Swishfm3 wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:been thinking about at the argument that MDA's system NEEDS 3point shooters to be successful and I am trying to figure out which system in the league DOESN'T need a good outside shooting game to win (and 3 pointer in general).

Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

you're arguing semantics here... i don't think anyone ever thought a team doesn't need ANY 3 point shooting to win games, but the ridiculous amount of 3 pt. shooting this team has been doing under MDA is not conducive to winning over the long haul... there needs to be a balance.

Let me not mince words: part of that opening post describes how Spurs, LA Lakers - both Championship teams - and Orlando (recent Finals team) all use the 3point shot heavily, both in terms of volume and 3point %.

You are talking about two hall of fame coaches that have won multiple championships and their teams play good defense. They are well rounded teams and the three is a part of their game created off of mismatches and double teams because they have excellent post play and exploit mismatches. Those three teams are threee of the best coached teams in the league. There is a lot more right about their teams than just making threes.

correct. but you missed the whole point of the thread.

You know what you missed? That all three teams you mention have reliable big men who can post up. They receive the ball, in the post, and then kick it out when the double team.

The three pointer is not the first option for those teams...in MDA system, it seems to be the ONLY option.

nixluva wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:been thinking about at the argument that MDA's system NEEDS 3point shooters to be successful and I am trying to figure out which system in the league DOESN'T need a good outside shooting game to win (and 3 pointer in general).

Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

you're arguing semantics here... i don't think anyone ever thought a team doesn't need ANY 3 point shooting to win games, but the ridiculous amount of 3 pt. shooting this team has been doing under MDA is not conducive to winning over the long haul... there needs to be a balance.

Let me not mince words: part of that opening post describes how Spurs, LA Lakers - both Championship teams - and Orlando (recent Finals team) all use the 3point shot heavily, both in terms of volume and 3point %.

You are talking about two hall of fame coaches that have won multiple championships and their teams play good defense. They are well rounded teams and the three is a part of their game created off of mismatches and double teams because they have excellent post play and exploit mismatches. Those three teams are threee of the best coached teams in the league. There is a lot more right about their teams than just making threes.

correct. but you missed the whole point of the thread.

You know what you missed? That all three teams you mention have reliable big men who can post up. They receive the ball, in the post, and then kick it out when the double team.

The three pointer is not the first option for those teams...in MDA system, it seems to be the ONLY option.

In Mike's offense the 1st option in the halfcourt is PnR. Until Felton can effectively run that, it's gonna be a tough go. There's nothing wrong with the offense, it merely must be executed. If you make the pass, hit the shot and move there's really no way to stop what we do. It's up to the players to get it down. Teams haven't been stopping us, we've stopped ourselves.

So you run the pick and roll against a set defense in the paint without an option if it fails. If the PnR fails because the paint is packed then there should be a cutter and/or a kick-out option These people do have some idea of what we intend and a plan to defend it.

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:been thinking about at the argument that MDA's system NEEDS 3point shooters to be successful and I am trying to figure out which system in the league DOESN'T need a good outside shooting game to win (and 3 pointer in general).

Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

you're arguing semantics here... i don't think anyone ever thought a team doesn't need ANY 3 point shooting to win games, but the ridiculous amount of 3 pt. shooting this team has been doing under MDA is not conducive to winning over the long haul... there needs to be a balance.

Let me not mince words: part of that opening post describes how Spurs, LA Lakers - both Championship teams - and Orlando (recent Finals team) all use the 3point shot heavily, both in terms of volume and 3point %.

You are talking about two hall of fame coaches that have won multiple championships and their teams play good defense. They are well rounded teams and the three is a part of their game created off of mismatches and double teams because they have excellent post play and exploit mismatches. Those three teams are threee of the best coached teams in the league. There is a lot more right about their teams than just making threes.

correct. but you missed the whole point of the thread.

No I got the point. I don't think you liked my reply that the other teams have a post game and create mismatches and set up the shot but don't rely on it. It appears that this is an attempt to justify a coaches over reliance on one aspect of the game by saying that other teams do it to.

i really don't have an opinion on your point cause it doesn't really address my supposition.

I ask everyone to help me understand the argument by mentioning backing up the underlying premise with some facts or stats or something. You wanna talk about something entirely else.

Olbrannon wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:been thinking about at the argument that MDA's system NEEDS 3point shooters to be successful and I am trying to figure out which system in the league DOESN'T need a good outside shooting game to win (and 3 pointer in general).

Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

you're arguing semantics here... i don't think anyone ever thought a team doesn't need ANY 3 point shooting to win games, but the ridiculous amount of 3 pt. shooting this team has been doing under MDA is not conducive to winning over the long haul... there needs to be a balance.

Let me not mince words: part of that opening post describes how Spurs, LA Lakers - both Championship teams - and Orlando (recent Finals team) all use the 3point shot heavily, both in terms of volume and 3point %.

You are talking about two hall of fame coaches that have won multiple championships and their teams play good defense. They are well rounded teams and the three is a part of their game created off of mismatches and double teams because they have excellent post play and exploit mismatches. Those three teams are threee of the best coached teams in the league. There is a lot more right about their teams than just making threes.

correct. but you missed the whole point of the thread.

You know what you missed? That all three teams you mention have reliable big men who can post up. They receive the ball, in the post, and then kick it out when the double team.

The three pointer is not the first option for those teams...in MDA system, it seems to be the ONLY option.

In Mike's offense the 1st option in the halfcourt is PnR. Until Felton can effectively run that, it's gonna be a tough go. There's nothing wrong with the offense, it merely must be executed. If you make the pass, hit the shot and move there's really no way to stop what we do. It's up to the players to get it down. Teams haven't been stopping us, we've stopped ourselves.

So you run the pick and roll against a set defense in the paint without an option if it fails. If the PnR fails because the paint is packed then there should be a cutter and/or a kick-out option These people do have some idea of what we intend and a plan to defend it.

The 3pt shot was threatened but they didn't rely on it. They spread the floor but then went inside and attacked the hoop. That just proves what i've been saying about the players not using their heads. This game they actually made the smart plays.

(stubborn)

"D’Antoni is renowned as an offensive coach, (he had Steve Nash) but the Knicks’ offense is a mess. (reasons?) After 11 games, they ranked 24th in offensive efficiency, or points scored per 100 possessions, according to basketball-reference.com. They also ranked 24th in effective field-goal percentage, which is adjusted for 3-point attempts. Meanwhile, the Knicks’ defensive rating (again, adjusted for pace) was a respectable 13th in the league.

The Knicks need the 3-pointer as a weapon, (why?) but they sometimes seem overly wedded to it. Through 11 games, they were leading the league with 277 attempts but had made just 89. That .321 success rate ranked 26th in the league. Gallinari, Chandler and Douglas are in the top 12 in the N.B.A. in 3-point attempts.

In Denver, the Knicks missed 16 of 19 shots from the arc in the first half with Gallinari going 1 for 8. One might surmise that the answer is to stop shooting 3-pointers, but the mere suggestion sent D’Antoni into a mild froth.

“Not shoot? We just throw it out of bounds?” he said with an edgy chuckle.

(an instructive comment on the snarky lack of confidence D'Antoni instills in his young roster)

“so we didn’t stop shooting — we started making them,” D’Antoni said. As they did, they wiped out a 16-point fourth-quarter deficit and gave themselves a chance to win the (Denver) game. Whatever other adjustments the Knicks might make, curtailing the long-range game will not be one of them. D’Antoni made that clear with a final passionate rant that suggested the young Knicks were succumbing to the pressures of New York.

“But you can’t start grasping at straws and say, ‘O.K., you shoot, you don’t,’ ” he said. “And we do have a couple guys that are questioning shooting. And that’s why New York is tough. Because everybody has their opinion, and we have guys doubting themselves. And they have to overcome that, and we will.”

- NYT

Hell, part of the reason why David Lee became an all-star was because D'Antoni gave him free reign to shoot in games after seeing how much he worked on his jumpshot.