Look how he is being outclassed by Houston and Minny who are getting contributions out of his castoffs, Hill and Darko.

A good coach wouldnt have embarrassed a good player like Nate like that just to satisfy his own ego. Lets face it, D'Antoni's rep took a major hit this season. He had an awful year.

iSergio wrote:

s3231 wrote:

iSergio wrote:I just don't see how better players will even improve Mike D'Antoni's team defensively. He switches on EVERYTHING which always results in mismatches. That's why we always see David Lee or Al Harrington isolated on a guard. And the big's almost NEVER prevent a gimme lay-up or dunk with a hard foul, which is very puzzling to me. I don't see how substituting Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire instead of Lee and Harrington solves this. This is not a talent issue. This is a systems issue. D'Antoni's system is not designed to keep the other team from scoring.

Not to be too simplistic, but why can't you win by being more efficent on offense than the other team is? If we have Bosh and LeBron on offense, I don't care if we occassionally let players come into the paint for an easy basket because I like our chances of scoring more than the other team does over the entire 48 minutes.

Not even going to that extreme though, if we added a Marcus Camby in the off-season, resigned Lee, and brought in someone like Joe Johnson, don't you think the Knicks would be pretty good in 2010? Maybe we wouldn't be a lockdown team on defense, but I think we would be middle of the pack defensively with a very good offense.

I mean, were players like Jordan and Bird truly great more because of their defense or their offense? Superstars are typically superstars because they can't be stopped on offense. That is how you win in this league, with guys who score at will. Bill Russell was really the only guy who won championships by dominating defensively and I don't see any guys out there right now that can replicate that. Even with Russell dominating defensively, the Celtics won championships because they turned that defense into a lethal up-tempo offense. Why can't we put a defensive big man out there that can board and block shots while still employing D'Antoni's offense?

I may be wrong but I don't think D'Antoni is stubborn enough that if he got a guy like Camby, he wouldn't start him. I just don't think he's ever had a big man that could be that effective defensively. Theoretically speaking, I would think that he would have to like the idea of having a big man that can kick start his offense with blocked shots and rebounds.

Sorry but no - adding Joe Johnson and Marcus camby to this team do not make it pretty good imho. I still think it's a mid 30s win roster. Johnson is not LeBron James and Camby is not Chris Bosh. I think we need to be realistic with Camby. He's going to be 37 and isn't a dominating shotblocker anymore. And if basketball history tells us anything, you simply do not win with those teams who are all about outscoring the other team. A championship team is always an elite defensive team. ALWAYS. I don't think we'll ever be that with this coach. At best, we'll be the Don Nelson Dallas Mavericks who won 50 games but lost in the 2nd Round every year. That might be good enough for James Dolan and some fans but not for me.

Oh please, the Showtime Lakers were elite offensively, not defensively, and they did just fine...

Dean Oliver did a study that showed in the 387 playoff series wins since 1974 (this study was done in 2004 for his book), 221 (or 57%) were won by the team with the better defensive rating while 240 (62% percent) were won by the team with the better offensive rating.

Where is the proof that you need to be elite defensively to win a title?

If you look at those Riley teams that won in the 80s, their defense ratings (points allowed per 100 possessions) were low relative to other Laker teams in franchise history. Their offensive ratings, on the other hand, were sky high and that is how they won titles. I'm not saying their defense was terrible, but it is very clear that they won because of their incredible offense.

s3231 wrote:http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/

If you look at those Riley teams that won in the 80s, their defense ratings (points allowed per 100 possessions) were low relative to other Laker teams in franchise history. Their offensive ratings, on the other hand, were sky high and that is how they won titles. I'm not saying their defense was terrible, but it is very clear that they won because of their incredible offense.

those teams could get stops because they had guys who were either good defenders or had the effort to try. not sure the ratings help as the scoring sure as heck seemed diff as just picking a season: 83-84 -- league avg for fg% was 49.2% with under 200 3 fga ... now its 45.9% with well over 1300 3 fga ...

s3231 wrote:

TMS wrote:

s3231 wrote:

TMS wrote:ur right, there's more than 1 way to win... still no one has been able to provide me with an example of a team that's won a championship playing MDA's style of ball...

Well, to be fair, I think D'Antoni's Suns showed it can be done as long as you don't get royally screwed over. They just didn't get the breaks that a lot of championship teams are able to get (e.g. Wade and the Heat in 2006).

how is that fair? it's not like he got screwed over in the Finals, he never even got to the Finals... you're making an awful lot of assumptions that he would have won a championship had his team not been screwed over by the refs, i mean come on, that's just a weak copout... so the Knicks would have won a championship in '97 if they hadn't been screwed over by the NBA in that series vs. the Heat in the 2nd round of the playoffs?

I'm not assuming they would have won a championship, I'm just saying that I think they got close enough to the point that if certain things had gone a certain way, they could have potentially won a title. I mean, they got within 2 games of the Finals in 2006 and they were short-handed as hell. When a team gets to the Conference Finals 2 straight seasons in a very tough conference, while dealing with significant injuries in the process, it shows me that whatever style of play they employed is probably good enough to win it all even if it didn't get the job done that particular year.

Is that really that difficult to believe? That the Suns could have won a championship using that style of play? Is it that much of a stretch to say they could have won a title in 2006 when they got within 2 games of the Finals without their 2nd best player?

Several times in this thread people have said D'Antoni's system can't win a title. I don't honestly see how someone can defend that claim when D'Antoni's Suns were short-handed and still came close. That's my argument.

no, u can't really defend that claim since it's all speculation, but the arguments pro-MDA's system are all speculation as well... in the end, all we know is that he hasn't been able to win a championship with the perfect roster to run his system... i wouldn't place any money on him winning one here w/a roster we haven't even put together yet... if we get Lebron & Bosh this summer obviously perspectives can change.

nixluva wrote:

TMS wrote:

s3231 wrote:

TMS wrote:

s3231 wrote:

TMS wrote:ur right, there's more than 1 way to win... still no one has been able to provide me with an example of a team that's won a championship playing MDA's style of ball...

Well, to be fair, I think D'Antoni's Suns showed it can be done as long as you don't get royally screwed over. They just didn't get the breaks that a lot of championship teams are able to get (e.g. Wade and the Heat in 2006).

how is that fair? it's not like he got screwed over in the Finals, he never even got to the Finals... you're making an awful lot of assumptions that he would have won a championship had his team not been screwed over by the refs, i mean come on, that's just a weak copout... so the Knicks would have won a championship in '97 if they hadn't been screwed over by the NBA in that series vs. the Heat in the 2nd round of the playoffs?

I'm not assuming they would have won a championship, I'm just saying that I think they got close enough to the point that if certain things had gone a certain way, they could have potentially won a title. I mean, they got within 2 games of the Finals in 2006 and they were short-handed as hell. When a team gets to the Conference Finals 2 straight seasons in a very tough conference, while dealing with significant injuries in the process, it shows me that whatever style of play they employed is probably good enough to win it all even if it didn't get the job done that particular year.

Is that really that difficult to believe? That the Suns could have won a championship using that style of play? Is it that much of a stretch to say they could have won a title in 2006 when they got within 2 games of the Finals without their 2nd best player?

Several times in this thread people have said D'Antoni's system can't win a title. I don't honestly see how someone can defend that claim when D'Antoni's Suns were short-handed and still came close. That's my argument.

no, u can't really defend that claim since it's all speculation, but the arguments pro-MDA's system are all speculation as well... in the end, all we know is that he hasn't been able to win a championship with the perfect roster to run his system... i wouldn't place any money on him winning one here w/a roster we haven't even put together yet... if we get Lebron & Bosh this summer obviously perspectives can change.

You keep sayin that the PHX roster was perfect to run his system and that's far from true. MDA's actual perfect team would be one with multiple playmakers at positions other than PG. In it's purest form the PG wouldn't dominate the ball as much as Nash does. Amare didn't shoot well at 1st but did develop his jumper, so he wasn't prototypical MDA big either. Right now Lee is more of an MDA player due to his superior passing ability. MDA wants a team full of ball movers and shooters and rangey long ballhawks to play the passing lanes and keep the other team taking low % shots. He doesn't want fouls but steals and blocks that lead to fastbreaks.

ok, i'll entertain that thought... what do u think would be the perfect team to run his system then? give me a semi realistic roster to give me an idea of what u feel is needed to run his system to full potential.

s3231 wrote:My argument is how the hell did D'Antoni have the perfect roster to employ his system when they faced significant injuries each time they attempted to win a title?

We never got to see that team at full strength vie for a title because of injuries, suspensions, etc.

And yet, they still got to the Conference Finals 2 straight years in a tough conference. Not to mention, they were the #1 seed in 2005.

It's convenient to mention that PHX lost but not to mention J Johnson was hurt in 2005 WCF, Amare was out in 2006 and then you had the Hack job on Nash and suspensions. Some bad luck factored in there.

TMS, I'm no GM but let's just say that the goal is to add players who have the kind of overall skills n BB IQ to make good decisions with the ball. I already mentioned that Lee is a good example except that he's weak defensively. Players that can handle the ball, pass, shoot, run...

We already know the top targets and their strengths. We already have a few core players that can excel in this style. This is the NBA where a few key additions can completely change a teams fortunes. We add two studs and this team is gonna be in contention. DW is most likey going after two way players to help improve the D.

TMS wrote:u guys are avoiding the question... the question i asked is if u don't think MDA had the perfect roster to run his system in Phoenix, then give me an example of a roster that u feel is perfectly suited to run it... i can't think of one... guys that can handle the ball, pass, shoot, run... seems to me that a roster with Steve Nash, Shawn Marion, Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudamire, Quentin Richardson & Jim Jackson fits that to a tee... i don't see how u can do much better than that within any realistic scenarios.

nixluva, u like to throw these statements around implying that people have a personal agenda against MDA by only pointing out a part of the truth, but all i've seen you do whenever we have these discussions is to gloss over parts of the truth that don't suit your argument... for example, why was Jonathan Bender playing at all this season? u've said MDA only plays guys who are ready to play multiple times, but everytime the Bender example is pointed out you clam up... why don't u have a logical explanation? because there are none... just accept the fact that MDA makes headscratching decisions & that's why people have a problem with him around here.

Why should we give you a roster that is perfectly suited to run it? I mean is anyone really expecting Donnie and Mike to acquire such a roster in one off-season? I know that I'm not expecting that. What I am expecting though, is for Donnie to start building a team this summer, which means acquiring the type of players that will fit well with D'Antoni. We are at the starting point right now and it's not fair to ask for a "perfectly suited" roster because we haven't even started building a team yet and if I give you a hypothetical roster that would be great, it would be unrealistic to think we could put it together in one off-season. And frankly, I could care less about having something "perfectly suited." How do you define perfection? All I care about is putting a good enough roster that can play well enough in D'Antoni's system to win a title.

You start acquiring the type of players that fit D'Antoni's system though and then you make the necessary changes to get to the highest level possible. Lee is one such player that has shown he can play in the system. You can keep him and add someone like Joe Johnson or who knows, maybe you have a shot at signing Bosh and you combine him with someone like Joe Johnson instead. I'm not advocating either option, I'm just saying there is plenty of flexibility in terms of what we can do as a starting point. You don't have to add all of your pieces overnight.

Then after next season, with Curry coming off the books, you could potentially have room for another max slot (I'm not going to argue this again because I showed in another thread that it is possible with careful planning). Hell, in 2 seasons the Knicks could potentially have a core along the lines of Melo, Joe Johnson, David Lee, Gallo, and Douglas. You surround those 5 guys with the right pieces and I think you can contend in D'Antoni's system.

The problem is, people think the cap space is the only resource we have for improvement. It's not. Hell, did the Celtics win with just Pierce, Allen, and Garnett? No, they didn't. They used their assets wisely to bring in stars like Allen and Garnett but they also used some low first round picks to draft guys like Perkins and Rondo. Of course, once they had those players on the team, it then become much easier to bring in guys like Posey, Cassell, etc.

If we start slowly adding the right players, we can get to that point. Walsh has put us in a position to get a franchise player the quickest way possible. If it works, great. If not, we use our flexibility to slowly accumulate the assets to get to that point. Donnie never, ever, promised us a championship roster in 3 years and I think Knicks fans have to remember that. What he did promise, was to clear the cap space to hopefully get us there sooner and he has done precisely that. Now that Walsh has the resources to get D'Antoni his guys, why can't we be patient and give these 2 the chance to deliver?

sebstar wrote:Exactly. The celtics used their assets wisely. Was it wise to dump a chunk of our assets just to move Jeffries, when according to you we're not even going to use that space for a significant move this offseason? Thats not wise.

Ya'll seem to be moving the goalposts back. Its going on two years now, stop playin.

Where did I say we're not going to use that space? You're putting words in my mouth now. I said we don't necessarily HAVE to use it to be successful in the long run. Hell, even in the scenario I outlined above with us getting Melo and Johnson while keeping Lee, we are using that cap space to make that happen. You think Joe Johnson and Lee is a possibility without trading Jeffries?

Let me ask you something, would it have been wise to not dump Jeffries and then let Lee walk at the end of the season and only have the cap space to bring in one max player? Knowing that LeBron probably wouldn't come to a losing situation, what is the point of having cap for one max?

Walsh has essentially admitted he had to overpay but to me, it's a risk worth taking. This is the best free agent class in the history of the NBA and we set ourselves up for a once in a lifetime opportunity to grab a player that can potentially be the best to ever play the game when his career is over.

The risk might not pay off, but we had to do it. If we lost out on LeBron and Bosh because we didn't want to trade Jeffries, you know how absurd that would be?

The upside is that even if we can't get those guys and we end up losing assets for nothing, we still have the resources to vastly improve this team in a relatively quick amount of time.

s3231 wrote:

sebstar wrote:Exactly. The celtics used their assets wisely. Was it wise to dump a chunk of our assets just to move Jeffries, when according to you we're not even going to use that space for a significant move this offseason? Thats not wise.

Ya'll seem to be moving the goalposts back. Its going on two years now, stop playin.

Where did I say we're not going to use that space? You're putting words in my mouth now. I said we don't necessarily HAVE to use it to be successful in the long run. Hell, even in the scenario I outlined above with us getting Melo and Johnson while keeping Lee, we are using that cap space to make that happen. You think Joe Johnson and Lee is a possibility without trading Jeffries?

Let me ask you something, would it have been wise to not dump Jeffries and then let Lee walk at the end of the season and only have the cap space to bring in one max player? Knowing that LeBron probably wouldn't come to a losing situation, what is the point of having cap for one max?

Walsh has essentially admitted he had to overpay but to me, it's a risk worth taking. This is the best free agent class in the history of the NBA and we set ourselves up for a once in a lifetime opportunity to grab a player that can potentially be the best to ever play the game when his career is over.

The risk might not pay off, but we had to do it. If we lost out on LeBron and Bosh because we didn't want to trade Jeffries, you know how absurd that would be?

The upside is that even if we can't get those guys and we end up losing assets for nothing, we still have the resources to vastly improve this team in a relatively quick amount of time.

If Lee was that much of a priority then we should have re-signed him last offseason.

We drafted Hill with the idea that he was going to be a replacement for Lee if things fell apart with him in negotiations. If we really had designs toward Lee like that, then he should have moved in a different direction in the '08 draft. As things stand now, it was a completely wasted pick. We are obviously not in a position to waste assets.

If we re-sign Lee then we paid an absurdly high price just to remain neutral.

We could have re-signed Lee last offseason. Signed one max this next offseason and used assets like Hill, future draft picks and the expirings of Jeffries and Curry to further reshape the team without boxing ourselves in a rail. In addition, we would have had a lot more leverage in negotiations. Thats the point.

Walsh now must do something drastic this offseason to justify the trade. Bottom line.

sidsanders wrote:

s3231 wrote:

sebstar wrote:Exactly. The celtics used their assets wisely. Was it wise to dump a chunk of our assets just to move Jeffries, when according to you we're not even going to use that space for a significant move this offseason? Thats not wise.

Ya'll seem to be moving the goalposts back. Its going on two years now, stop playin.

Where did I say we're not going to use that space? You're putting words in my mouth now. I said we don't necessarily HAVE to use it to be successful in the long run.

Let me ask you something, would it have been wise to not dump Jeffries and then let Lee walk at the end of the season and only have the cap space to bring in one max player? Knowing that LeBron probably wouldn't come to a losing situation, what is the point of having cap for one max?

Walsh has essentially admitted he had to overpay but to me, it's a risk worth taking. This is the best free agent class in the history of the NBA and we set ourselves up for a once in a lifetime opportunity to grab a player that can potentially be the best to ever play the game when his career is over.

The risk might not pay off, but we had to do it. If we lost out on LeBron and Bosh because we didn't want to trade Jeffries, you know how absurd that would be?

The upside is that even if we can't get those guys and we end up losing assets for nothing, we still have the resources to vastly improve this team in a relatively quick amount of time.

this wouldnt have been an issue had the dealt with lee prior to now by either trading him or signing him to a long term deal. if the arg against the long term signing (back then) is the 2010 FA class, then doing all these maneuvers to resign him later at both higher cost and the expense of assets is awful. thats on the FO. i think its fair to say the 09 draft was messed up, at least the lottery pick. whether you like or hate hill, that process was handled poorly. he was either the wrong pick, or wasnt given a chance before being shipped out.

im not pleased with how some of these things went... i expected 30 wins (max). based on that, i expected them to try all season to find some guys who could fit in long term, and that process didnt start until recently. that strikes me as a team who is playing for something might try. this team wasnt in that situation and if we are to believe we had no chances for the past 2 years, why was it not the goal of playing young/cheap guys looking for some takers?

Agree 100% on the Lee part and I was one of the few advocating that we re-sign him last summer. I thought at worst, we could always trade him for value if he signed him to a reasonable deal before he played a full season and ended up with incredible stats. Instead, we put ourselves in a position where if we want to bring back Lee, which we may have to do if we strike out on other free agents, we will have to pay him at a higher price than what we could have gotten him for during the summer. Trading him during this year's deadline was essentially a non-option because no one wants to trade for a guy they might not have a shot at re-signing.

As far as the 2nd part about the young guys, it's tough to give young guys minutes when they show they aren't ready to contribute. I saw every second of Douglas and Hill when they got a few minutes early on in the season and I think we can all agree that they looked lost out there for the most part. Some coaches think it's better to just throw your young guys out there regardless and let them learn by making mistakes. Other coaches, want their young guys to earn their minutes. I don't know which side is correct but can you really blame a coach for taking that 2nd view? I mean, it doesn't sound crazy by any means and Douglas has even admitted that he learned a lot by sitting and watching.

I do agree that the draft wasn't handled well. Again, I'm not saying Walsh (or D'Antoni for that matter) is perfect by any means. And contrary to what some may believe by now, I don't blindly support the moves that they both make. Hell, I criticized Walsh as much as anyone last off-season for his handling of Lee and I've criticized Mike plenty of times in game threads for moves that I felt may have cost us games. With that said, I still think we're heading into the right direction.