Well I am on record stating that I think MDA should be replaced now that we acquired Melo and Billups, two players that are best suited for a half court offense. I do think STAT is best suited for a high tempo offense but I digress.
That said, the main tenet of MDA's offense is the ability to push the pace therefore controlling it in the hopes of setting up an open shot before the defense can setup. This is very effective IF you have a PG that can race up the floor and put pressure on the backpedaling defense near the paint in the hopes you can exploit them with a quick pass to an open shooter. (not necessarily a 3) When done effectively this puts tremendous pressure on the opposition who is not accustomed to this type of frenetic pace. Further while 3 point shots are a lower percentage shot than a two pointer they count as 1.5 two pointers when made therefore over the course of a game if enough drop the percentage becomes less important. (not unimportant but less) The 3-point shot also has the added benefit of spreading the floor which in theory should give Amare or Melo room to maneuver.
If the fastbreak is stopped with good transition defense then historically the PnR is used to create a similar effect. This is done by keeping the defense off balance forcing them to make switches and go under/over picks which potentially leave wide open shooters. Again, the whole point of SSOL and MDA's overall philosophy is to get open shots. Open shots are high percentage shots and when the offense is running smoothly(see Phoenix and some stretches this year with Felton) it is almost impossible to guard.
The problem with the Knicks since MDA took over is that we have not had a capable PG except Felton to run SSOL. (of course rebuilding the first 2 years was an issue too) Felton had the Knicks playing really well once he got accustomed to the system and prior to his ankle injury. He was starting to get healthy again right before being traded and we started to look dangerous once again as a result. One can track our win/loss this year prior to the trade to Feltons production almost without fail. SSOL requires a PG that can make smart decisions, shoot and pass. It limits the burden on the rest of the team from having to create or make decisions provided you have a capable PG. The ideal scenrio is to have knock down spot up shooters surrounding Amare and the "right" PG. These players do not need to create shots or make decisions they simply need to hit the open shot created by the system.
SSOL does not benefit from volume scorers like Melo and actually is hurt by them. Again, SSOL is about taking quick uncontested shots and players like Melo while capable of knocking down jumpers are best suited in ISO's creating their own shot. That is the antithesis of SSOL and the major reason why I have concluded another coach should be brought in. That said Melo has the potential to thrive in any system and if we brought back a PG of at least Feltons ability let a lone a CP3 we would be unstoppable in MDA's offense.
P.S. The only reason we seem predictable is because we arent actually running SSOL because we lacked the right PG after the trade. Prior to the trade we were anything but predictable. (when we were hot) So yea, MDA's system does require specific players to be effective and looks awful when we don't have them. Since we do not have them we should focus on getting another coach or acquiring the right pieces to make it work.
Sorry Crazy8's but to be fair we must realize the O & D aren't mutually exclusive in ball like it is say in football (where a whole different unit is used).
Trill to be fair we have to mention the not so obvious effects of running such a style which you neglected.
First we can agree that getting "open or "quality" shots is the goal of any offense that's nothing new. By hurying the pace to set up and take advantage of a lack of transition or set D here in lies multiple concerns:
1. To be a transition or fast-break team, specific players need to be acquired. As you mentioned a quicker PG. But it's really determined by the wings- they too must be able to score in the open court off the break. That in of itself a) reduces the players available (by type) & b) reduces the margin for error (not many can come in and replace)
2. Pace = injury over time
3. Jump "knock down" shooters further reduces the talent pool available. It's a bit much to ask for knock down shooters WITH the speed and driving capabilites to score on the break. When you start seeing things from an availability, realistic stand point- we soon realize a hand full of such players available. This is illustrated in the myriad of different players used and not used to find the right fit. They are of the LeBron James (jumper not so much so) Wade ilk. And even they aren't necessarily knock down shooters.
4. There is a reason why most coaches would say "if we are in transition offensively, and we don't have #'s or position- pull the ball out and set up".
Thats because the odds say a set up play designed for an individual(s) realistically can be relied upon more than scoring off the break. The opportunity is there more (or less depending), and the reputation of "slowing the ball down" during the playoffs or "it's more of a half-court game" rings true, mostly due to the
quality shot aspect.
This offense in concept makes sense, but its not practical for many reasons down the stretch. Quality shots = those shots that are taken by design for specific players achieving specific goals (inside, at a high % spot of their liking). In this offense it's an adlibbed approach taking what the defense gives by the "open knock down shooter", multiple being on the floor.
But here's the real down-fall not mentioned. Combine the unavailable players with:
The effect on defense. Remember this isn't football. You play BOTH sides of the ball. So not only is the personnel light when it comes to offensive abilities (driver, knock down shooter)- it further dwindles when adding defensive capabilities.
This is the achilles heal. When you are hell bent on acquiring these players, you neglect defensive types. This is few and far when it comes to this type of player. Its like trying to field 5 Kobe Bryants- immpossible.
Examples of this also would be like:
Putting Michael or Ben Johnson in pads and playing running back. They were the fastest men in the world, but in reality they can never be better than say Emmit Smith who is much slower.
Or, if the Yankees signed Arnold Swarchenegger. In theory he should be killing the ball, but those other ancillary skills won't allow that in reality.
All in all balance is what Mike has to learn. His leasons are obvious. By that I mean if we take this system and add a Shaq in his prime. No coach would deny he can help. But in this system, he would be marginalized. This is what Mike sees with Jeffries. One defensive addition throws it off. Shaq like JJ would be relegated to setting screens at the top of the key and encouraged to shoot if the rock goes his way and he's open. It takes not his actual best used abilities into account, and forces him to conform, limiting him. Chalk that up to another limitation.
If Mike really analyzes how his system is incorporated given the actual talent in the NBA- he would notice there are more "specialists" than adaptable blank slates that he ultimately has to work with.
Now contrast that unorthodox style with conventional. First a coach with a star or any player accentuates their natural abilities. But they create balance by not having so many players with the same styles and abilities. Even with a Shaq, the Lakers didn't go to him every play. But when they did, those plays were designed and called with his specific talents in mind and analysis of where his high % shots are. The same would go for Kobe or anyone for that matter.
This system neglects that specialized aspect. And it neglects to understand why multiple attacks lead to the "confusion" attempted to be created in its design. Good conventional coaches have plays designed for in and out of the paint and call the game accordingly. If someone is in foul trouble, they go at him, deliberately, not incorporate plays where anyone can shoot.
If there's an obvious mis-match that is exposed strategically. Not in this system.
But back to Trill and your Felton example. Yeah when he was healthy, we were clicking.
BUT, a) that was against low level teams, b) he did get injured as did almost every other guard we had, and c) MOST IMPORTANTLY WE WERE STILL NEAR LAST IN DEFENSE d) we took a chance as that approach had us down double digits almost every time, effectively shooting ourselves out of games e) it actually makes it harder to hold the lead
That's why many say it's a false sense of security. A false positve. It's a one game maybe aboration that produces diminishing returns over the course of time- further exposed in the playoffs where the top teams who play defense, clamp down, and slow you down. Without a solid all around approach, illustrated by the all around personnel on the floor, it can only win when too many factors become true.
That and the availability of players is why I say it's too risky.
Neglecting to "showcase" a player's specific talents is why I say it's limited. These issues have many trickle down effects and reduce the likelyhood of winning a chip using this approach.