knicks1248 wrote:

In the past six games, courtesy of MSG Network, Knicks opponents are shooting 25 of 41 from 3-point land (61 percent). That’s embarrassing — but not to Fisher.
The Blazers sank six of nine 3-pointers in the first quarter, with free-agent-to-be Wesley Matthews draining 3-of-5. Matthews had 19 points after 14 minutes on his way to tying his career high with 28 points.
Fisher’s contention is it’s more important the Knicks defend the paint, keep teams off the free-throw line and deny easy buckets than worrying too much about 3-point line coverage. It’s an old-school philosophy that has the basketball sabermetric crowd in a tizzy.
Fisher shrugged off Portland’s 3-point

Our coach say it's ok for teams to light your ass up for 3's as long as you defend the paint, which the knicks are just as bad..

Then people say it's not the coach..smfh..My god we need to pray

This old school defensive philosophy is not his, its phils!

Along with the stupid archaic triangle.

Phil is showing his age.

There is a reason why nobody really agrees or buys into zens philosophy anymore. ITS OUTDATED. HE IS OUTDATED.

BasketballJones wrote:

EnySpree wrote:The Knicks are just horrible

No **** Sherlock.

Why It's elementary my dear BasketballJones

Still San Antonio so finds a way to get young players that fit their mold. So Phil will do the same. He needs time to do it. I think he should at least get a year before guys start to attract him. His make or break days ate still ahead of him.

It probably would have been a better hire with , kobe, howard and gasol (those bigs were not good for a MDA system)but the fact of the matter, it's very difficult to adapt to, and they where well aware of it. They also where well aware of how stubborn phil is, so he became a 2nd option rather then a first real quick

Nalod wrote:To assume Phil is cooked and fish can't coach means you have some sure fire idea as to who can.
To assume and lay blame in hindsight means one has clarity to another path.

I don't think that if one thinks that someone is doing a bad job it means that they would have to know who would do the better job. One has nothing to do with the other nor is it the responsibility of the one with the opinion to determine.

I (like you) have read PJax's books and I really respect him. However, the basketball community disagrees with his methodologies (both offensively and defensively) and believe that his systems are not suited for todays NBA.

That is not a knock on its previous successes (though it was only successful with the best players in the world running it)

He is old school and that school may be too old for today where advanced metrics and data compilation has changed the game.

We should look at who is successful today and what they are running (e.g. SA and their understudy Atlanta, Houston etc ...).

Also, I believe that the Fisher hiring was a desperation move with Phil really not having many options.

knicks1248 wrote:Remember when everybody was in a uproar because The lakers hired MDA over 11 time championship coach. The triangle was sickening back then and LA's management wanted no parts of it.

It probably would have been a better hire with , kobe, howard and gasol (those bigs were not good for a MDA system)but the fact of the matter, it's very difficult to adapt to, and they where well aware of it. They also where well aware of how stubborn phil is, so he became a 2nd option rather then a first real quick

Knicks1969 wrote:The TRIANGLE is not a problem; it is the individual coaching it and the players involve who are THE problems

The Triangle may be a problem. Its antiquated and unproven without jordan/pippen - kobe/shaq/gasol.

Nalod wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:To assume Phil is cooked and fish can't coach means you have some sure fire idea as to who can.
To assume and lay blame in hindsight means one has clarity to another path.

I don't think that if one thinks that someone is doing a bad job it means that they would have to know who would do the better job. One has nothing to do with the other nor is it the responsibility of the one with the opinion to determine.

I (like you) have read PJax's books and I really respect him. However, the basketball community disagrees with his methodologies (both offensively and defensively) and believe that his systems are not suited for todays NBA.

That is not a knock on its previous successes (though it was only successful with the best players in the world running it)

He is old school and that school may be too old for today where advanced metrics and data compilation has changed the game.

We should look at who is successful today and what they are running (e.g. SA and their understudy Atlanta, Houston etc ...).

Also, I believe that the Fisher hiring was a desperation move with Phil really not having many options.

Well said and I appreciate the effort.
I am in no doubt "Wishful thinking mode" and filled with "HOPE and FAITH". Foolish as it may be when the all time greatest coach in the history of the game makes a commitment to change the culture and gut the team I stand with that. If season one is an epic disasteer becuase of injury and a roster that can't exectute does not give me reason to give up.
IN fact, I think all great acheivements in sports are done not by following the norm but by defying it!!

Is it old and antiquated in todays NBA? I dont' see how. I would think that even phil had made adjustments based on his personel. Rhonden in the Times yesterday wrong a nice piece (its posted on the UK home page) that even mentioned how Riles went from Showtime, to Smashmouth on the knicks to being the only coach to take 3 teams to the finals finally with Miami with Wade and Shaq. Each time having to adapt.

Granted, he is now the architect of this and to give up this early, even if this season is done does not warrant in my opinion to clean the slate and give up. If PHil bails, then its a lost cause. Something last year made him optimistic about taking on the job and set about a plan. If it was a money grab, thats another story of course.

In year one does the resulting win/lost make for a change of plan if the team has 9 expirings on it? If it was a .500 team would he be thinking any different about the LONG term? About the only thing I can think of is if we were succeeding it would be a very effective Bargnani playing along side Melo. We would not be thinking Lottery but Bargnani would be a key piece or one to trade. In his demise, we absolutly suck but the prize is a potential top three pick.

Plan B.

I admire the tenacity of sticking with a plan.

At this point we need to stick with the plan. If we have a terrible year next year (and give a really high pick to Toronto) then the sh1t will really start hitting the (w)fan.

Riley has adjusted/adapted numerous times to the evolving times. Has Phil?

I don't think that it was a money grab. A man with Phil's legacy does not do a money grab without believe that his legacy will not be tarnished.

I think that he overestimated Melo and overestimated himself thinking that he will Zenify Melo into taking a hit for the benefit of the team.

When it came down to crunch time, Melo and his Posse gave him the FU just like Kerr did. PJax did not hold any cards and letting Melo walk was probably not a decision that he was allowed to make.

The decision to not make trades last year seemed to have really hurt us badly.

The Chandler trade so far looks awful.

Jason Smith looks awful.

I was never high on the Fisher signing and I can't say that is looking good for him either.

Melo not giving him a real discount looks really bad on Phil's part.

I don't see how the triangle has adjusted for Sabermetrics and 3 point efficiency. I have never seen more long mid range jumpers in my life.

Our defensive strategy to clog the paint and allow teams to rain threes on us seems to be a very antiquated approach.

This tank may net us a really good pick though it will probably scare off many of the top FA's. Not good for Phil.

This off season will be very telling ... Phils legacy is on the line and I am sure he knows that. Pressure is ON.

P.S. I was as excited about Phil joining the Knicks as anyone, however, I am going to patiently wait to see how it plays out. So far, eeeeesh

Knicks1969 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:The TRIANGLE is not a problem; it is the individual coaching it and the players involve who are THE problems

The Triangle may be a problem. Its antiquated and unproven without jordan/pippen - kobe/shaq/gasol.

It can actually work in today's world. Put born ready at the point, Carmelo on the low block, a viable Center that can: pass, rebound, block shots and score the ball, we can once again have a productive triangle. It is not antiquated, it can be amended

how do you know ?

Knicks1969 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:To assume Phil is cooked and fish can't coach means you have some sure fire idea as to who can.
To assume and lay blame in hindsight means one has clarity to another path.

Also, I believe that the Fisher hiring was a desperation move with Phil really not having many options.

Well said and I appreciate the effort.
I am in no doubt "Wishful thinking mode" and filled with "HOPE and FAITH". Foolish as it may be when the all time greatest coach in the history of the game makes a commitment to change the culture and gut the team I stand with that. If season one is an epic disasteer becuase of injury and a roster that can't exectute does not give me reason to give up.
IN fact, I think all great acheivements in sports are done not by following the norm but by defying it!!

Is it old and antiquated in todays NBA? I dont' see how. I would think that even phil had made adjustments based on his personel. Rhonden in the Times yesterday wrong a nice piece (its posted on the UK home page) that even mentioned how Riles went from Showtime, to Smashmouth on the knicks to being the only coach to take 3 teams to the finals finally with Miami with Wade and Shaq. Each time having to adapt.

Granted, he is now the architect of this and to give up this early, even if this season is done does not warrant in my opinion to clean the slate and give up. If PHil bails, then its a lost cause. Something last year made him optimistic about taking on the job and set about a plan. If it was a money grab, thats another story of course.

In year one does the resulting win/lost make for a change of plan if the team has 9 expirings on it? If it was a .500 team would he be thinking any different about the LONG term? About the only thing I can think of is if we were succeeding it would be a very effective Bargnani playing along side Melo. We would not be thinking Lottery but Bargnani would be a key piece or one to trade. In his demise, we absolutly suck but the prize is a potential top three pick.

Plan B.

I admire the tenacity of sticking with a plan.

At this point we need to stick with the plan. If we have a terrible year next year (and give a really high pick to Toronto) then the sh1t will really start hitting the (w)fan.

Riley has adjusted/adapted numerous times to the evolving times. Has Phil?

I don't think that it was a money grab. A man with Phil's legacy does not do a money grab without believe that his legacy will not be tarnished.

I think that he overestimated Melo and overestimated himself thinking that he will Zenify Melo into taking a hit for the benefit of the team.

When it came down to crunch time, Melo and his Posse gave him the FU just like Kerr did. PJax did not hold any cards and letting Melo walk was probably not a decision that he was allowed to make.

The decision to not make trades last year seemed to have really hurt us badly.

The Chandler trade so far looks awful.

Jason Smith looks awful.

I was never high on the Fisher signing and I can't say that is looking good for him either.

Melo not giving him a real discount looks really bad on Phil's part.

I don't see how the triangle has adjusted for Sabermetrics and 3 point efficiency. I have never seen more long mid range jumpers in my life.

Our defensive strategy to clog the paint and allow teams to rain threes on us seems to be a very antiquated approach.

This tank may net us a really good pick though it will probably scare off many of the top FA's. Not good for Phil.

This off season will be very telling ... Phils legacy is on the line and I am sure he knows that. Pressure is ON.

P.S. I was as excited about Phil joining the Knicks as anyone, however, I am going to patiently wait to see how it plays out. So far, eeeeesh

The TRIANGLE is not as boring as it has been coached under Fisher. We don't really have pure shooters on the roster/scorer other then Carmelo. Further, we don't really have great passers on this team. Take a look at Carmelo when he passes the ball; it is almost as if it is a very painful act for him. He doesn't deliver the ball in rhythm, as a result, you can see the outcome. For the TRIANGLE to be effective, PLAYERS have to be willing to share the ball. It should be: touch dribble, and pass. Right now, you can see the inconsistent lack of fluidity on the court. Particularly, when Carmelo and Amare are on the floor together. The ball stick too much and we end up with not enough spacing nor time on the shot clock.

Oh ... trust me. We are certainly running a sh1tty triangle.

The question is, other than jordan/kobe, who has run a successful triangle?

And, why has it not been accepted by the metric world?