OT: Spotlight getting brighter on Carmelo in Gotham

[DoctorBombay]

Never been a fan of DAntoni, even when he was in Phoenix. NYC & their sports teams have a defense-first identity, kinda like Pittsburgh, Chicago, Philly, etc.
DAntoni brought a Suns/Lakers/Nuggets "Western" mentality to NYC- that was a mistake IMO. Also, Melo & Amare are basically the same player, but Melo is better. The HC's job is to mesh the parts availble & tweak his "system" accordingly. I have no faith in DAntoni being able to do that- not with his "offense-first" mentality.
Fire DAntoni, bring in a "better" coach that understands what it takes to win in the East & NYC.

 

[Knicks411]

I think the defensive mentality of NY is being made into a bigger issue than it really is.

Yes, the mid 90's Knicks were built on defense first. But the problem right now is the offense isn't any good, period. (Nor is the defense much better). If the Knicks had a top 5 offense, I don't think as many people would be complaining. Which doesn't mean don't fire the coach, but I don't think they need to target specifically a coach who is a defense first coach or anything like that.

 

[44cuse]

Chandler/Melo/Paul would look pretty good though...

Amare looks beat.

Let's put some facts to this. Amare's production:

WP48
02-03: .116
03-04: .029
04-05: .162
05-06: -.033
06-07: .163
07-08: .208
08-09: .077
09-10: .098
10-11: .070
11-12: -.061

He's having the worst season of his career. Coming off the 4th worst season of his career.

D'Antoni isn't likely to win with this team because this team isn't built for his system. IMO< he's not going to win with his system either because he had good teams (and Steve Nash) and couldn't beat the Spurs and the Lakers (well rounded teams). So while Melo may be a part of the problem, he is a far smaller part of the problem than Amare and D'Antoni.

44cuse

 

[Knicks411]

I'm going to defend D'Antoni a little bit; he has every chance in the world of beating the Spurs in 07 if the suspensions for leaving the bench don't come down. That wasn't because of the system.

Which doesn't mean I don't disagree; I am ready for him to b e gone.

 

[44cuse]

I'm going to defend D'Antoni a little bit; he has every chance in the world of beating the Spurs in 07 if the suspensions for leaving the bench don't come down. That wasn't because of the system.

Which doesn't mean I don't disagree; I am ready for him to b e gone.

You know I love your NBA takes...and I know we ultimately agree on this...but 1 season doesn't do it for me.

Suns:
Lost to the Spurs 4 times in D'Antoni's tenure (2 of them 4-1). Where I was wrong was the LAkers...interesting they beat the Lakers in every playoff series they played them. Amazing. It was the Mavs they lost to in the Western Conference Finals (I think).

Point is, I just don't think there is enough evidence to say that his system can win a Championship (and I think you are agreeing with that).

44cuse

 

[Knicks411]

That is pretty funny about the Lakers, but I think most of those series were in b etween the Shaq and Gasol eras, when the Lakers weren't an elite team, so not the best comp anyway. (They lost to the Lakers in 2010 in the West Finals, basically playing the D'Antoni system, but without him coaching the team They finally beat the Spurs that year as well).

I'm just saying, they had a chance to beat the Spurs in 07, they had home court, they were 2-2 and then they lose Amare and Diaw for a game, lose game 5 at home by 3, and lose the series. They made the West finals in 05, 06, and then lost that series in the West semi-finals in 07. Not a bad run, but yeah they didn't win a title.

It is interesting in how you define his system, because prior to say 1990 or so, most every NBA champion played at a faster pace than the D'Antoni Suns did. ( The 2005 Suns averaged 95 possessions per game. Just as an example, the Bad Boy Pistons averaged 95 possessions per game, and they were last in the league that year. So just to make that point again, the 2005 Suns, who were considered revolutionary because of the pace they played, would've been the slowest team in the league 15 years prior . And I grant it isn't just the pace, it was the amount of 3's they chucked, and the relatively small lineup they played, just making a point).

I sometimes feel like systems are focused on a little too much; should every team try and play the triangle because Phil won 11 titles with it? Is that the only system that can win a title? I don't think there is any question the middle of the decade Suns wouldn't have won more games if they played a different style; for the players they had, they had to play like that, and they were pretty successful, although they didn't win a title.

So I don't see why a team can't win a title playing what we can call a "D'Antoni system", but it's going to be pretty hard when A) there is only one team playing like that, and B) you need to beat a team that has Tim Duncan on it. I could just as easily turn it around and say they didn't win the title because you can't win a title without an elite superstar, and that was the failure, not the system. If their 2 guard was Kobe instead of Raja Bell, they probably win a title, system be damned.

I guess this is all a long winded way of saying I guess i don't know for sure, but I think the biggest reason the Suns didn't win a title was Tim Duncan, not the pace they played at.

 

[moqui]

That is pretty funny about the Lakers, but I think most of those series were in b etween the Shaq and Gasol eras, when the Lakers weren't an elite team.

e.g, the Kobe era

 

[44cuse]

That is pretty funny about the Lakers, but I think most of those series were in b etween the Shaq and Gasol eras, when the Lakers weren't an elite team, so not the best comp anyway. (They lost to the Lakers in 2010 in the West Finals, basically playing the D'Antoni system, but without him coaching the team They finally beat the Spurs that year as well).

I'm just saying, they had a chance to beat the Spurs in 07, they had home court, they were 2-2 and then they lose Amare and Diaw for a game, lose game 5 at home by 3, and lose the series. They made the West finals in 05, 06, and then lost that series in the West semi-finals in 07. Not a bad run, but yeah they didn't win a title.

It is interesting in how you define his system, because prior to say 1990 or so, most every NBA champion played at a faster pace than the D'Antoni Suns did. ( The 2005 Suns averaged 95 possessions per game. Just as an example, the Bad Boy Pistons averaged 95 possessions per game, and they were last in the league that year. So just to make that point again, the 2005 Suns, who were considered revolutionary because of the pace they played, would've been the slowest team in the league 15 years prior . And I grant it isn't just the pace, it was the amount of 3's they chucked, and the relatively small lineup they played, just making a point).

I sometimes feel like systems are focused on a little too much; should every team try and play the triangle because Phil won 11 titles with it? Is that the only system that can win a title? I don't think there is any question the middle of the decade Suns wouldn't have won more games if they played a different style; for the players they had, they had to play like that, and they were pretty successful, although they didn't win a title.

So I don't see why a team can't win a title playing what we can call a "D'Antoni system", but it's going to be pretty hard when A) there is only one team playing like that, and B) you need to beat a team that has Tim Duncan on it. I could just as easily turn it around and say they didn't win the title because you can't win a title without an elite superstar, and that was the failure, not the system. If their 2 guard was Kobe instead of Raja Bell, they probably win a title, system be damned.

I guess this is all a long winded way of saying I guess i don't know for sure, but I think the biggest reason the Suns didn't win a title was Tim Duncan, not the pace they played at.

That Pistons stat is a great stat. I knew the game had slowed (which I believe is best measured by possessions..but I know some disagree) but had no idea that Piston stat. That's pretty amazing actually.

Not that we will ever know, but I guess my view is that if it were just Duncan, they wouldn't have been 5-16 against the Spurs having not won a single series. When I combine that with what I see on the Knicks, just feels more like that system won't win a championship. AND...full disclosure...I didn't believe this prior to him going to the Knicks (at least not as much as I do now).

I also watch a ton of Warrior games so I get to see the only other team at least trying to play that style for the least 8 years and they fail miserable as well. And totally agree on Kobe. With him on that team, they win 2 Championships.

44cuse

 

[Knicks411]

That Pistons stat is a great stat. I knew the game had slowed (which I believe is best measured by possessions..but I know some disagree) but had no idea that Piston stat. That's pretty amazing actually.

Pretty crazy, right? I just looked it up and was pretty amazed.

Not that we will ever know, but I guess my view is that if it were just Duncan, they wouldn't have been 5-16 against the Spurs having not won a single series. When I combine that with what I see on the Knicks, just feels more like that system won't win a championship. AND...full disclosure...I didn't believe this prior to him going to the Knicks (at least not as much as I do now).

My point on Duncan was just that Duncan is one of the greatest players in the history of the game. We can talk about systems all we want, but in hoops, more often than not, if one team has one of the best players ever, and the other team doesn't, the first team is going to win. If the Suns played a more conventional system, the Spurs would still beat them, but no one would say they can't win because of their system, they'd say they can't win because the Spurs are better. N o one says, I don't know, the Hawks to pick a team can't win cause of their system. They can't win because they aren't good enough. I think anything that is different gets singled out, and people look to discredit it if it doesn't hold to conventional wisdom. (And a lot of times conventional wisdom is just that for a reason; it could be right).

And I think you can throw the Knicks out; for a few reasons. 1) they don't have the players to run his preferred system, and 2) they aren't really running it anyway. I don't know about his system as a whole, but i am pretty sure you won't win a title playing a D'Antoni system if you're PG is Toney Douglas. (Inf act I'm pretty sure you won't win a championship in any system if your PG is Toney Douglas, which is kind of the point).

Do I think a team can win a title playing at the fastest pace in the league? I'm sure they can; I'm pretty sure it's happened before, and weren't the Russell celtics known for that? (Not sure if they played the fastest pace in the league, but I bet it was pretty close, and if you want some crazy possession #'s, look at those stats).

I sometimes think when people say teams can't win playing the D'Antoni system, that is more of a shorthand for winning with a bad defense, which is a different story. They ranked int he 16, 17 range defensively in their heyday, which is both not as bad as one might think, but still not very good. I would say it is pretty hard to win a title if your defense is middle of the pack at best.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Melo is shooting 40% from the floor as a whole this year and 32% from three. As a guy who is all but a lock to be in the top 4 for shots taken this year... thats very scary, from a Knicks perspective. Thats like late-stage Allen Iverson bad.

 

[44cuse]

My point on Duncan was just that Duncan is one of the greatest players in the history of the game. We can talk about systems all we want, but in hoops, more often than not, if one team has one of the best players ever, and the other team doesn't, the first team is going to win.

LeBron is better than Dirk. Wade is better than You Choose (Mavs #2). I think Duncan is awesome, but I don't and have never bought into it was all Duncan. IMO it discredits how good their 2-7 guys were and how great of a coach Gregg P is.

I would say it is pretty hard to win a title if your defense is middle of the pack at best.

And to me, that's the whole point. I don't think D'Antoni emphasizes defense and hasn't in PHX or NYK. You have to have the ability to stop the other team at some point. And that is where Nash comes into question. Of course you want him on your team...one of the great facilitators of all time. But defensively? Liability.

44cuse

 

[Knicks411]

Not my intent to discredit Pop; I think the guy is a great great coach. But Duncan, IMO is one of the 10 best players in the history of the game, give or take. The Suns had no one like that. You can play any system you want, if one team has an all time great, plus other good players and a great coach, and the other team doesn't have the all time great, then who do you think is gonna win? I think the system is getting too much of the focus. Duncan is better than any Sun, Pop is a better coach than D'Antoni; it's not a failing of their system they lost. They weren't as good. (And they still had a chance to win in 07).

As for the emphasis on defense, I think I agree with you for the most part. But take Nash and Amare; those guys are going to be bad at defense no matter what your system is. So it's less a failing of the system and more a failing of the players. Though certainly you can make the argument that there wasn't enough of an emphasis placed on D by the coach, which I think is fair.

 

[realorange]

Yea, im a huge Melo fan but even I have begun to groan when he gets the ball and goes iso.

Did you ever think he might have meant it's a problem because he has to get 35 a night for the Knicks to have a chance?

 

[44cuse]

Not my intent to discredit Pop; I think the guy is a great great coach. But Duncan, IMO is one of the 10 best players in the history of the game, give or take. The Suns had no one like that. You can play any system you want, if one team has an all time great, plus other good players and a great coach, and the other team doesn't have the all time great, then who do you think is gonna win? I think the system is getting too much of the focus. Duncan is better than any Sun, Pop is a better coach than D'Antoni; it's not a failing of their system they lost. They weren't as good. (And they still had a chance to win in 07).

As for the emphasis on defense, I think I agree with you for the most part. But take Nash and Amare; those guys are going to be bad at defense no matter what your system is. So it's less a failing of the system and more a failing of the players. Though certainly you can make the argument that there wasn't enough of an emphasis placed on D by the coach, which I think is fair.

We can agree to disagree on the top part. Agree Duncan is Top 10 all time, but Kobe has lost a series and he's better than Duncan. LeBron has lost a series and he is better than Duncan. Like I said, I think Duncan is great, but IMO he has also benefitted from being on the Spurs (who have been very talented with the right mix of players).

IMO, and I know this purely subjective, it's very rare to find a great player with both defensive and offensive greatness (Kobe, MJ, LeBron, Duncan). I think most guys are either offensive guys (Monta Ellis, Carmelo, Dirk, AI) or defensive guys (Bowen, Ben Wallace, Artest). So at least for me, when I refer to "D'Antoni's system", I am talking about pace, on-court philosophy, and player acquisition. It always seemed to me like D'Antoni went out and got guys who were Offense first and defense...somewhere. Nash, Amare, Melo...etc.

44cuse

 

[otto123]

Problem is the Knicks traded the whole core of the team for Melo they gave up to much. Should have waited for the off season to sign him

 

[Knicks411]

I think the Spurs have run an incredible organization. I read a stat; they drafted James Anderson 16th in 2010, that was the highest they picked in the draft since like 1997. That's pretty amazing when you think about it. They got Ginobili and Parker with late picks. They are probably the best run organization in the NBA, and one of the best in all of sports. (And also, I think Duncan has been a better player than Kobe over the course of their careers, fwiw).

IMO, and I know this purely subjective, it's very rare to find a great player with both defensive and offensive greatness (Kobe, MJ, LeBron, Duncan). I think most guys are either offensive guys (Monta Ellis, Carmelo, Dirk, AI) or defensive guys (Bowen, Ben Wallace, Artest). So at least for me, when I refer to "D'Antoni's system", I am talking about pace, on-court philosophy, and player acquisition. It always seemed to me like D'Antoni went out and got guys who were Offense first and defense...somewhere. Nash, Amare, Melo...etc.

Definitely agree on the first part, which is what makes a true superstar so valuable, and is also why the Knicks don't have a superstar. I'll defend D'Antoni again a bit, he didn't acquire Nash and Amare (well not the first time). But there is definitely something to be said for that.

I'd like to see the Heat play at something resembling a D'Antoni circa 2005 pace.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

I'd like to see the Heat play at something resembling a D'Antoni circa 2005 pace.

During the Finals last year, I wondered why the Heat never ran. They seemed to play right into Dallas' hands, settling for half court offense every trip. And they still almost won, looking very disjointed with no real help off the bench and Mike Bibby and Z playing meaningful minutes.