With the possible exceptions of Dr. James Andrews, Isiah Thomas and Dick Bavetta, as well as the inventors of SportsCenter, cocaine and the JumboTron, nobody randomly altered the course of NBA history quite like Mike D'Antoni. I realized this while watching the Knicks' Chris Duhon explode for a franchise record 22 assists recently. Here was a career backup suddenly looking like a cross between Bob Cousy, Magic Johnson and Scott Howard during the "I Don't Need to Be the Wolf for Us to Win" game … and I wasn't remotely surprised.

Thanks to D'Antoni's revolutionary "seven seconds or less" offense (SSOL, for short), Duhon's big game was perfectly logical. The mind-set is simple and brilliant. When you exert a seemingly chaotic run-and-gun pace, opponents invariably get caught up in that tempo—you know, because deep down every player really wants to shoot every seven seconds—and that's exactly what Coach Mike wants. He trains his teams to play that style and looks for players who make it work, giving him an inherent advantage every night. Like Mike Dunleavy with the the 2009 Clippers, only the exact opposite.

HAS ANYONE SEEN STEVE NASH LATELY?

Of course, SSOL also happens to be the reverse acronym for LOSS. D'Antoni's Phoenix teams were wildly entertaining, consistently successful—and always heading home before the Finals. D'Antoni didn't care that just about every NBA champ since the 1988-89 Pistons had won with defense; once teams slowed the Suns' tempo and systematically broke them down, their lack of commitment to D always surfaced. Always. They had a fatal flaw. It took us four years to realize it.

We spent so much time arguing SSOL's team merits that we never noticed its effects on careers. Remember what happened to Quentin Richardson when he left Phoenix? (Even Sugar from Survivor didn't disappear as quickly.) Have you seen Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa or Raja Bell this season? (Overpaid bench players, as it turns out.) Or Amaré Stoudemire? (Is he even an All-Star anymore?) Have you caught Al Harrington, David Lee, Nate Robinson and Duhon in the Knicks' version of the SSOL system? (Suddenly, they're gone in every fantasy league.) Most important, has anyone seen Steve Nash lately?

In case you forgot, the Consecutive MVP Club looks like this: Kareem, Bird, Magic, Moses, Jordan, Russell, Duncan, Wilt … and Nash. Gulp. Remember, I protested this vehemently at the time, padlocking myself to the front door of David Stern's office in protest (okay, not true) and even playing the Johnnie Cochran Memorial Race Card (true) in a failed attempt to argue that only transcendent point guards like Magic and Oscar should win MVPs. I thought we were turning our backs on 60 years of NBA history, legitimizing a table-setter as our lead alpha dog and turning the process into a popularity contest. Any time "he's fun to watch and, more important, I can't think of anyone else" becomes the criteria for deciding an MVP race, trouble will ensue.

Look, I love watching Nash and I remain grateful that he helped make the NBA entertaining again. But there are two objectives in basketball (score and defend) and over the years he was exploited defensively more times than Lindsay Lohan. That meant we were voting a DH as MVP. Twice. I voted for Shaq in 2005 and Kobe in 2006—well, in my mind I did—and Nash didn't make my top four either year. Begrudgingly, I grew to accept Nash's stature even if I disagreed with it: He made teammates better and made a seemingly frantic style work for a contender, and his numbers/percentages appealed to stat geeks everywhere (17 points, 11 assists, 51%-91%-44% FG-FT-3FG in his MVP years). Fine. In the big scheme, rewarding an exceedingly likable player twice didn't rank among the 200 worst sports atrocities of this decade.

Then D'Antoni left and Nash's numbers quickly and not-so-coincidentally dropped back to his pre-Phoenix numbers in Dallas. You know, when the Mavericks decided to let him leave after Mike Bibby torched him in the 2004 playoffs. Check it out:

Nash, 2003-04: 78 games, 14.5 PPG, 8.8 APG, 47% FG, 41% 3FG, 92% FT.
Nash, 2008-09: 24 games, 15.5 PPG, 8.5 APG, 48% FG, 42% 3FG, 94% FT.

Here's where you say, "Come on, he's 34, it's inevitable he would slow down." Is it? It doesn't bother you that his 2008-09 numbers don't differ from his 2001-04 Dallas averages? Or that every other NBA legend—seriously, all of them—peaked statistically between 25 and 29. Or that Nash jumped a level from borderline All-Star to two-time MVP at 31-32? Logically, it never made sense. You can have late bloomers in the NBA, but not late superstar bloomers. If such a leap occurred in baseball, we would have cracked 10 million HGH/syringe jokes. In the NBA, we ignored the obvious reason (SSOL) and talked ourselves into it.

NASH WAS EXPLOITED DEFENSIVELY MORE TIMES THAN LINDSAY LOHAN.

Which brings me to my point, and I swear I have one: Of the four major sports, only in basketball is the historical fate of everyone from borderline All-Star to borderline superstar determined entirely by his situation. Baseball is an individual sport; you are who you are (although ballparks can skew this to varying degrees).

In hockey, you can ride someone's coattails for big numbers (think Jari Kurri), but we know when it's happening.

In football, we sometimes see great players trapped on abominable teams (Barry Sanders, Archie Manning) and good players hitting the team lottery (Jim Kelly, Franco Harris), but we can usually tell either way.

Well, what about basketball? The best thing that ever happened to Malone was Stockton, and vice versa; So, what if the Bullets hadn't screwed up and had picked Mailman one spot ahead of Utah instead of taking the immortal Kenny Green? How would you remember Dominique's career if the Lakers had picked him over Worthy? What if Pippen never played with MJ? What if McHale never played with Bird? What if young Kobe had gotten stuck on an expansion team instead of the Lakers? What if KG found a great team before he turned 30? What if Tim Duncan landed on the 1997-98 Celtics instead of the 1997-98 Spurs? In a league where you can play only five at a time, the fortunes of every good player are irrevocably tied to those of his teammates and coach. For better and worse.

That's why you can play the what-if game all day with the NBA. Just make sure to include Mike D'Antoni, the Coors Field of coaches, the guy who screwed up our beloved offensive numbers a little too much, swung consecutive MVP votes and turned a borderline All-Star into an NBA icon. Had he taken Chicago's job last summer, we'd be calling Derrick Rose "Magic 2.0" and Ben Gordon would be averaging 29 a game on his way to juggling monster free agent offers next summer. Play a few seasons of SSOL ball, and people will eventually believe that you're better offensively than you really are. Coach Mike has the magic touch. Not for everyone—yes, I'm pointing at you, Jerome James and Eddy Curry—but for some.

One of those players was a forever-grateful Nash, who was slightly better than Mark Price and now goes down for eternity as an all-time great. Another is Duhon, who gets to hold his own record in something. There are a few others in the past and present and more coming in the future. I just hope one of them isn't named LeBron. Why? Because I don't have enough brain cells to properly calibrate his first triple-double Knicks season. Could he average 36-13-13 every game with Coach Mike? What about a 40-15-15?

(My head hurts. I have to go.)

LINK

Yeah, I read this. I think it's accurate. He's going to get the Knicks relevant again, possibly memorable, but ultimately come up short.

The thing I disagree is I do think those Suns teams played decent defense, but only in a fast-paced game. When it started grinding out to playoff pace, they weren't prepared to defend that way. They also didn't really take care of the ball (if my memory serves correct).

Hmmmm This article has many contradictions and inconsistencies. The system even fools analyst like him into thinking the system(the coach) made/makes players better while playing under him but in all honesty it didn't/he doesn't. There are cases in which he does(Duhon, Barbosa, Marion, Lee(tongue in cheek). But that's probably par for the course for a good crop of coaches in this league if you scroll through all the players they coached and who's game developed after being coached by them.


BTW Duhon got paid by us before he played one game under Pringles primarily for what he did in Chicago


First let me say this....Bill Simmons is one of the most reckless journalists out there. Throw in some Pop Culture references then he's a Gold Standard to some.


Let me touch on a couple players he's targeted in his article. Man before I do I have to get a quick Laugh Out at Sports Guy, what a tool.


Q-Rich left coach's system and hasn't played well since but to be objective Q wasn't the healthiest after he left Phx, hence they traded him because his game was already tapering off probably due to his back injury. Q comes back this yr probably the healthiest he's been since he's left PHX currently playing under coach and the guy still Sucks Asss. What conclusion can we draw from this? Q had 15min of Fame in Phx that's it. The system was hot, a new fling type of mojo, Q was there the first yr during it's Pizazz. At best he's never been better than an average player. Matter fact

it's arguable his best yr were with the Clippers playing with D-Miles, Magz, Miller and the gang. His game was all around better playing for the Clippers.

Q was Raja Bell before Raja Bell and maybe not as good all around. Q was pretty one dimensional in Phx, just because you lead the league in shooting/making 3's for a season doesn't make you better than what you are. Those who thought he was were only fooling themselves. I never thought he was while in PHX. Q is in his prime right now, hasn't logged a ton of minutes in this league considering yet he looks at times like he's 1 more cinder block chuck away from being Euro League attraction. When you play on a good team you look better than what you are. The Suns roster during the season Joe, Q, Shawn, Amare, Nash, Barbosa, Jackson...I'd say that's a pretty good roster. I think any coach could win with those guys.


Here are Q's numbers from his seasons...last yr with Clippers under Gentry I believe, then 1 yr in Phx under coach, then this yr with Knicks under coach

STA
LACWithout Coach
PHXCoach
NYKCoach


I would love for Simmons to explain these numbers without tripping over himself. If the excuse is Q put up good numbers on a bad team well that won't fly because I'll bring this up later why it won't.


BTW Q got paid before he got to PHX for what he did in LA.


Now on to Nash. Uhh I wonder what Simmons feels about Don Nelson? Was Dallas as prolific as PHX offensively when Nash was there, not necessarily but not far off by any means. Matter of fact Dallas were the up start Darlings when Nash took over the starting role at point and Dirk for Dallas was Amare to PHX. The trio between him, Dirk, and Finley were dangerous as all get out. I remember when the Mavs were giving Utah and the Spurs all they could handle for such a young team in the post season their first couple seasons with Nash at the point. The media then was jocking Don Nelson but ultimately toward the end of his tenure the league figured his style out in Dallas, which involved not emphasizing D and he was cast off until he showed up with the Warriors. The Warriors made history under Nelson beating the Mavs in the playoffs and all of a sudden the media was saying Warriors do PHX better than PHX. The following yr they don't make the playoffs and this yr they are having turmoil. The league can be unkind yr-to-yr.

Nash during this time had great seasons, great stats, and great playoff performances. Dallas won 53gms in 2000-2001, won 57gms in 2001-2002, won 60gms in 2002-2003, won 52gms in 2003-2004. Very comparable to what PHX did under our coach. The 2003-2004 Dallas team was probably the most overdone team in NBA history. Come on they had Nash, Walker, Jamison, Josh Howard, Finley, Dirk, Marquis Daniels. Can you imagine being the point guard of this squad? Walker derailed the chemistry. Overkill to the 10th power. Mike Bibby had a great series and lit Nash up his last season there, much like Parker did in the playoffs when Nash was under Pringles, Pringles last season there. Nash was trash on D in Dallas he was trash on D in PHX. Ironically both teams made some bold shake up moves that didn't work. The Kings were coming off a WCF, 1 game away from a Finals appearance. They were a good ball club barr none. The Mavs got the best of them the yr before in the Semis.

I think a case can be made how good(overrated) Nash was under coach to the point it led to two MVP's but it had more so to do with where they came from record wise, not coaching for his first MVP. It carried over to him winning a second MVP possibly could a give a little credit here to coaching because a lot of players had career yrs (Amare was hurt this season obviously players numbers stood a good chance to increase). Overall Nash played his Asss off plain and simple. If Sports Guy would have did a more thorough job, instead of face value research he would have noticed Nash's numbers have been dropping slightly since about January of last season, still coached by Pringles. They acquired Shaq in February.

Pringles and Nash are very comparable to Byron Scott and Kidd in New Jersey. Kidd brought Jersey out of the dungeon he was the face of the league around this time and it became a two man race between he and Duncan for MVP. Where has Kidd been since Scott left? Nowhere! Did the media ever have a perception Kidd was overrated? Not to my knowledge! Has Kidd been to a CF or Finals without Scott? Not to my knowledge. Has Nash without Pringles? Yes Once under Nelson. Did the media blow up Byron Scott? Not really! Did Kidd win because of Scott? Not solely but Scott was a huge factor! Did Kidd win because of the pieces around him? Not solely but he had great pieces around him! IMO Nash got better while in his prime(27-32). Sports Guy Dummy that's right Nash is 34yrs old, 6 yrs removed from his time in Dallas. At what point would you start to expect a player to decline in his game? Probably right about now. Go look at Kidd's numbers when In New Jersey and tell me if he peaked as a superstar about the same time as Nash. It can happen.


Now he mentions Diaw and Bell. I really can't agree here either. If you look at Bell's last yr in Utah he was already improving as a player had stats very comparable to a couple of the seasons he had in PHX. I don't clearly see how he made Bell look better.


Bell's Stats



BTW Bell got paid by PHX before he played one game under Pringles for what he did in Utah


If you look at Diaw's numbers since being traded to the Bobcats statistically it's his best season. It's a sample size comparison but still holds some weight. Now the Bobcats are nowhere close to what Pringles had in PHX. So does the excuse apply here Diaw is putting up good stats on a bad team. I'd say no. Diaw is a player who's developed his game from yr-to-yr and he's a pretty solid player when he isn't making stupid plays, freezing up on open opportunities, and playing ultra finesse.





How come he didn't mention Joe Johnson? He blew up In Atlanta under Woodson.


How come he didn't show what Nash's numbers were when PHX traded for Shaq coached by Pringles?


How come he didn't mention Marion to possibly strengthen his argument? What a Moron


I'm not sure if coach makes players better as much as people think he does or give him credit for. Is there a case yes but it's a small one not large.

[Edited by - GallOfFame on 12-31-2008 6:58 PM]

Great post GallOfFame.
Very informative, a lot of smart inside.

Thanks.

Posted by raven:

Great post GallOfFame.
Very informative, a lot of smart inside.

Thanks.

Thanks I'm of the thought even statistically he didn't make some players better and it's just as arguable if he's capable of developing young talent.

Posted by BlueSeats:

I don't think it's a coaches job to maximize individual talents, it's his job to maximize what a team can do, and I think D' did that in Phoenix. I never considered them a Championship caliber team. I think were he took them was above and beyond what anyone had a right to expect. I don't think there's a coach in the league who'd have gotten more out of that roster.

good post.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by GallOfFame:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I don't think it's a coaches job to maximize individual talents, it's his job to maximize what a team can do, and I think D' did that in Phoenix. I never considered them a Championship caliber team. I think were he took them was above and beyond what anyone had a right to expect. I don't think there's a coach in the league who'd have gotten more out of that roster.

I disagree. I think Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, Jerry Sloan, Pat Riley, Greg Popavich could have at least got those teams to the Finals if not won a Chip. We'll never know. It's arguable if what coaches like Rick Carlisle, Avery Johnson, Byron Scott, Mike Brown, Scott Skiles could do with them. It could be comparable to Carlisle then LB. I'm not really arguing this thought versus some thinking coach individually improved players play or got them contracts from it. The only players that may apply are Diaw and Barbosa.[/b]

That's a perspective one gets from watching stats (micro) rather than basketball (macro) because it misses that the guys were all having career years (or years that were as good as their best) simultaneously and for the common good. IOW, it's different than when a mediocre player gets inflated stats by being the unlikely go-to guy on a bad team. In the Suns case all players did their best uniformly, and it seemed to be the case for whatever player was plugged into the system, which is quite an accomplishment.

So if coach doesn't get more than 38wins with this roster 2yrs removed from Isiah, will it because the roster is trash?

Unless you're looking for the answer "it depends," I don't get the question.



[Edited by - blueseats on 12-31-2008 8:25 PM]

What made you think they weren't a championship caliber team? And when did you start feeling this way.?

The discussion has changed slightly from the original post BTW. We were discussing does/did coach truly make individual players better or is this somewhat Myth.

Not whether or not he(coach criteria) maximizes team talent via meshing/blending them together to get the most. We can take the discussion obviously where you want it to go though.

[Edited by - GallOfFame on 01-01-2009 01:54 AM]

PHX was NEVER the best team in the west. They were playing above their heads IMO due to MDA and his great coaching.

These Knicks are playing MUCH better defense with a poorly constructed team for playing defense. We have no size and few natural defenders. I happen to think that when we've played our best ball this year the team has defended very well. The Bobcat game would've been a blowout had we been hitting shots in the last 3 qtrs.

The fact is that when we've stretched out big leads there was some good defense being played to achieve that! You don't build leads very easily if you're not defending a lick. MDA does coach D and you can see it in how the team plays D. They help on shutting down penetration and by being active and switching quickly they force teams into more deep jumpers which are lower % shots. If and when we get a big who can defend the paint this team is gonna be a good defensive team.

Stop reading anything from Bill Simmons once and for good when he stated that there wasn't any real rivalry between the Celtics and Lakers.

I like the SSOL - LOSS comparsion but I think the Suns problem is they lacked defensive players. Nash cannot play defense. Amare is known as a weak defender. Other than Marion and Bell, who on that Suns team could play defense. We have the same problem now but at least with Duhon, we have a good on the ball defender. I don't think there is any flaw in MDA's system. You just need to get better defensive players who can also run the system. If we upgrade our 2 and 5 positions with solid two-way players, I think the Knicks can be a solid defensive squad.

[Edited by - thegame on 02-01-2009 17:18]

i think if you build a team via defense, you can get away with not having superstars and still win some games. nothing mindblowing but something like the sixers from last year or the bulls from a few years ago. obviously, those type of teams don't win long term but you can win a few games (at .500 or slightly better) for a few seasons.

if you build a team predicated on offensive minded players, then i think the only way to get to .500 or better is to have *big time* offensive talents. not just mediocre talent but star to superstar type talent. otherwise, you're looking at a 30 win team. the warriors had bdiddy + ellis + sjax when they beat the mavs and won 48 games last year. now, without diddy + ellis, they are putting up high lotto win totals.

with that said, after many years of crap at the garden, the quickest way to get the fanbase energized is to put a shiny new product on the court and a high octane offense gets a buzz going. but you can only get away with stuff in ny for so long. 2010 is what it's all about...and i think d'antoni needs big time players to get to the .500 mark (or better).

[Edited by - djsunyc on 01-02-2009 5:59 PM]