mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:I said it before and it still holds, Hinkie still has to show he can build a team. What Phil got criticized for by all the young Metrics guys is his reliance on good ole BBall Principles. Phil wasn't saying Analytics doesn't play a role but he also made sure that good ole fashioned BBall Widsom was used in vetting the players he brought in. Phil and his staff did their due diligence in terms of not just talent but the mental makeup of the players and their fit for Phil's style of basketball.

Phil went into this summer with crystal clear roles he wanted filled. He actually KNOWS how to construct a team based on his experience and the needs of his chosen system. This allowed him to envision the skills his players needed and go and look for players who had those skills. He didn't need analytics to do that. He and his old school guys used BOTH new and old methods to do the best they could.
Phil used an "All of the above approach" rather than rely mostly on Analytics.

He really needs to rely more on analytics and stop letting us take so many mid range shots. He is way too reliant on offensive rebounds to save our azzes from a lot of inefficient offense.

I suspect it's a little premature to conclude what won Jackson an unprecedented number of rings (relatively recently) is a relic of the past.

Perhaps a little more history will prove otherwise, but in 2015 it's simply too soon.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:I said it before and it still holds, Hinkie still has to show he can build a team. What Phil got criticized for by all the young Metrics guys is his reliance on good ole BBall Principles. Phil wasn't saying Analytics doesn't play a role but he also made sure that good ole fashioned BBall Widsom was used in vetting the players he brought in. Phil and his staff did their due diligence in terms of not just talent but the mental makeup of the players and their fit for Phil's style of basketball.

Phil went into this summer with crystal clear roles he wanted filled. He actually KNOWS how to construct a team based on his experience and the needs of his chosen system. This allowed him to envision the skills his players needed and go and look for players who had those skills. He didn't need analytics to do that. He and his old school guys used BOTH new and old methods to do the best they could.
Phil used an "All of the above approach" rather than rely mostly on Analytics.

He really needs to rely more on analytics and stop letting us take so many mid range shots. He is way too reliant on offensive rebounds to save our azzes from a lot of inefficient offense.

I suspect it's a little premature to conclude what won Jackson an unprecedented number of rings (relatively recently) is a relic of the past.

Perhaps a little more history will prove otherwise, but in 2015 it's simply too soon.

great coaching, greatest players of all time, great great rebounding

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:I said it before and it still holds, Hinkie still has to show he can build a team. What Phil got criticized for by all the young Metrics guys is his reliance on good ole BBall Principles. Phil wasn't saying Analytics doesn't play a role but he also made sure that good ole fashioned BBall Widsom was used in vetting the players he brought in. Phil and his staff did their due diligence in terms of not just talent but the mental makeup of the players and their fit for Phil's style of basketball.

Phil went into this summer with crystal clear roles he wanted filled. He actually KNOWS how to construct a team based on his experience and the needs of his chosen system. This allowed him to envision the skills his players needed and go and look for players who had those skills. He didn't need analytics to do that. He and his old school guys used BOTH new and old methods to do the best they could.
Phil used an "All of the above approach" rather than rely mostly on Analytics.

He really needs to rely more on analytics and stop letting us take so many mid range shots. He is way too reliant on offensive rebounds to save our azzes from a lot of inefficient offense.

I suspect it's a little premature to conclude what won Jackson an unprecedented number of rings (relatively recently) is a relic of the past.

Perhaps a little more history will prove otherwise, but in 2015 it's simply too soon.

great coaching, greatest players of all time, great great rebounding

Knicks are 20th in 3pt attempts, which isn't great but a good improvement given the offense we run.

Knicks are 9th in Rebounds, which is a MASSIVE improvement and a hallmark of a Phil Jackson team.

Knicks are 3rd in Opponent 3pt %, at only 30% and they're 10th in FG% allowing 42.8%

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:I said it before and it still holds, Hinkie still has to show he can build a team. What Phil got criticized for by all the young Metrics guys is his reliance on good ole BBall Principles. Phil wasn't saying Analytics doesn't play a role but he also made sure that good ole fashioned BBall Widsom was used in vetting the players he brought in. Phil and his staff did their due diligence in terms of not just talent but the mental makeup of the players and their fit for Phil's style of basketball.

Phil went into this summer with crystal clear roles he wanted filled. He actually KNOWS how to construct a team based on his experience and the needs of his chosen system. This allowed him to envision the skills his players needed and go and look for players who had those skills. He didn't need analytics to do that. He and his old school guys used BOTH new and old methods to do the best they could.
Phil used an "All of the above approach" rather than rely mostly on Analytics.

He really needs to rely more on analytics and stop letting us take so many mid range shots. He is way too reliant on offensive rebounds to save our azzes from a lot of inefficient offense.

I suspect it's a little premature to conclude what won Jackson an unprecedented number of rings (relatively recently) is a relic of the past.

Perhaps a little more history will prove otherwise, but in 2015 it's simply too soon.

great coaching, greatest players of all time, great great rebounding

Knicks are fully aware of the importance of taking more 3's. They've already made an increase over last year, while at the same time improving their defense against the 3pt shot over last year.

Knicks are 20th in 3pt attempts, which isn't great but a good improvement given the offense we run.

Knicks are 9th in Rebounds, which is a MASSIVE improvement and a hallmark of a Phil Jackson team.

Knicks are 3rd in Opponent 3pt %, at only 30% and they're 10th in FG% allowing 42.8%

They have def improved their defense of the 3 and now realize the importance of running players off the three. Good point.

they are 1st in attempts from 10-16 feet and 5th from 16-23. 36 percent of their shots between 10-23 feet. Way too much.

They are 5th in offensive rebound (rate) which is helping hide their inefficient shot selection.

Many teams will just not take these shots no matter what. We are allowed to take them. Mentioned this numerous times last year with Jason Smith.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:I said it before and it still holds, Hinkie still has to show he can build a team. What Phil got criticized for by all the young Metrics guys is his reliance on good ole BBall Principles. Phil wasn't saying Analytics doesn't play a role but he also made sure that good ole fashioned BBall Widsom was used in vetting the players he brought in. Phil and his staff did their due diligence in terms of not just talent but the mental makeup of the players and their fit for Phil's style of basketball.

Phil went into this summer with crystal clear roles he wanted filled. He actually KNOWS how to construct a team based on his experience and the needs of his chosen system. This allowed him to envision the skills his players needed and go and look for players who had those skills. He didn't need analytics to do that. He and his old school guys used BOTH new and old methods to do the best they could.
Phil used an "All of the above approach" rather than rely mostly on Analytics.

He really needs to rely more on analytics and stop letting us take so many mid range shots. He is way too reliant on offensive rebounds to save our azzes from a lot of inefficient offense.

I suspect it's a little premature to conclude what won Jackson an unprecedented number of rings (relatively recently) is a relic of the past.

Perhaps a little more history will prove otherwise, but in 2015 it's simply too soon.

great coaching, greatest players of all time, great great rebounding

Knicks are fully aware of the importance of taking more 3's. They've already made an increase over last year, while at the same time improving their defense against the 3pt shot over last year.

Knicks are 20th in 3pt attempts, which isn't great but a good improvement given the offense we run.

Knicks are 9th in Rebounds, which is a MASSIVE improvement and a hallmark of a Phil Jackson team.

Knicks are 3rd in Opponent 3pt %, at only 30% and they're 10th in FG% allowing 42.8%

They have def improved their defense of the 3 and now realize the importance of running players off the three. Good point.

they are 1st in attempts from 10-16 feet and 5th from 16-23. 36 percent of their shots between 10-23 feet. Way too much.

They are 5th in offensive rebound (rate) which is helping hide their inefficient shot selection.

Many teams will just not take these shots no matter what. We are allowed to take them. Mentioned this numerous times last year with Jason Smith.

Have you considered there might be a correlation between shooting mid-level jumpers and offense rebounding?

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:I said it before and it still holds, Hinkie still has to show he can build a team. What Phil got criticized for by all the young Metrics guys is his reliance on good ole BBall Principles. Phil wasn't saying Analytics doesn't play a role but he also made sure that good ole fashioned BBall Widsom was used in vetting the players he brought in. Phil and his staff did their due diligence in terms of not just talent but the mental makeup of the players and their fit for Phil's style of basketball.

Phil went into this summer with crystal clear roles he wanted filled. He actually KNOWS how to construct a team based on his experience and the needs of his chosen system. This allowed him to envision the skills his players needed and go and look for players who had those skills. He didn't need analytics to do that. He and his old school guys used BOTH new and old methods to do the best they could.
Phil used an "All of the above approach" rather than rely mostly on Analytics.

He really needs to rely more on analytics and stop letting us take so many mid range shots. He is way too reliant on offensive rebounds to save our azzes from a lot of inefficient offense.

I suspect it's a little premature to conclude what won Jackson an unprecedented number of rings (relatively recently) is a relic of the past.

Perhaps a little more history will prove otherwise, but in 2015 it's simply too soon.

great coaching, greatest players of all time, great great rebounding

Knicks are fully aware of the importance of taking more 3's. They've already made an increase over last year, while at the same time improving their defense against the 3pt shot over last year.

Knicks are 20th in 3pt attempts, which isn't great but a good improvement given the offense we run.

Knicks are 9th in Rebounds, which is a MASSIVE improvement and a hallmark of a Phil Jackson team.

Knicks are 3rd in Opponent 3pt %, at only 30% and they're 10th in FG% allowing 42.8%

They have def improved their defense of the 3 and now realize the importance of running players off the three. Good point.

they are 1st in attempts from 10-16 feet and 5th from 16-23. 36 percent of their shots between 10-23 feet. Way too much.

They are 5th in offensive rebound (rate) which is helping hide their inefficient shot selection.

Many teams will just not take these shots no matter what. We are allowed to take them. Mentioned this numerous times last year with Jason Smith.

Have you considered there might be a correlation between shooting mid-level jumpers and offense rebounding?

not following. What do you mean?

I'm not concluding anything, I'm asking a question.

Jackson's system has been highly successful in the past and rebounding as always been a staple.

I'm suggesting maybe it's worth looking into the question of if you have the right personnel up front, maybe the mid-range aspects of the triangle lend itself to offensive rebounding?

So as opposed to assuming one as having no relation to but being a saving grace of the other, maybe there is a natural relation?

Perhaps, again, given the right personnel and run correctly, offensive boards are an inherent upside to the system and that strength has to be weighed and considered along with some shortcomings you are identifying.

I think it's worth asking and you strike me as someone interested in an answer and not someone who'd dismiss the idea out of hand.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:Are you saying that perhaps it is the triangle itself that has our players in better rebounding position? Maybe ... I would assume that it has more to do with having guys like Rodman, Shaq, etc ... and big guards.

Not a big fan of assuming myself.

Detroit is right at the top in offensive rebounds and they take very few mid range shots.

You're confusing causation. I'm not suggesting you can ONLY be a good offensive rebounding team if you shoot a lot of mid-range jump shots.

How competitive do the Sixers look tonight, btw? Is it a good down by 29 or a bad down by 29?? :-)

The sixers look terrible ... I have no allegiances that cloud my judgement. I call it as I see it.

I did not confuse causation. I did not suggest that you said that you can only be a good offensive rebounding team if you take a lot of mid range shots. Don't know how you landed there.

You are trying to make a stab correlation that has no basis and if anything, there is data to support that mid range shots do not yield offensive rebounds. If fact, there is a better chance of getting an offensive rebound off a 3 than off a mid range j.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:You are trying to make a stab correlation that has no basis and if anything, there is data to support that mid range shots do not yield offensive rebounds. If fact, there is a better chance of getting an offensive rebound off a 3 than off a mid range j.

Bigger picture, maybe the triangle does.

LOL

Maybe players who sell ice cream in the summer get more rebounds in the winter.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:You are trying to make a stab correlation that has no basis and if anything, there is data to support that mid range shots do not yield offensive rebounds. If fact, there is a better chance of getting an offensive rebound off a 3 than off a mid range j.

Bigger picture, maybe the triangle does.

LOL

Maybe players who sell ice cream in the summer get more rebounds in the winter.

Not sure I understand your response. Do you have data that answers the question?

that players who sell ice cream in the summer get more rebounds in the winter? Do you have data that proves otherwise? If you want to hypothesize then the onus is on you to make the case.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:You are trying to make a stab correlation that has no basis and if anything, there is data to support that mid range shots do not yield offensive rebounds. If fact, there is a better chance of getting an offensive rebound off a 3 than off a mid range j.

Bigger picture, maybe the triangle does.

LOL

Maybe players who sell ice cream in the summer get more rebounds in the winter.

Not sure I understand your response. Do you have data that answers the question?

that players who sell ice cream in the summer get more rebounds in the winter? Do you have data that proves otherwise? If you want to hypothesize then the onus is on you to make the case.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking a question. If neither of us can answer that question, that's cool by me.

I have no idea.

Don't think that you can ever compile enough usable data to begin. Nobody really runs the triangle, how would you be able to compare apples to apples?