netted him more $, it does not say that D'Antoni made him waiver, and D'Antoni would have been the reason he stayed in PHX...

Where is the "He would have stayed in PHX for more $ than the Knicks offered b/c of D'Antoni" article?



Example of moneyg's "logical argument":

Mike D'Antoni had a sit down with Amare before Amare put ink to paper.

Amare would have signed in PHX if PHX offered him more guaranteed money.

Therefore: Amare would have stayed in PHX if PHX offered him more guaranteed money because of Mike D'Antoni.

It looks to me like he would have stayed in PHX if PHX offered him more $ b/c of the $. Which means D'Antoni's presence was not a factor.

You asserted that he would not have come to NY if PHX offered the guaranteed deal with D'Antoni in place, IMPLYING that with someone else in place he would have hypothetically left $ on the table. Where is your proof?
 
Last edited:

Red

TYPE-A
Things that do not surprise me:

1. A longtime, famous coach talking about the merits and effects of coaching.

Really? Hubie who has more basketball knowledge in his pinkie toe says

"Don't give me this garbage about guys can't play defense. Defense comes down to the accountability of the COACHING STAFF"

and you refer to "the merits and effects of coaching"...smh

This is called spinning. Wake up.

Learn to accept it for what it is. To assume alterior motive is as you say a straw man argument. But let me break this down to show all of us your reluctance.

1st did you hear the interview for yourself? I doubt it.
2nd What agenda would an aged veteran who is a great commentator have besides giving his opinion? Don't answer that, its moot at this point.

But lets take a looksie at your angle...

Not trying to spin anything...here's a tip for you in the future:

When you read a quote, think: what is that person's angle? Why are they saying the things they are saying?

Its surprising because I know you can and do think about these things, look at the way you responded to the Billups quote. Its shocking to me how blindly biased you are, so biased you refuse to even acknowledge the bias. Hubie has an angle, as a coach do you expect him to sit there and say "Coacing isn't that important, its really on the players."?

Billups has an angle as well, I just wish you would be fair and realize everyone has an angle and there are reasons why people say the things they do.


As for moneyg - yikes. Wow. Any proof to the statement "Amare almost didn't come here because of D'antoni"? Or is this just more conjecture with no evidence or proof?

Yes i can do those things and today lets start with you.

You seem to

1. Have a reluctance on accepting the truth
2. See posts on KOL as "battles" to be won or loss

Therefor we can conclude by accepting the truth you will see yourself as losing a battle, while no one else except your clown posse of arguers is attempting.
  • The Stats say MDA is an avg defensive coach at best
  • The media says they all realize MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
  • Coaches say MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
  • Players say MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
Hubie f*cking Brown says it's about accountability. Meaning (as he said) a coach can tell a player what he expects, but when said player doesn't do what he's instructed, there's no consequence. No benching, no development, nothing. That's what he meant by accountability.

That's what everyone means about being an OFFENSIVE coach. When you hold players accountable or praise them for their OFFENSIVE doings- this will lead to players, coaches, media to conclude you care more about OFFENSE.

When the Stats show you aren't improving, adapting, developing, and your team is looking down right lost and inept on DEFENSE, an opinion of a coach NOT being a gifted defensive mind will arise.

When a poster argues just to argue ala Trillion, you are seen as weak and feminine as those are the traits.

There is nothing to argue or battle to lose. Only your reputation for a reluctance to accept the truth will permeate.

MDA is an offensive coach with obvious limits and flaws. I accept that.
MDA isn't going to take an avg. defensive team and make them better nor any team and make them better defensively. I accept that also. As you say it's the players right? So why are you defending MDA?

Learn to admit that your posts are just arguing fodder at times because you support coach but can't handle the truth. That he's not as good as you pretend he is. I can accept that too.

Regarding those above semi-technical questions i posed...

yes I can easily answer them and break them down because I watch and know what I am watching (and obviously or I wouldn't have asked); it's elementary to me. Do some research on MDA, his systems and philosophies and if you are willing to accept the truth...

then you can extrapolate why exactly the numbers are what they are. No inference or spinning on motive needed. But if you can't accept the truth (not my opinion on if I like MDA or not or whatever) just what the facts say without spinning or over analyzing then maybe, just maybe you will realize how dumb it is to argue what everyone already knows.

...and I can accept that too. :crossfingers: good luck.

For Gods sake, talk what you know, and if not just stfu.
 

KBlack25

Starter
Really? Hubie who has more basketball knowledge in his pinkie toe says

"Don't give me this garbage about guys can't play defense. Defense comes down to the accountability of the COACHING STAFF"

and you refer to "the merits and effects of coaching"...smh

This is called spinning. Wake up.

Learn to accept it for what it is. To assume alterior motive is as you say a straw man argument. But let me break this down to show all of us your reluctance.

1st did you hear the interview for yourself? I doubt it.
2nd What agenda would an aged veteran who is a great commentator have besides giving his opinion? Don't answer that, its moot at this point.

But lets take a looksie at your angle...



Yes i can do those things and today lets start with you.

You seem to

1. Have a reluctance on accepting the truth
2. See posts on KOL as "battles" to be won or loss

Therefor we can conclude by accepting the truth you will see yourself as losing a battle, while no one else except your clown posse of arguers is attempting.
  • The Stats say MDA is an avg defensive coach at best
  • The media says they all realize MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
  • Coaches say MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
  • Players say MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
Hubie f*cking Brown says it's about accountability. Meaning (as he said) a coach can tell a player what he expects, but when said player doesn't do what he's instructed, there's no consequence. No benching, no development, nothing. That's what he meant by accountability.

That's what everyone means about being an OFFENSIVE coach. When you hold players accountable or praise them for their OFFENSIVE doings- this will lead to players, coaches, media to conclude you care more about OFFENSE.

When the Stats show you aren't improving, adapting, developing, and your team is looking down right lost and inept on DEFENSE, an opinion of a coach NOT being a gifted defensive mind will arise.

When a poster argues just to argue ala Trillion, you are seen as weak and feminine as those are the traits.

There is nothing to argue or battle to lose. Only your reputation for a reluctance to accept the truth will permeate.

MDA is an offensive coach with obvious limits and flaws. I accept that.
MDA isn't going to take an avg. defensive team and make them better nor any team and make them better defensively. I accept that also. As you say it's the players right? So why are you defending MDA?

Learn to admit that your posts are just arguing fodder at times because you support coach but can't handle the truth. That he's not as good as you pretend he is. I can accept that too.

Regarding those above semi-technical questions i posed...

yes I can easily answer them and break them down because I watch and know what I am watching (and obviously or I wouldn't have asked); it's elementary to me. Do some research on MDA, his systems and philosophies and if you are willing to accept the truth...

then you can extrapolate why exactly the numbers are what they are. No inference or spinning on motive needed. But if you can't accept the truth (not my opinion on if I like MDA or not or whatever) just what the facts say without spinning or over analyzing then maybe, just maybe you will realize how dumb it is to argue what everyone already knows.

...and I can accept that too. :crossfingers: good luck.

For Gods sake, talk what you know, and if not just stfu.

And as I have stated over and over again you overstate the facts. Mike D'Antoni has coached teams to the top half of defensive rating. You guys would have us believe he is in the bottom 5 yearly, which he isn't, except for the last two years during which we had some truly AWFUL squads, talent-wise.

The fact that I think it is the PLAYERS is why I am defending Mike D'Antoni, because I think that the players, not the coach, affect the game much more. Are there good and bad coaches? Of course there are. I am not saying D'Antoni is a defensive genius. Nor am I saying he is perfect, I was yelling that in a crucial spot, with STAT and Amare and Billups, an inbounds play was called for BILL WALKER yesterday. But at the end of the day, MDA isn't missing layups. MDA isn't refusing to boxout. MDA doesn't miss free throws. MDA doesn't let his guy blow right by him. MDA doesn't let LeBron get to the rack (only to be saved by Amare collapsing on defense). And I firmly, and will always firmly, believe that coaches are more similar than they are different.

You say the stats show we aren't improving:

We are better this year in defensive rating.
Amare is blocking a ton of shots.
And this whole board today is blowing up about the good defense we played.

You want to sit here and talk about MDA's limits as a coach, bash his limitations, but what about our limitations as a squad? You consistently refuse to ignore those. Fact is, you can't draw blood from a stone. Amare didn't play good defense with Alvin Gentry, he is playing better this season on defense than I have ever seen him. We don't have a true center, at all. To start the year our centers were Mozgov and Turiaf, now they are Turiaf and nobody, basically. Carmelo's most recent coach bashed him for not having effort on defense, he played genuinely poor defense, even when Karl tried to preach it consistently. This tells me it is more the players.

Hubie Brown doesn't have an agenda; but he has a point of view. He is a coach, he came up as a coach, made his $ and his name as a coach. He isn't going to think coaching is as irrelevant as I do, and likely finds it more important than almost anyone on earth. So no, his comments do not surprise me in the least.

You take everything said against MDA seriously, but then you accept that Billups had to spin his comments in a certain way, that JJ said things in a certain way for ulterior motives. It is YOU, Red, consistently spinning and being clearly and obviously biased, taking information that helps your argument at face value, and ignoring or recasting information that goes against it.

You have even contradicted yourself:

You criticized, earlier in the year, MDA for not being able to adapt.
Now you are saying that he can adapt, but he shouldn't get credit b/c that is the player's doing?

You criticized, earlier in the year, MDA for not coaching up defense.
But when we play good defense, it is the players. (My argument that you, by the way SLAMMED, from the beginning.)

In regards to the technical questions, I can give you answers, but ultimately it boils down to: I blame the players for their shortcomings, you blame the coach. Something I have reiterated countless times on this board. It all stems back to the fact that YOU want to blame the coaches, and I want to blame the players, it is a fundamental disagreement in our ideologies that will never be resolved, informing our opinions and the way we watch things.
 
Last edited:

MusketeerX

Rotation player
LMFAO - EPIC FAIL AGAIN! CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER HIS OWN ARGUMENT!

You do know the max deal in Phoenix would be worth more than the max deal in NY right? Not to mention, that article does NOT say he would have stayed in PHX and NOT come to New York BECAUSE OF Mike D'Antoni, which was your point.

In addition - it does not PROVE that D'ANTONI was the defining factor in his decision to stay in PHX (which was your point). As I stated the PHX deal would have netted him more $, it does not say that D'Antoni made him waiver, and D'Antoni would have been the reason he stayed in PHX...

Where is the "He would have stayed in PHX for more $ than the Knicks offered b/c of D'Antoni" article?



Example of moneyg's "logical argument":

Mike D'Antoni had a sit down with Amare before Amare put ink to paper.

Amare would have signed in PHX if PHX offered him more guaranteed money.

Therefore: Amare would have stayed in PHX if PHX offered him more guaranteed money because of Mike D'Antoni.

It looks to me like he would have stayed in PHX if PHX offered him more $ b/c of the $. Which means D'Antoni's presence was not a factor.

You asserted that he would not have come to NY if PHX offered the guaranteed deal with D'Antoni in place, IMPLYING that with someone else in place he would have hypothetically left $ on the table. Where is your proof?

Amar'e was never a fan of D'Antoni's... he spoke out against MDA more than once. Amar'e matured for sure, but the only reason why he came to NY was because of the longer K. Hubie Brown spoke his belief on a coaches duties. To say you have to take his opinion for less than it is worth because he is a coach makes no sense to me.

He has experience and accomplishments and for those reasons we should give greater weight to his opinion, not less.
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
I'm gonna go ahead now and take credit for last week proving unequivocally that Coach's past defenses were atleast average, something the purest Mike D haters could not admit before. The d-rating stat is real deal proof peoples ..
:)
 

KBlack25

Starter
Amar'e was never a fan of D'Antoni's... he spoke out against MDA more than once. Amar'e matured for sure, but the only reason why he came to NY was because of the longer K. Hubie Brown spoke his belief on a coaches duties. To say you have to take his opinion for less than it is worth because he is a coach makes no sense to me.

He has experience and accomplishments and for those reasons we should give greater weight to his opinion, not less.

Fine - then it was for the money. Which meant D'Antoni was a non-factor. The statement I was responding to was "Amare almost didn't come here b/c of D'Antoni" - if the $ was all that mattered, then D'Antoni didn't. There is no evidence that Amare "almost didn't come here BECAUSE of D'Antoni".

You can take Hubie's statements however you want...all I said was to realize he was going to be very pro-coaching, and speak highly of the position and it's affect on the game. Which is why that statement doesn't surprise me. Which is what I said.
 
Really? Hubie who has more basketball knowledge in his pinkie toe says

"Don't give me this garbage about guys can't play defense. Defense comes down to the accountability of the COACHING STAFF"

and you refer to "the merits and effects of coaching"...smh

This is called spinning. Wake up.

Learn to accept it for what it is. To assume alterior motive is as you say a straw man argument. But let me break this down to show all of us your reluctance.

1st did you hear the interview for yourself? I doubt it.
2nd What agenda would an aged veteran who is a great commentator have besides giving his opinion? Don't answer that, its moot at this point.

But lets take a looksie at your angle...



Yes i can do those things and today lets start with you.

You seem to

1. Have a reluctance on accepting the truth
2. See posts on KOL as "battles" to be won or loss

Therefor we can conclude by accepting the truth you will see yourself as losing a battle, while no one else except your clown posse of arguers is attempting.
  • The Stats say MDA is an avg defensive coach at best
  • The media says they all realize MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
  • Coaches say MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
  • Players say MDA isn't a good defensive minded coach
Hubie f*cking Brown says it's about accountability. Meaning (as he said) a coach can tell a player what he expects, but when said player doesn't do what he's instructed, there's no consequence. No benching, no development, nothing. That's what he meant by accountability.

That's what everyone means about being an OFFENSIVE coach. When you hold players accountable or praise them for their OFFENSIVE doings- this will lead to players, coaches, media to conclude you care more about OFFENSE.

When the Stats show you aren't improving, adapting, developing, and your team is looking down right lost and inept on DEFENSE, an opinion of a coach NOT being a gifted defensive mind will arise.

When a poster argues just to argue ala Trillion, you are seen as weak and feminine as those are the traits.

There is nothing to argue or battle to lose. Only your reputation for a reluctance to accept the truth will permeate.

MDA is an offensive coach with obvious limits and flaws. I accept that.
MDA isn't going to take an avg. defensive team and make them better nor any team and make them better defensively. I accept that also. As you say it's the players right? So why are you defending MDA?

Learn to admit that your posts are just arguing fodder at times because you support coach but can't handle the truth. That he's not as good as you pretend he is. I can accept that too.

Regarding those above semi-technical questions i posed...

yes I can easily answer them and break them down because I watch and know what I am watching (and obviously or I wouldn't have asked); it's elementary to me. Do some research on MDA, his systems and philosophies and if you are willing to accept the truth...

then you can extrapolate why exactly the numbers are what they are. No inference or spinning on motive needed. But if you can't accept the truth (not my opinion on if I like MDA or not or whatever) just what the facts say without spinning or over analyzing then maybe, just maybe you will realize how dumb it is to argue what everyone already knows.

...and I can accept that too. :crossfingers: good luck.

For Gods sake, talk what you know, and if not just stfu.

Great post Red. +1. I've said it before these guys either dont get it, dont want to get it or are related to MDA. There really is no other explanation.
 

Red

TYPE-A
And as I have stated over and over again you overstate the facts. Mike D'Antoni has coached teams to the top half of defensive rating. You guys would have us believe he is in the bottom 5 yearly, which he isn't, except for the last two years during which we had some truly AWFUL squads, talent-wise.
Spin fail. No I wouldn't have you believe anything, nor did I include any #'s that conclude he is bottom 5. That was your spin. He's been middle of the road at best, and ultimately not good enough. Consider his TOP offensive ratings couplede with his mediocre D and we can conclude where his weak points are.

The fact that I think it is the PLAYERS is why I am defending Mike D'Antoni, because I think that the players, not the coach, affect the game much more. Are there good and bad coaches? Of course there are. I am not saying D'Antoni is a defensive genius. Nor am I saying he is perfect, I was yelling that in a crucial spot, with STAT and Amare and Billups, an inbounds play was called for BILL WALKER yesterday. But at the end of the day, MDA isn't missing layups. MDA isn't refusing to boxout. MDA doesn't miss free throws. MDA doesn't let his guy blow right by him. MDA doesn't let LeBron get to the rack (only to be saved by Amare collapsing on defense). And I firmly, and will always firmly, believe that coaches are more similar than they are different.

But you don't know/understand his system. How do you know it was the players? In fact an argument can be made that the ability of these players is not only there, but really has no bearing on the scheme as its implemented.

This shows me you don't understand the role of the coach or what his ratings are based on. The stats themselves reflect the coaches ability to adapt withe roster he has. Before some were arguing that he could've won if it not been for bad luck in PHX. So he had the pieces
& what happened? He lost. But it wasn't due to lack of defense right? Well they were near the top in offense so where were they weak? O yeah in luck...smh


u say the stats show we aren't improving:

We are better this year in defensive rating.
Amare is blocking a ton of shots.
And this whole board today is blowing up about the good defense we played.

No, I was saying MDA's stats don't show an improvement. And we lead the league no only in blocks because we have a swiss cheese lay-up line, but we also lead in points scored against in the paint. Only someone who understands defensive concept will know why this is.

Btw really I'm not complaining just stating the obvious. MDA defense is avg at best and as you say, a player can make more of a difference than the coach WHEN IT COMES TO DANTONI. That's not saying much.

You want to sit here and talk about MDA's limits as a coach, bash his limitations, but what about our limitations as a squad? You consistently refuse to ignore those. Fact is, you can't draw blood from a stone. Amare didn't play good defense with Alvin Gentry, he is playing better this season on defense than I have ever seen him. We don't have a true center, at all. To start the year our centers were Mozgov and Turiaf, now they are Turiaf and nobody, basically. Carmelo's most recent coach bashed him for not having effort on defense, he played genuinely poor defense, even when Karl tried to preach it consistently. This tells me it is more the players.
PLEASE stop it. This whole thing is based on an improved defense INEPENDENT of coach D'Antoni. And trust he will never get credit when 2 maxs decide to run the defense. His credit would of been due when the time to make players better defensively was apprent. He failed. Because he's mediocre and middle of the road. Just logic. Not rocket science.


Hubie Brown doesn't have an agenda; but he has a point of view. He is a coach, he came up as a coach, made his $ and his name as a coach. He isn't going to think coaching is as irrelevant as I do, and likely finds it more important than almost anyone on earth. So no, his comments do not surprise me in the least.

You take everything said against MDA seriously, but then you accept that Billups had to spin his comments in a certain way, that JJ said things in a certain way for ulterior motives. It is YOU, Red, consistently spinning and being clearly and obviously biased, taking information that helps your argument at face value, and ignoring or recasting information that goes against it.
Wow, ialready formed my opinion. Hubie echoed those sentiments. Don't hate.

You have even contradicted yourself:

You criticized, earlier in the year, MDA for not being able to adapt.
Now you are saying that he can adapt, but he shouldn't get credit b/c that is the player's doing?

You criticized, earlier in the year, MDA for not coaching up defense.
But when we play good defense, it is the players. (My argument that you, by the way SLAMMED, from the beginning.)
REPEAT AFTER ME...

REGARDLESS OF PLAYERS A-Z Skill level, independent of circumstance, a coach can be evaluated on many things, especially with a large body of work.

Why not just hire anyone, sh*t why not just go with no coach, its the players? The truth is the teams perfomance is a reflection of the coach. His strategy, approach, handling of personalites, priorities etc... are you aware of how to evaluate? Not if you like him. Evaluate his coaching? Can you do this regardless of the roster? Don't think so.

There is no contridiction. Billups knows more defense than an overpaid coach. And these players can perform and overcme the limitations of this coach. I'm cool with that, but the ability and strategy are what they are.

When have you heard of mda being a good defensive coach? When have you heard of mda making players bettr defensively? Never. But we hear he's not that good at defense all the time. You don't think hundreds of people are on to something?

In regards to the technical questions, I can give you answers, but ultimately it boils down to: I blame the players for their shortcomings, you blame the coach. Something I have reiterated countless times on this board. It all stems back to the fact that YOU want to blame the coaches, and I want to blame the players, it is a fundamental disagreement in our ideologies that will never be resolved, informing our opinions and the way we watch things.

NO it boils down to when we look at the stats and compare him and his players to others accros the league and throughout history a conclusion of mda not being a good defensive coach is reached. You just can't accept that.
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
I'm gonna go ahead now and take credit for last week proving unequivocally that Coach's past defenses were atleast average, something the purest Mike D haters could not admit before. The d-rating stat is real deal proof peoples ..
:)

To add to the above..

If Mike D's defenses were average back in his Phoenix days. If he plays more defensively minded players, like he did last night, we can be better on defense than those teams. It's about the playerz~

Notice how the MDA supporterz have stayed consistent and the haters are switching it up now to try and support their argument. It won't work. All of a sudden NOW the players are the reason were playing better D. Do ya think?? You can't make this sh*t up. Others have already pointed this out, but the hypocracy is so blantant I can't help but comment on it... So undeniably lame.
 
You guys already know how much I hate Mike D and his No Defense but he surely deserves so credit for the D we played versus Miami.He went all out and played 11 players 4 of them defensive guys, he even played Anthony Carter solely for defense on Wade, he even brought Walker back in the game( struggled offensively) to guard LeBron(did a good job staying in front of him for a few minutes).

This is what we want from Mike D, we want to be able to get stops and turnovers so we can get out on the break or mismatches because we know we aren't going to be able to force feed Melo/Amare all night. Playing D will help get other guys easy points and help us get easier looks.

It seems like everyone has been stressing defense lately from the players to the coaches and Media and with the players we just waived if we get some defensive bigs I think we are in good shape.
 

KBlack25

Starter
You guys already know how much I hate Mike D and his No Defense but he surely deserves so credit for the D we played versus Miami.He went all out and played 11 players 4 of them defensive guys, he even played Anthony Carter solely for defense on Wade, he even brought Walker back in the game( struggled offensively) to guard LeBron(did a good job staying in front of him for a few minutes).

This is what we want from Mike D, we want to be able to get stops and turnovers so we can get out on the break or mismatches because we know we aren't going to be able to force feed Melo/Amare all night. Playing D will help get other guys easy points and help us get easier looks.

It seems like everyone has been stressing defense lately from the players to the coaches and Media and with the players we just waived if we get some defensive bigs I think we are in good shape.

Finally someone with a rational viewpoint, at least if you blame MDA when things go wrong you give him proper credit when things go right.

Thank you.
 

KBlack25

Starter
Spin fail. No I wouldn't have you believe anything, nor did I include any #'s that conclude he is bottom 5. That was your spin. He's been middle of the road at best, and ultimately not good enough. Consider his TOP offensive ratings couplede with his mediocre D and we can conclude where his weak points are.

Again, who are you arguing against? Yourself? Nobody is saying MDA is strong defensively, that he is some defensive guru and draws up sweet ass defensive plays on every play. And when I say "you" I don't necessarily mean "you" particularly, I mean you and the people that argue similar points to you. And I never said you explicitly said that you said he was bottom 5, that's your spin (see what I did there?)...I said you make it sound like he is bottom 5, and someone who didn't know better, listening to you, might believe that.

Red said:
But you don't know/understand his system. How do you know it was the players? In fact an argument can be made that the ability of these players is not only there, but really has no bearing on the scheme as its implemented.

This shows me you don't understand the role of the coach or what his ratings are based on. The stats themselves reflect the coaches ability to adapt withe roster he has. Before some were arguing that he could've won if it not been for bad luck in PHX. So he had the pieces
& what happened? He lost. But it wasn't due to lack of defense right? Well they were near the top in offense so where were they weak? O yeah in luck...smh

I don't think anyone was arguing that "bad luck"...again, Red's spin-session at work :). What has been argued is that D'Antoni would have stood a better chance if Amare didn't leave the bench during a fight, leading to an automatic suspension? Are you suggesting that Amare being on the floor in the Western Conference Finals WOULDN'T have helped the Suns win it all? I don't think you are, but nobody is arguing luck. I think it makes sense to think that MAYBE the Suns stood a better chance of winning that series with Amare than without him. Of course, luck is a factor (the ball bounces one way instead of another, the ref sees one foul call and not another, etc.) that is completely random and likely evens out in the end. But no team in the playoffs wins every game without somewhere down the road encountering a little bit of good luck. But that's life.


Red said:
No, I was saying MDA's stats don't show an improvement. And we lead the league no only in blocks because we have a swiss cheese lay-up line, but we also lead in points scored against in the paint. Only someone who understands defensive concept will know why this is.

Because our centers this season were, let's count them off: an undersized Ronnie Turiaf, an out of position Amare Stoudemire, a European Undrafted Rookie Project Timofey Mozgov, and the rotting corpse of Eddy Curry. Literally. That's it.

Are you REALLY suggesting that points in the paint allowed has NOTHING to do with the fact that this might be overall the smallest team in the league? REALLY?! REALLY?!?!?! Obviously the lack of SIZE the team has has a lot to do with whether or not opponents can score in the paint. Or I guess you want MDA to parade out there and stand in the middle? Because it's all the coaches' fault.


Red said:
PLEASE stop it. This whole thing is based on an improved defense INEPENDENT of coach D'Antoni. And trust he will never get credit when 2 maxs decide to run the defense. His credit would of been due when the time to make players better defensively was apprent. He failed. Because he's mediocre and middle of the road. Just logic. Not rocket science.

So you are arguing a logical farcical tautology. Exactly what I said: the team doesn't run defense, and MDA is to blame. The team DOES run defense, MDA gets no credit and it's on the players. Good argument...you know, if you like farcical results where one result is apparently an impossiblity with no grounding in reality.

Red said:
Wow, ialready formed my opinion. Hubie echoed those sentiments. Don't hate.

LMFAO! So you are admitting you are taking Hubie's point to heart, but you don't want to listen to/give heed to Chauncey's statement? Or JJ's statement?


Red said:
REPEAT AFTER ME...

REGARDLESS OF PLAYERS A-Z Skill level, independent of circumstance, a coach can be evaluated on many things, especially with a large body of work.

Ugh...do I really have to be the teacher on elementary statistics?

Whenever you look at statistics, there are several variables to factor in. Variables are elements that might affect a statistical output. For instance, when you are boiling water, normally it boils at 100 degrees celsius, but when you change altitudes that boiling point differs. Altitude is what we consider a variable.

So, when considering points per game, a variable that controls a lot of the output is number of possessions. An increase in the number of possessions, independent of anything else, will lead to skewed output in points per game.

Players, and their respective talent levels in all facets of the game, are also what we call "variables". A team of Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Bruce Bowen, James Jones and Rafer Alston will not score a lot of points (of course relative to the number of possessions), regardless of whether Mike D'Antoni, Isiah Thomas, or James Dolan is the head coach. "Players" are variables, and their respective talent levels NECESSARILY impact the final statistical output at the end.

So no, statistically speaking, you cannot evaluate a coach independent of his players. You might be able to establish weak or mild correlations, but you cannot prove causation because there are too many variables to factor in.

Red said:
Why not just hire anyone, sh*t why not just go with no coach, its the players? The truth is the teams perfomance is a reflection of the coach. His strategy, approach, handling of personalites, priorities etc... are you aware of how to evaluate? Not if you like him. Evaluate his coaching? Can you do this regardless of the roster? Don't think so.

No, you can't evaluate a coach regardless of the roster for the reasons I outlined above. Do you think that parades out a small lineup versus a big lineup is going to outrebound the other team? Are they going to be able to stop the other team in the paint? Again, if you go out there with Turiaf-Stoudemire trying to guard guys like D12, or even to a lesser extent, to guard guys like Big Baby or any other teams with size in the league (and compared to us, everyone has size), you are going to give up points in the paint.

You obviously did not read my post, or just read what you wanted...to borrow your own line "Comprehension is key" :) Practice what you preach. I clearly state that there are good coaches and bad coaches, but I believe, and will always believe, that coaches are more the same than they are similar. They cannot, and will not ever, sway the game more than the players actually on the floor.

Red said:
There is no contridiction. Billups knows more defense than an overpaid coach. And these players can perform and overcme the limitations of this coach. I'm cool with that, but the ability and strategy are what they are.

When have you heard of mda being a good defensive coach? When have you heard of mda making players bettr defensively? Never. But we hear he's not that good at defense all the time. You don't think hundreds of people are on to something?

Did you even read my post? I clear and explicitly stated that D'Antoni is not a good defensive coach, I know that, I understand that. But he also didn't have good defensive players, nor a roster that would ever be adept at clogging the middle. Cite Tom Thibodeau all you want, but he has Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer clogging the middle, Noah was a stellar defender BEFORE Tom got there, and Boozer at least tries on defense (unlike STAT, who even under Gentry didn't try). We do not have the size or the ability, until we got guys like Billups, Carter and Balkman here to play better defense at least on the exterior. We are still going to suffer in the paint, notice last night our great defense was against the interior of Joel Anthony and the Jump Shooting Chris Bosh.


Red said:
NO it boils down to when we look at the stats and compare him and his players to others accros the league and throughout history a conclusion of mda not being a good defensive coach is reached. You just can't accept that.

Are you comparing this team to other rosters across the league? How many teams in the league are less able to bang in the paint than we are? 2? 3?

YOU want to blame the coach. I want to blame the roster. That's fine. That's your opinion. But that's what it is.

You clearly contradicted yourself:

You said MDA could not adapt.
Now you say he is adapting.

So: answer, which is it?


You said that the COACH dictates the defense.
Now, when good defense is played, it's the players (which I AGREE with).

So: answer, which is it.
 
Last edited:
Top