[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Larry Brown Makes an interesting point...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
EnySpree
Posts: 44919
Alba Posts: 138
Joined: 4/18/2003
Member: #397
1/11/2006  9:04 AM
Posted by TheSage:

When are you guys going to come to the realization that Brown knows more about this games than anyone posting here?

If my mother had balls she's be my father.

It's all about opportunity. Some of the best basketball minds I have known have been druggies/wino's that hanged out in the parks in Brooklyn when I was growing up.



There are 13 years old chess players that can give the Chess grandmaster of the world a good game(seen that myself on ESPN).

There are guys from thailand that are Scrabble masters that compete in american tournaments but don't speak a word of english. They just like the game.

Point being this is a game.

Larry Brown doesn't know more about this game than me. He may know more about the X's and O's or the organized game but he doesn't know the game better than me. I can teach anyone how to play this game in a matter of minutes. Anyone. I can run down the many basketball stories that I have but I don't have to have a long list of **** to prove that. It's just a game.





Subscribe to my Podcast https://youtube.com/c/DiehardknicksPodcast https://twitter.com/DiehardknicksPC https://instagram.com/diehardknickspodcast
AUTOADVERT
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
1/11/2006  9:14 AM
why bother? The guy blurbs whatever is on his mind at the time. He once shook his head at AI for having 7 turn overs in a game. Funny thing was the sixers won and AI dropped in 50. Thats just Larry.

Except when it something about 'teaching how to win' it is gold, right?

oohah you seem to want to talk about LB like he's just another Lenny Wilkins or Don Chaney. He's not.

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how distinguised Lenny Wilken's career is? Just as much as LB's. In fact Wilkens was doing a better job with a worse team last year.

He's never lhad a losing record with a franchise. He's regarded as one of the league's best teachers. Its one thing to tell your players to D and board better. Its another when a guy like Crawford who's built like a burnt match goes and gets you 10 boards.

Now it is LB who caused Crawford to get 10 boards? give me break already!

Of course he makes mistakes! But what you label as a mistake may just be part of his plan.

Or it might be a mistake. But you don't think a 7/21 record is indicative of mistakes I guess...

I also know that LB said he would get a set rotation as guys started to play better. Contradiction, no?
I also remember him saying he was going to settle on a rotation because that's the only way to win. He also said he would play the young guys. The next night he didn't play the young guys and went 12 deep and even asked the ball boy to play. He makes them earn it!!!!!

What I am reading from this is you think that any mind game LB plays is good.

I think about 2 months ago. I said LB knew what he was doing. I said he would begin to settle on a rotation. I said he would begin to develop more and more plays that suit this team. I said he would eventually play the young guys. And I said when it all happened all the fans would say I told you so, and that they knew more than the coach and that he is an idiot for not being able to recognize that Malik Rose was not our starting SF.
I'm no genius, but I seem to know what is going to happen before it happens.

I am awfully happy for you if any of this is true. Did you predict the team would be 7/21 first? Did your prediction of LB playing the young guys later on include Rose and AD being abysmal from day one?

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 01-11-2006 09:51 AM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
rvhoss
Posts: 24943
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2004
Member: #777
Switzerland
1/11/2006  9:42 AM
no doubt.
all kool aid all the time.
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/11/2006  11:00 AM
Posted by Bippity10:

I think about 2 months ago. I said LB knew what he was doing. I said he would begin to settle on a rotation. I said he would begin to develop more and more plays that suit this team. I said he would eventually play the young guys. And I said when it all happened all the fans would say I told you so, and that they knew more than the coach and that he is an idiot for not being able to recognize that Malik Rose was not our starting SF.

I'm no genius, but I seem to know what is going to happen before it happens.

I said this was going to happen BEFORE the season even started. I think I might have to look for the quote but my words were... "The Knicks will strruggle until late December/early January and they will take off" I also said the rookies would struggle at first but they would really start to come in with the Knicks resurgance. I'm not smart, I just followed the trend of Larry Brown teams thats all. This is what happens with Larry Brown teams but since now that he's coaching in NY, some fans think they are owed better then that. Give it up guys.


[Edited by - nyk4ever on 01-11-2006 11:03 AM]
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
1/11/2006  7:02 PM
I said this was going to happen BEFORE the season even started. I think I might have to look for the quote but my words were... "The Knicks will strruggle until late December/early January and they will take off" I also said the rookies would struggle at first but they would really start to come in with the Knicks resurgance. I'm not smart, I just followed the trend of Larry Brown teams thats all. This is what happens with Larry Brown teams but since now that he's coaching in NY, some fans think they are owed better then that. Give it up guys.

The "LB trend" of starting slow is a fiction.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
1/11/2006  11:13 PM
Posted by oohah:
I said this was going to happen BEFORE the season even started. I think I might have to look for the quote but my words were... "The Knicks will strruggle until late December/early January and they will take off" I also said the rookies would struggle at first but they would really start to come in with the Knicks resurgance. I'm not smart, I just followed the trend of Larry Brown teams thats all. This is what happens with Larry Brown teams but since now that he's coaching in NY, some fans think they are owed better then that. Give it up guys.

The "LB trend" of starting slow is a fiction.

oohah

oh really?
¿ △ ?
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/11/2006  11:30 PM
All you did Oohah was show full records. I'd be curious for you to show us a full breakdown of every game in their first season under Brown. They all start slow.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
1/11/2006  11:40 PM
Posted by nyk4ever:

All you did Oohah was show full records. I'd be curious for you to show us a full breakdown of every game in their first season under Brown. They all start slow.

Yeah I agree with him, I dont think the start off slow turn around thing is a myth, oohah, show all those teams he coached, but breakdown their wins and losses by the month this time.
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/11/2006  11:40 PM
Teams under Larry Brown first year.

1982- New Jersey - Final Record: 44-38
record through 28 games: 10-18

1989- San Antonio - Final Record: 21-61
record through 28 games: 8-20

1994- Indiana - Final Record: 47-35
record through 28 games: 11-17

1998- Philadelphia - Final Record: 31-51
record through 28 games: 7-21

2004- Detroit - Final Record: 54-28
record through 28 games: 16-12


Thats pretty good proof to what I've been saying.

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 01-11-2006 11:41 PM]

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 01-11-2006 11:51 PM]
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
SlimPack
Posts: 23588
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/14/2005
Member: #1009
USA
1/11/2006  11:41 PM
Posted by nyk4ever:

Teams under Larry Brown first year.

1982- New Jersey - Final Record: 44-38
record through 28 games: 10-18

1994- Indiana - Final Record: 47-35
record through 28 games: 11-17

1998- Philadelphia - Final Record: 31-51
record through 28 games: 7-21

2004- Detroit - Final Record: 54-28
record through 28 games: 16-12



ARGUMENT OVER.

I never say arguement over, or nuff said. cuase its really embarrasing if it turns out that the arguement isnt over.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
1/11/2006  11:42 PM
oh really?
All you did Oohah was show full records. I'd be curious for you to show us a full breakdown of every game in their first season under Brown. They all start slow.

Sorry, I have to earn a living too...you guys go ahead and back up what you have been saying.

But, if you look at the records again you will realize that certain teams could not have started very slow because of great records and others never sped up becuase of poor records.

7/21 will be the slowest ever.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/11/2006  11:51 PM
Posted by SlimPack:
Posted by nyk4ever:

Teams under Larry Brown first year.

1982- New Jersey - Final Record: 44-38
record through 28 games: 10-18

1994- Indiana - Final Record: 47-35
record through 28 games: 11-17

1998- Philadelphia - Final Record: 31-51
record through 28 games: 7-21

2004- Detroit - Final Record: 54-28
record through 28 games: 16-12



ARGUMENT OVER.

I never say arguement over, or nuff said. cuase its really embarrasing if it turns out that the arguement isnt over.

Good point.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/11/2006  11:52 PM
Sorry, I have to earn a living too...you guys go ahead and back up what you have been saying.

But, if you look at the records again you will realize that certain teams could not have started very slow because of great records and others never sped up becuase of poor records.

7/21 will be the slowest ever.

oohah

I just showed you it. Look back on the first page, on the bottom. I'll even post it again, just to show you that these teams did struggle, even though they ended up with very good records.
Posted by nyk4ever:

Teams under Larry Brown first year.

1982- New Jersey - Final Record: 44-38
record through 28 games: 10-18

1989- San Antonio - Final Record: 21-61
record through 28 games: 8-20

1994- Indiana - Final Record: 47-35
record through 28 games: 11-17

1998- Philadelphia - Final Record: 31-51
record through 28 games: 7-21

2004- Detroit - Final Record: 54-28
record through 28 games: 16-12


Thats pretty good proof to what I've been saying.

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 01-11-2006 11:41 PM]

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 01-11-2006 11:51 PM]

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 01-11-2006 11:53 PM]
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
1/12/2006  12:08 AM
Lessee...

Teams under Larry Brown first year.

First you are limiting it to LB's first year with a team, adding a new criteria in an attempt to limit the focus.

1982- New Jersey - Final Record: 44-38
record through 28 games: 10-18

Relatively slow yes.

1989- San Antonio - Final Record: 21-61
record through 28 games: 8-20

They started the first 20 at a .400 winning percentage. They go the rest of the season 13 for 62, a .290 winning percentage. Bad example, you prove my point. they started relatively fast then slowed got much worse.

1994- Indiana - Final Record: 47-35
record through 28 games: 11-17

Relatively slow yes.

1998- Philadelphia - Final Record: 31-51
record through 28 games: 7-21

Another bad example: they started the first 28 at .250 winning percentage, then they 'sped up' to a .308 winning percentage. [sarcasm]What a remarkable improvement![/sarcasm]

2004- Detroit - Final Record: 54-28
record through 28 games: 16-12

 Split W L PF PA PCT 
OCT 1 1 180 170 .500 
NOV 11 5 1491 1415 .688 
DEC 7 7 1158 1150 .500 
JAN 13 3 1458 1360 .813 
FEB 6 8 1296 1263 .429 
MAR 10 3 1178 999 .769 
APR 6 1 627 552 .857


So they actually started out 12/6 which is quite fast, before going through a slight lull in December and another in February. But how did the team perform under Carlisle the year before you ask?

2003- Detroit - Final Record: 50-31
 Split W L PF PA PCT 
OCT 1 0 86 77 1.000 
NOV 11 5 1377 1339 .688 
DEC 8 5 1222 1173 .615 
JAN 10 5 1383 1287 .667 
FEB 7 6 1166 1106 .538 
MAR 9 5 1348 1267 .643 
APR 4 5 818 842 .444


So LB was statistically winning at about the same rate as Rick Carlisle until Rasheed Wallace was added for the final quarter of the season. Then the team took off to a new level. Coincidence?

ARGUMENT OVER.

DECENT ARGUMENT NEVER STARTED!

Conclusion: The LB slow start is a fiction. Sometimes he starts slow, sometimes fast. It all depends on a great number of factors and cannot be generalized.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 12:09 AM]

[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 12:15 AM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/12/2006  12:14 AM
Posted by oohah:


Conclusion: The LB slow start is a fiction. Sometimes he starts slow, sometimes fast. It all depends on a great number of factors and cannot be generalized.

oohah

[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 12:09 AM]

Don't really understand how it's fiction since I just brought to your attention the starts of his teams. The first year thing has been part of arguments on this board becuase its a known fact his teams slow start.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
1/12/2006  12:18 AM
Don't really understand how it's fiction since I just brought to your attention the starts of his teams. The first year thing has been part of arguments on this board becuase its a known fact his teams slow start.

Regardless of the 'first year thing' if you look at my breakdown of your examples, you will see that he only had 2 real 'slow starts' that 'sped up' afterwards. Sometimes the teams were just bad. They started slow, they ended slow. Other times they started pretty fast.

You also left out his Carolina and Denver stats. Why is that?

It is not a known fact that his teams start slow. It is an often-repeated fiction.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 12:24 AM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/12/2006  12:40 AM
Posted by oohah:
Don't really understand how it's fiction since I just brought to your attention the starts of his teams. The first year thing has been part of arguments on this board becuase its a known fact his teams slow start.

Regardless of the 'first year thing' if you look at my breakdown of your examples, you will see that he only had 2 real 'slow starts' that 'sped up' afterwards. Sometimes the teams were just bad. They started slow, they ended slow. Other times they started pretty fast.

You also left out his Carolina and Denver stats. Why is that?

It is not a known fact that his teams start slow. It is an often-repeated fiction.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 12:24 AM]

Left out Carolina and Denver beacuse it was ABA, figured I'd stick with just the NBA teams.

I think the only 2 teams that you can consider "bad" in this argument are the Sixers and the Spurs.
Too me its a pretty slow start when your team starts 10-18 and then to go on and have a 44-38 record. Another team to start 11-17 and then to go on and have a 47-35 record. Another to start 16-12 and then go on to win 56 games.

The 1981 Nets before Larry Brown 24-58, 1982: 44-38 Through 28: 10-18
The 1988 Spurs before Larry Brown 31-51, 1989: 21-61 Through 28: 8-20
The 1993 Pacers before Larry Brown 41-41, 1994: 47-35 Through 28: 11-17
The 1997 Sixers before Larry Brown 22-60, 1998: 31-51 Through 28: 7-21
The 2003 Pistons before Larry Brown 50-32, 2004: 54-28 Through 28: 16-12

As you can see, Larry Brown vastly improved the Nets, Pacers and Sixers. The Spurs played 10 games worse and the Pistons I don't think is a good example becuase the team was already assembled, Brown put them over the top though. I don't think we're going to agree Oohah but I think the proof is right here in what Larry Brown does to teams.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
1/12/2006  12:55 AM
I think the only 2 teams that you can consider "bad" in this argument are the Sixers and the Spurs.
Too me its a pretty slow start when your team starts 10-18 and then to go on and have a 44-38 record. Another team to start 11-17 and then to go on and have a 47-35 record. Another to start 16-12 and then go on to win 56 games.

So you want to ignore the the Pistons started the 2003-2004 season as fast as any team in the NBA at 12/6 .666 winning percentage by averaging in SOME of their games from the next month until their percentage comes down?

As you can see, Larry Brown vastly improved the Nets, Pacers and Sixers. The Spurs played 10 games worse and the Pistons I don't think is a good example becuase the team was already assembled, Brown put them over the top though. I don't think we're going to agree Oohah but I think the proof is right here in what Larry Brown does to teams.

We were not discussing what LB does to teams. We were discussing slow starts by LB teams. Out of 6 examples you provided, we got 2 slow starts, a .333 winning percentage for your argument. I think your argument is off to a slow start.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 12:56 AM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
1/12/2006  1:47 AM
How are there only 2 slow starts? Every single one of those teams showed how good they actually were by their final record and all started off very slowly. Your the one that is off to a slow start. 10-18? Thats slow. 8-20? That's slow too. 11-17? Thats pretty slow if you ask me. 7-21? Theres another slow one! 16-12? A season after winning 50 games, thats pretty damn slow too. What is there not to get here?
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
1/12/2006  2:05 AM
How are there only 2 slow starts? Every single one of those teams showed how good they actually were by their final record and all started off very slowly. Your the one that is off to a slow start. 10-18? Thats slow. 8-20? That's slow too. 11-17? Thats pretty slow if you ask me. 7-21? Theres another slow one! 16-12? A season after winning 50 games, thats pretty damn slow too. What is there not to get here?

A slow start implies that you get significantly better after a certain point. Otherwise it is simply a sh!tty season.

San Antonio 8/20 .400, after the first 28, the Spurs percentage afterwards was .290. Check the numbers.
Philadelphia 7/21 .250, after the first 28, the Sixers' percentage "improves" to .308. Slow start? No, sh!tty season.

As far as Detroit, you are again ignoring that the Pistons started the season 16/8 through November. That is a fast start! Yes they had a small losing streak of 4 games after that, but that doesn't even factor in the whole month of December where the Piston finished 19/13 with a .594 winning percentage. What is their percentage for that year? .659, but that includes when they added Rasheed Wallace and went crazy winning.

10/18 Pacers: Slow start.
11/17 Nets: Yes, a slow start

So out of 5 examples, we have two legitimate slow starts (Pacers/Nets). One Fast start(Pistons 16/8 after November or 19/13 after December, take your pick.) And 2 straight sh!tty teams (Philly/Spurs). By the way, the Spurs got much better LB's second season. The reason was...David Robinson.

I miscalculated your percentage: .400, of course that is ignoring LB's first 2 pro teams and every season of his career that was not the first with a given team.

Get it now?

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 03:13 AM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Larry Brown Makes an interesting point...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy