MozelGovCocktail wrote:What you call 'forcing the pace' can easily be interpreted as 'requiring effort'.

Jeremy Lin is playing good under Woodson because he is a good player giving 100 percent, as he was under MDA.

Can you say the same for everyone else?

no. forcing the pace means forcing the team to play faster.

pace means speed, not effort.

pace does not equal effort and it certainly doesn't equal efficiency.

jeremy lin will have a longer and better career playing actual winning basketball.

MozelGovCocktail wrote:No. 'pace' is a terribly flawed measure of the game. It is determined by offensive/defensive efficiency.
Not the other way around.

this statement is incorrect.

MozelGovCocktail wrote:Thanks for the detailed refutation.

Contrary to popular belief, a celebration doesn't add points to the play... (unless the refs say-so)

A slam dunk is worth the same on the scoreboard as a jump shot from just within the arc. Which is the more efficient play and why?

crzymdups wrote:

MozelGovCocktail wrote:No. 'pace' is a terribly flawed measure of the game. It is determined by offensive/defensive efficiency.
Not the other way around.

this statement is incorrect.

your statement is wrong because:

pace = average numbers of possessions a team gets in a game. if they are playing faster, they have more possessions. if they are playing slower they have fewer possessions.

efficiency = what you do on those possessions. do you score 105 points per 100 possessions? do you allow 95 points per 100 possessions.

there is no absolute correlation between the two. you can play fast and be efficient. you can play slow and be efficient. but the past ten years seem to show that the teams that win championships do not play faster, they play a slower, more methodical pace.

efficient teams win, yes. but teams that play a slower pace and also play efficiently tend to win more championships. the only team i found in the top ten for pace to win it all over the past ten years was the 2009 lakers who were 6th in pace. the 2007 spurs were 27th, the 2011 mavericks were 19th and so on.

crzymdups wrote:

MozelGovCocktail wrote:Thanks for the detailed refutation.

Contrary to popular belief, a celebration doesn't add points to the play... (unless the refs say-so)

A slam dunk is worth the same on the scoreboard as a jump shot from just within the arc. Which is the more efficient play and why?

crzymdups wrote:

MozelGovCocktail wrote:No. 'pace' is a terribly flawed measure of the game. It is determined by offensive/defensive efficiency.
Not the other way around.

this statement is incorrect.

your statement is wrong because:

pace = average numbers of possessions a team gets in a game. if they are playing faster, they have more possessions. if they are playing slower they have fewer possessions.

efficiency = what you do on those possessions. do you score 105 points per 100 possessions? do you allow 95 points per 100 possessions.

there is no absolute correlation between the two. you can play fast and be efficient. you can play slow and be efficient. but the past ten years seem to show that the teams that win championships do not play faster, they play a slower, more methodical pace.

efficient teams win, yes. but teams that play a slower pace and also play efficiently tend to win more championships. the only team i found in the top ten for pace to win it all over the past ten years was the 2009 lakers who were 6th in pace. the 2007 spurs were 27th, the 2011 mavericks were 19th and so on.

Dam, you're on fire today! Love when facts, with numbers to back it up, trump opinions.

Told ya so, Mike.

crzymdups wrote:

MozelGovCocktail wrote:Wrong. 'It's the defense, dummy' would be a better title.

When you blow teams out early, what the heck is the rush?

The idea is that there is something very basic beneath the success on offense and defense - playing slower, taking better care of the ball, taking your time to set up shots.

Under MDA this year the Knicks were DEAD LAST in the league in turnovers - meaning, they turned the ball over MORE than ANY OTHER TEAM.

Under Woodson?

They've average 12.4 turnovers per game. That would be good for - you guessed it - BEST in the league (and best by far, too, the Sixers lead the league with 19.1 turnovers per game).

Playing slower, taking better care of the ball, getting better shots, playing straight up man to man defense.

How was last night's 'pace'?

This thread would lead you to believe that we should have won last night.

I want the web to be free, but I'd like bloggers to have a license of sorts. It's articles like this that prove that the blogger is no more than a fan with a website.

Give me a break.

nixluva wrote:I'm so tired of these B.S. Threads. MDA has not only had some of the fastest paced offenses but also some of the most efficient offenses. Aside from the 1st two years here when the team was CLEARLY not built to play MDA ball and this year before we had a PG his teams have been efficient even playing fast. In short what he does works.

The brief run with Woodson hasn't been great offense. It's been the great D leading tomore easy baskets!!! That has masked the fact that the offense has some key areas not really performing the way they should. If they drop off in defensive intensity those offensive issue get EXPOSED!

there isn't really a correlation between efficiency and pace. not a proven one. but my point in this thread is that the knicks are playing MUCH better at a slower pace. fewer turnovers, more efficient.

certainly some teams can play more efficiently at a faster pace, though it hasn't happened too much outside of steve nash-led teams.

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm so tired of these B.S. Threads. MDA has not only had some of the fastest paced offenses but also some of the most efficient offenses. Aside from the 1st two years here when the team was CLEARLY not built to play MDA ball and this year before we had a PG his teams have been efficient even playing fast. In short what he does works.

The brief run with Woodson hasn't been great offense. It's been the great D leading tomore easy baskets!!! That has masked the fact that the offense has some key areas not really performing the way they should. If they drop off in defensive intensity those offensive issue get EXPOSED!

there isn't really a correlation between efficiency and pace. not a proven one. but my point in this thread is that the knicks are playing MUCH better at a slower pace. fewer turnovers, more efficient.

certainly some teams can play more efficiently at a faster pace, though it hasn't happened too much outside of steve nash-led teams.

The Knicks were efficient at a high pace last year before the trade. The only issue they had was D, but they were a top efficiency team. IMO this team is in for a rude awakening if they play this kind of offense against the better teams. The gradual changes Woodson has made aren't too encouraging to me. I see a lot of issues with the offense as it's been played lately. Woodson still has a lot to prove in terms of seeing if he has answers for what the better teams will throw at this team defensively. I see some bad signs developing. We'll see how things go and I hope i'm wrong.

What MDA never got was "ITS THE DEFENSE STUPID!"

You hope you are wrong? You are waiting like a Hyena for him to fail!

Funny stuff!!

DEFENSE!!DEFENSE!!DEFENSE!!DEFENSE!!

y2zipper wrote:The Knicks played good defense under D'Antoni this year, but it's ideal to lower the pace when the defense is good because then you lower the opponent's opportunities to score as well as making it harder. It's the same logic where football teams with good defense typically run the ball a lot.

The emphasis has to be two-way basketball. Offense is important because you need to score and defense is important because you have to make sure the other team scores less.

So easy, isnt it? I dont get the sentiment that you either have to play defense or fast. Isnt that exactly how the Heat play? Or how we played in the first games with Woodson. Defend hard and end opponents possesions, force turnovers or grab the rebound, then run your offense before the opponents D is set. If the break is not working, take your time to finish a set play.

I dont care if this was/would have been/is MDAs dream. He couldnt do it here, so thats not important anymore. What I am curious to see is, will Woodson continue to implement this credo in the Knicks game? He did say he learned a lot from MDA. If it was about the offensive game MDA preaches, it could be perfect. A sound defensive coach, with a plan for quick fastbreak game thats started by good D.

Best of both worlds?