BlueSeats wrote:This started with you thinking there's no correlation between high points and good defense. I noted that there is a pretty good correlation between low scoring and making the playoffs. You countered that high offensive EFF would make an even better determinant that's how your list was ranked), but you've yet to establish that. You also seemed to be defending D'antoni against charges his style is wrong for the playoffs, yet you've got him on a short half-season leash for next year. In truth, putting all stats and numbers aside, your points are lost on me. I really don't see the case you are making.

Let's start over.

Your initial statement: "I noted that there is a pretty good correlation between low scoring and making the playoffs." "I'll ask you to consider than 9 out of the top 10 lowest scoring teams are in the playoffs, vs, 2 of the top 10 highest scoring teams."

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/team-comparison-per-game/sort/avgPoints/seasontype/2

RK	TEAM		PPG
1	Denver		107.5	Playoffs
2	New York	106.5	Playoffs
3	Houston		105.9	
4	Phoenix		105	
5	Oklahoma City	104.8	Playoffs
6	San Antonio	103.7	Playoffs
7	Golden State	103.4	
8	Miami		102.1	Playoffs
9	LA Lakers	101.5	Playoffs
10	Minnesota	101.1	
RK	TEAM		PPG	
21	Washington	97.3	
22	Detroit		97	
23	Boston		96.5	Playoffs
24	Portland	96.3	Playoffs
25	Cleveland	95.5	
26	Atlanta		95	Playoffs
27	New Orleans	94.9	Playoffs
28	New Jersey	94.2	
29	Charlotte	93.3	
30	Milwaukee	91.9	

Looks like the opposite it true.

I think what you meant (perhaps) to say was something else, not points scored?

What I countered with was Offensive Efficiency:

RK	TEAM		PACE	OFF EFF	DEF EFF
1	Denver		97.9	109.5	104.8	Playoffs
2	San Antonio	94.6	109.4	102.8	Playoffs
3	Miami		93.2	109.3	100.7	Playoffs
4	Oklahoma City	95.3	108.6	104	Playoffs
5	New York	98.1	108.3	106.9	Playoffs
6	Houston		96.9	108	106.2
7	LA Lakers	93.4	107.9	101.3	Playoffs
8	Dallas		93.4	107.6	102.3	Playoffs
9	Phoenix		96.8	107	107.4
10	Orlando		93.5	105.7	99.1	Playoffs
11	Portland	90.5	105.6	104.2	Playoffs
12	Chicago		92.9	105.5	97.4	Playoffs

I still stand by saying that just because you have high pace/high scoring doesn't mean you can't have good defensive numbers.

Juice wrote:

nixluva wrote:In this series and even the end of the regular season Mike was getting results. His overall record includes some great reg season and playoff runs. I dont expect him to fail if we can make some needed improvements. This should be one of the top teams next year.

If anything this experience has shown this team the level of effort you need to win. This was a stiff challenge and except for one game the team was up for it. Mike has done a good job.

No this series has been an example of who we've been all season Pre Melo/With Melo. What has Melo/Amar'e/D'AnToni learned about this series, they didn't know before considering you and many others want 60% of the roster turned over next year? Those 3 have been to CF. Think about what you post sometimes.

Who said anything about turning over 60% of the roster? Mostly we want a PG and C. I'd also like another SG. Still the real improvements are gonna come from roster upgrades and a training camp. This group of Knicks has been together for 30 games. The C's have been to the finals together twice. What has Mike done that would suggest he wouldn't be successful with this team given more time and more roster help?

OldFan wrote:

Juice wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Juice wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm tired of the constant change. I want to see this team build some chemistry and upgrade the roster with certain things already in place.

Same was said before the trade. Fans wanted to see the homegrown talent mature and stop making deadline trades. The one thing that has remained constant(coach) with the same mediocre ho-hum results. Get us a different guy on the bench and the confidence in the players should remain right? You still believe in Amar'e and Melo right?

Some change is warranted! We upgraded with Melo and now we're set at SF and PF. We've now got to upgrade the other key spots @ center and PG. The coach is the least of our Problems. We could've won the 1st 2 games with a fully healthy roster or a bit of luck.

Improve the roster around STAT and MELO. Then worry about coach b

Coach is most certainly part of our problems we have a few of them. Once again most coaches can win with a talented roster. We were pretty much set at small forward before we made the trade. If we had acquired Deron I could see your point to an extent but your understanding of what we've been doing and where we're going is foggy at best.

I agree we need to get better defensively.

But I disagree that there are coaches who could have gotten substantially more out of this team in these circumstances. At the beginning of the year it was a young team with some big holes and one superstar. They played together for 50-55 games and did as well or better then any preseason prediction I read written by a non-knick fan. They then totally revamp the team and have two superstars and an even more unbalanced team with 25 games and very few practices to get it together.

I think expecting much more out of MDA (or any coach) is a case of the grass is always greener...

I'm saying any coach can win when you add talent to a team. I do believe a few coaches could have done better.

martin wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:This started with you thinking there's no correlation between high points and good defense. I noted that there is a pretty good correlation between low scoring and making the playoffs. You countered that high offensive EFF would make an even better determinant that's how your list was ranked), but you've yet to establish that. You also seemed to be defending D'antoni against charges his style is wrong for the playoffs, yet you've got him on a short half-season leash for next year. In truth, putting all stats and numbers aside, your points are lost on me. I really don't see the case you are making.

Let's start over.

Your initial statement: "I noted that there is a pretty good correlation between low scoring and making the playoffs." "I'll ask you to consider than 9 out of the top 10 lowest scoring teams are in the playoffs, vs, 2 of the top 10 highest scoring teams."

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/team-comparison-per-game/sort/avgPoints/seasontype/2

RK	TEAM		PPG
1	Denver		107.5	Playoffs
2	New York	106.5	Playoffs
3	Houston		105.9	
4	Phoenix		105	
5	Oklahoma City	104.8	Playoffs
6	San Antonio	103.7	Playoffs
7	Golden State	103.4	
8	Miami		102.1	Playoffs
9	LA Lakers	101.5	Playoffs
10	Minnesota	101.1	
RK	TEAM		PPG	
21	Washington	97.3	
22	Detroit		97	
23	Boston		96.5	Playoffs
24	Portland	96.3	Playoffs
25	Cleveland	95.5	
26	Atlanta		95	Playoffs
27	New Orleans	94.9	Playoffs
28	New Jersey	94.2	
29	Charlotte	93.3	
30	Milwaukee	91.9	

Looks like the opposite it true.

I think what you meant (perhaps) to say was something else, not points scored?

What I countered with was Offensive Efficiency:

RK	TEAM		PACE	OFF EFF	DEF EFF
1	Denver		97.9	109.5	104.8	Playoffs
2	San Antonio	94.6	109.4	102.8	Playoffs
3	Miami		93.2	109.3	100.7	Playoffs
4	Oklahoma City	95.3	108.6	104	Playoffs
5	New York	98.1	108.3	106.9	Playoffs
6	Houston		96.9	108	106.2
7	LA Lakers	93.4	107.9	101.3	Playoffs
8	Dallas		93.4	107.6	102.3	Playoffs
9	Phoenix		96.8	107	107.4
10	Orlando		93.5	105.7	99.1	Playoffs
11	Portland	90.5	105.6	104.2	Playoffs
12	Chicago		92.9	105.5	97.4	Playoffs

I still stand by saying that just because you have high pace/high scoring doesn't mean you can't have good defensive numbers.

Martin, I put a quick minute or two into trying to find whatever ranking I was going off of yesterday and couldn't find it. I'm not in the mood to invest any more into and it looks like I might have been off base anyway. Good job fact-finding.

But it doesn't change my opinion that it's more practical to style your regular season approach off the playoffs so that you're more practiced at it when you get there.

I understand that sometimes you need to cater the approach to the roster, and maybe it was fair to say that with the pre-trade roster a high-tempo game best suit their make-up (though routinely giving the opponent career scoring nights is hardly a formula for success). The beef with D'Antoni though is that if you tailor the roster to his style you will always have that issue. It could be an endless loop of "our hands are tied, this is what we have to do given the roster," when the roster was his preference. And conversely, handing the coach a roster that doesn't fit his style is an injustice to him and the players, indicative of the time for a coaching change.

nixluva wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:But it doesn't change my opinion that it's more practical to style your regular season approach off the playoffs so that you're more practiced at it when you get there.

I understand that sometimes you need to cater the approach to the roster, and maybe it was fair to say that with the pre-trade roster a high-tempo game best suit their make-up (though routinely giving the opponent career scoring nights is hardly a formula for success). The beef with D'Antoni though is that if you tailor the roster to his style you will always have that issue. It could be an endless loop of "our hands are tied, this is what we have to do given the roster," when the roster was his preference. And conversely, handing the coach a roster that doesn't fit his style is an injustice to him and the players, indicative of the time for a coaching change.

OKC is a fast and athletic team that can shoot and they also defend. How is that not the same as what Mike would want here in NY? To be honest Donnie has only been looking for players that would be good on any team period! What team doesn't need a C that can not only defend and rebound but also has an offensive game? Donnie went after Jerome Jordan and Timo cuz they're good prospects that have well rounded skills. Any coach would want to play such talented young bigs. The only time Mike has had issues with players is if they don't play smart and don't give effort.

We want a big young and athletic team, but also a smart team that understands the game on a high level. That's the kind of player D'Antoni likes. If we add a PG with a high BB IQ and good penetration and passing skills, how is that bad for the team or any other coach that might take over the team? Nothing was wrong with his style of play in the regular season and playoffs when he went to the WCF's 2x.

Truth is Mike's system is more than just full court running and gunning. There's a HUGE amount of halfcourt plays that are part of the overall plan. It's not just PnR either. People need to review the playbook and see just how much more there is. The most important change we need to make is to fill the holes in the roster with good talent. We don't need a new coach.

OKC is 5th in the league in defensive Eff behind CHI, MIA, Boston, LA. If you're not willing to settle for less, fine, just say so and stop gushing over the complexity of Mike's system. I've never seen a playbook have such a Svengali grip on anyone before.

Thank god Isiah didn't publish his book: "Get In The Truck, Biitch" or we'd still be hearing about it...

BlueSeats wrote:

martin wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:OKC is 5th in the league in defensive Eff behind CHI, MIA, Boston, LA.

OKC good example of scoring and playing good/great defense. #1 in PPG, #5 in def Eff.

Probably gonna be the standard for teams for the next 5-10 years.

Yep, along with Mia and Chi.

I did delete my original post - you caught it quick - cause the PPG was based on Playoffs and I thought that was too small a sample.

I have to tell you, I would be more afraid of OKC over the long haul than MIA and CHI. For whatever reason CHI doesn't scare me as a team - they are limited to Rose and a team can focus on him, Indiana is doing a perfect job and they aren't even a .500 team.

MIA is going to have to deal with depth problems for the next 5 years; Miller was a horrible signing.

BlueSeats wrote:

nixluva wrote:

BlueSeats wrote:But it doesn't change my opinion that it's more practical to style your regular season approach off the playoffs so that you're more practiced at it when you get there.

I understand that sometimes you need to cater the approach to the roster, and maybe it was fair to say that with the pre-trade roster a high-tempo game best suit their make-up (though routinely giving the opponent career scoring nights is hardly a formula for success). The beef with D'Antoni though is that if you tailor the roster to his style you will always have that issue. It could be an endless loop of "our hands are tied, this is what we have to do given the roster," when the roster was his preference. And conversely, handing the coach a roster that doesn't fit his style is an injustice to him and the players, indicative of the time for a coaching change.

OKC is a fast and athletic team that can shoot and they also defend. How is that not the same as what Mike would want here in NY? To be honest Donnie has only been looking for players that would be good on any team period! What team doesn't need a C that can not only defend and rebound but also has an offensive game? Donnie went after Jerome Jordan and Timo cuz they're good prospects that have well rounded skills. Any coach would want to play such talented young bigs. The only time Mike has had issues with players is if they don't play smart and don't give effort.

We want a big young and athletic team, but also a smart team that understands the game on a high level. That's the kind of player D'Antoni likes. If we add a PG with a high BB IQ and good penetration and passing skills, how is that bad for the team or any other coach that might take over the team? Nothing was wrong with his style of play in the regular season and playoffs when he went to the WCF's 2x.

Truth is Mike's system is more than just full court running and gunning. There's a HUGE amount of halfcourt plays that are part of the overall plan. It's not just PnR either. People need to review the playbook and see just how much more there is. The most important change we need to make is to fill the holes in the roster with good talent. We don't need a new coach.

OKC is 5th in the league in defensive Eff behind CHI, MIA, Boston, LA. If you're not willing to settle for less, fine, just say so and stop gushing over the complexity of Mike's system. I've never seen a playbook have such a Svengali grip on anyone before.

Thank god Isiah did publish his book: "Get In The Truck, Biitch" or we'd still be hearing about it...

I'm tired of people basing disapproval of Mike based on a lack of reason and ignorance of what he does. Neither CB or TD are pure passing, penetrating PG's so we're not able to attack teams with the best our players have to offer. Amare in particular is an excellent finisher who hasn't been getting any finishing opportunities!

The goal is to give Mike what he needs to succeed. We got another superstar but still don't have the PG and C we need. The team defended and played hard if not always well. You only change the coach if he's lost the team, which he clearly hasn't.

BlueSeats wrote:

nixluva wrote:There was nothing wrong with the D in the 1st 2 games. 2 tough defensive games by the Knicks and today one bad one. We come into this game and lay an egg. Did Mike suddenly stop coaching them for this game? Did the players simply not focus in and defend with the same energy? Did the C's just have one of those games where guys just get hot from outside? Whatever the reason, this team played 2 of the 3 playoff games with intensity on D so let's not exaggerate this one game.

'luva, if you're honest with yourself you'll admit that the defensive intensity was surprisingly good for the first two games. When that level of intensity is no longer surprising but the norm then this coach will be getting a pass on defense, but not until.

No, 2 games in a row of defensive intensity proves mda is a great defensive coach. In fact 2 defensive plays in a row would prove that. It's not like mda told them not to defend. Unless he tells them not to defend he's a great defensive coach. The other games where we played horrible D is ALL on the players.

nixluva wrote:I'm tired of the constant change. I want to see this team build some chemistry and upgrade the roster with certain things already in place.

SO you want to change the roster, which doesn't continue the 'constant change'. But if we changed coaches(which we haven't done for several years) it would be 'constant change. Got it.

In the halfcourt where MUCH of the SSOL offense actually happens still requires a smart PG, with good vision, passing and penetrating skills. This isn't the sole possession of Nash. There are other PG's that can do all of those things. We need to keep searching to acquire a PG like that, cuz not having a PG that can penetrate effectively really hurt us. Heck our PG's almost never got into the paint. Felton was the only guy we had that even tried. SSOL is more than just running and shooting 3's. Before you comment on it anymore please go and study it to find out so you know what you're talking about.

Look the biggest improvement we can make is to find a better solution at PG and C. Then if we can upgrade SG as well I think this team can do some real damage. We lack quality in the starting lineup and off the bench and that has to change before we can become a title contender.