Must Read: From Clyde's book

[seren]

I don't think that Phoenix was a bad defensive team. The statement, that they are willing to let the opponent score so that they can run back, just doesn't sound right. There were only two particular things that you can criticize if you want about MD: That he prefers to play better offensive players. And that he let's the other team score instead of taking the foul. This happens for two reasons: 1) He likes short rotations and that requires keeping players away from foul trouble. 2) It is easier to run after a made basket rather than free throws.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

I don't think that Phoenix was a bad defensive team. The statement, that they are willing to let the opponent score so that they can run back, just doesn't sound right. There were only two particular things that you can criticize if you want about MD: That he prefers to play better offensive players. And that he let's the other team score instead of taking the foul. This happens for two reasons: 1) He likes short rotations and that requires keeping players away from foul trouble. 2) It is easier to run after a made basket rather than free throws.

There is a misconception that they were terrible defensively, because they let up a lot of points, but that's also because they scored a lot of points, and quickly, so opposing teams got more possessions against them than against other teams. While not a great defensive team, the Suns were always in the top half of the league in opponent FG%, which is considered by many to be the true measure of a team's defense. So it's not really accurate to say they were a bad defensive team. They were about average.

[Jstarks3]

Can you just make this your Red Vines is bitching again thread? Just keep it all tidy in one place with the same title so it can be ignored.

[Knicksick]

agreed 100%. It actually baffles me how few Knick fans want to recognize this. I mean honestly, am I and a few others the only ones watching basketball for more than 5 years?
Who in his right mind would want his team to play a system that can only succeed with a multi skilled,athletic,great shooting bunch of guys?Who in his right mind would want a system that is not based on great basketball fundamentals, a system that is based on winning with defense which has been proven over and over and over again.

Look at Amar'e Stoudamire!Dude was an athletic freak, a freak of nature, a terrific offensive player a few years back. How come this guy is worse than David Lee on defense?If you would have let Skiles or Brown coach a young Stoudamire I'd bet he'd be averaging 11rebounds/2blocks at least and would be called at least average on defense.

I told you guys over and over and over again: D'Antoni's system is nothing special at all. It's a gimmick system that works only if you are more talented than the opposition. You won't ever overachieve with that system---we are seeing what Suns fans were seeing a few years back---we are getting hammered on the boards, we are giving up points in the paint at a rate I haven't even seen under Isiah or Chaney or Wilkens---the Suns had the talent to score 125 when they gave up 118. But if you don't have that talent you are going to suck.

Good post, overall. But I disagree on a few points -- the ones in bold.

1. D'Antoni's system, in theory, is based on sharing and moving the ball. That is a basketball fundamental.

2. Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw, Quentin Richardson, Jim Jackson, and Eddie House all overachieved in that system. Steve Nash also had his best seasons in it. Yes, the Suns were talented, but were they any more talented than the Mavericks, for example? Or those contending Sacramento Kings teams?

Well JohnStarks you are right about your first point but I didn't mean to criticize ball movement. Sharing the ball is definitely a basketball fundamental--no question BUT the greatest basketball fundamental to winning games and titles is defense and Mike D'Antoni doesn't adress it. Now we can try to block this fact out and say it's just a bull rumour about Mike not putting emphasis on defense, we can assume only the hater bring it up but in reality we have seen a bunch of players say that and on top of that a GM that tried to put a defensive assistant into D'Antoni's staff.We can ignore all those hints but odds are D'Antoni doesn't stress defense nearly enough.
IMO that's the most important fundamental which D'Antoni leaves totally out. Sharing the ball is definitely very very important but you can get by if you don't have 25 assists night in and night out. Remember our 90s Knicks--we used to isolate Sprewell,houston and of course Ewing--we scored a lot through isos. A lot of the good teams do that today too. Bryant,Lebron,Pierce etc. are all guys on good team that score a ton through isolation plays. You can lack certain fundamentals and still be successful--the one fundamental you cannot lack in 90% of the cases and get by is defense. You have to be vastly superior on offense to still win a significant amount of games---with the Suns it worked--with most other teams it doesn't.
Take a look at this stat:

Top 15 in opposing field goal percentage:

1.Orlando
2.Cleveland
3.Oklahoma City(young inexperienced team getting the job done through defense!)
4.Chicago
5.Lakers
6.Miami
7.Boston
8.Utah
9.Charlotte
10.Indiana
11.Milwaukee
12.Dallas
13.San Antonio
14.Phoenix
15.Washington

the worst 10:

1.New York(yikes)
2.New Jersey
3.Golden State
4.Memphis
5.New Orleans
6.Minnesota
7.Houston
8.Sacramento
9.Philly
10.Detroit

the first group consists of 13 playoff teams (out of 15). The second group has not a single playoff team(currently) in it.
Another very important point---take a look at the first group:
Dwight Howard,Varejao,Noah,Bynum,Jermaine,Tyrus+Wallace+Chandler+Ratliff,Wallce+Perkins+Garnett,Hibbert,Bogut,Dampier,Duncan,Lopez?,Haywood

All those top 15 teams have an interior presence--all of them have at least a decent guy under the basket bothering the opposition. you know some of these guys players that would probably ride the pine under D'Antoni (Varejao,Noah,Chandler,Perkins,Dampier,Haywood---can't shoot).
Look at the second list now:Those teams are either severaly undesized (New York,Golden State,Detroit,Minnesota,even Houston) or their bigs don't play much defense(Sacramento,Memphis).
The only two teams that should be much better but still suck on defense are New Orleans and Philly.

I mean try to win games giving up 48% to the opposition and -6 rebounds which are both direct results of D'Antoni's "skill ball" system.

[Knicksick]

As for your second point: Those guys barely overachieved.

House?Don't know why you even bring him up but he had his best statistical seasons in Boston. Best fieldgoal percentage and most assists and rebounds and as many points as in Phoenix.

Tim Thomas?Look up his stats--he had better seasons elsewhere--he certainly did not overachieve in Phoenix.

Richardson?He shot his worst fieldgoal percentages in Phoenix and only 36% from 3 point land. He had better seasons in Phoenix and he even criticzed D'Antoni after he got traded.Only in NY he shot even worse although a lot has to do with injuries,out of shape etc.


Diaw is the only one who made a significant jump in all statistical categories but how much was due to Mike's system is hard to tell. Diaw did average 15points/7rebounds/5assists on 50% for Charlotte last year in a entirely different system---but I'll give you Diaw.Still remember Diaw was 22 years old back then and he went from 15minutes a game to 35 minutes so it is not clear how much is due to D'Antoni (Amar'e went down that year and D'Antoni HAD to play him big minutes as Phoenix had no replacement.).

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

As for your second point: Those guys barely overachieved.

House?Don't know why you even bring him up but he had his best statistical seasons in Boston. Best fieldgoal percentage and most assists and rebounds and as many points as in Phoenix.

Tim Thomas?Look up his stats--he had better seasons elsewhere--he certainly did not overachieve in Phoenix.

Richardson?He shot his worst fieldgoal percentages in Phoenix and only 36% from 3 point land. He had better seasons in Phoenix and he even criticzed D'Antoni after he got traded.Only in NY he shot even worse although a lot has to do with injuries,out of shape etc.


Diaw is the only one who made a significant jump in all statistical categories but how much was due to Mike's system is hard to tell. Diaw did average 15points/7rebounds/5assists on 50% for Charlotte last year in a entirely different system---but I'll give you Diaw.Still remember Diaw was 22 years old back then and he went from 15minutes a game to 35 minutes so it is not clear how much is due to D'Antoni (Amar'e went down that year and D'Antoni HAD to play him big minutes as Phoenix had no replacement.).

Tim Thomas, and to a lesser extent House, were pretty much unwanted players at that point, and then resurrected their careers somewhat with Phoenix. And we got a first hand look of what happened to Q after he left the Suns (though you make a good point about injuries).

My point was that just as the system sometimes has no use for certain players, it can also make good use of other teams' throwaways, so it's not fair to say that no one ever overachieves in it.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

agreed 100%. It actually baffles me how few Knick fans want to recognize this. I mean honestly, am I and a few others the only ones watching basketball for more than 5 years?
Who in his right mind would want his team to play a system that can only succeed with a multi skilled,athletic,great shooting bunch of guys?Who in his right mind would want a system that is not based on great basketball fundamentals, a system that is based on winning with defense which has been proven over and over and over again.

Look at Amar'e Stoudamire!Dude was an athletic freak, a freak of nature, a terrific offensive player a few years back. How come this guy is worse than David Lee on defense?If you would have let Skiles or Brown coach a young Stoudamire I'd bet he'd be averaging 11rebounds/2blocks at least and would be called at least average on defense.

I told you guys over and over and over again: D'Antoni's system is nothing special at all. It's a gimmick system that works only if you are more talented than the opposition. You won't ever overachieve with that system---we are seeing what Suns fans were seeing a few years back---we are getting hammered on the boards, we are giving up points in the paint at a rate I haven't even seen under Isiah or Chaney or Wilkens---the Suns had the talent to score 125 when they gave up 118. But if you don't have that talent you are going to suck.

Good post, overall. But I disagree on a few points -- the ones in bold.

1. D'Antoni's system, in theory, is based on sharing and moving the ball. That is a basketball fundamental.

2. Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw, Quentin Richardson, Jim Jackson, and Eddie House all overachieved in that system. Steve Nash also had his best seasons in it. Yes, the Suns were talented, but were they any more talented than the Mavericks, for example? Or those contending Sacramento Kings teams?

Well JohnStarks you are right about your first point but I didn't mean to criticize ball movement. Sharing the ball is definitely a basketball fundamental--no question BUT the greatest basketball fundamental to winning games and titles is defense and Mike D'Antoni doesn't adress it. Now we can try to block this fact out and say it's just a bull rumour about Mike not putting emphasis on defense, we can assume only the hater bring it up but in reality we have seen a bunch of players say that and on top of that a GM that tried to put a defensive assistant into D'Antoni's staff.We can ignore all those hints but odds are D'Antoni doesn't stress defense nearly enough.
IMO that's the most important fundamental which D'Antoni leaves totally out. Sharing the ball is definitely very very important but you can get by if you don't have 25 assists night in and night out. Remember our 90s Knicks--we used to isolate Sprewell,houston and of course Ewing--we scored a lot through isos. A lot of the good teams do that today too. Bryant,Lebron,Pierce etc. are all guys on good team that score a ton through isolation plays. You can lack certain fundamentals and still be successful--the one fundamental you cannot lack in 90% of the cases and get by is defense. You have to be vastly superior on offense to still win a significant amount of games---with the Suns it worked--with most other teams it doesn't.
Take a look at this stat:

Top 15 in opposing field goal percentage:

1.Orlando
2.Cleveland
3.Oklahoma City(young inexperienced team getting the job done through defense!)
4.Chicago
5.Lakers
6.Miami
7.Boston
8.Utah
9.Charlotte
10.Indiana
11.Milwaukee
12.Dallas
13.San Antonio
14.Phoenix
15.Washington

the worst 10:

1.New York(yikes)
2.New Jersey
3.Golden State
4.Memphis
5.New Orleans
6.Minnesota
7.Houston
8.Sacramento
9.Philly
10.Detroit

the first group consists of 13 playoff teams (out of 15). The second group has not a single playoff team(currently) in it.
Another very important point---take a look at the first group:
Dwight Howard,Varejao,Noah,Bynum,Jermaine,Tyrus+Wallace+Chandler+Ratliff,Wallce+Perkins+Garnett,Hibbert,Bogut,Dampier,Duncan,Lopez?,Haywood

All those top 15 teams have an interior presence--all of them have at least a decent guy under the basket bothering the opposition. you know some of these guys players that would probably ride the pine under D'Antoni (Varejao,Noah,Chandler,Perkins,Dampier,Haywood---can't shoot).
Look at the second list now:Those teams are either severaly undesized (New York,Golden State,Detroit,Minnesota,even Houston) or their bigs don't play much defense(Sacramento,Memphis).
The only two teams that should be much better but still suck on defense are New Orleans and Philly.

I mean try to win games giving up 48% to the opposition and -6 rebounds which are both direct results of D'Antoni's "skill ball" system.

But those successful Suns teams had an opposition FG% in the top 15. D'Antoni's teams there weren't giving up 48% to other teams.

Also, I don't agree that Mike wold have no use for Noah or Chandler. In fact, many people feel they'd be a perfect fit for his system.

[Knicksick]

That's true BUT he had great individual defenders in Bell,Marion(both all-defense) and good defenders in Johnson,Diaw,Richardson. All of them were good defenders prior to joining Phoenix, D'Antoni didn't improve anyone of them in that department as far as I know.

BTW , do you know what is funny?Phoenix is 14th in opposing fieldgoalpercentage this season---without great defenders like Bell,Marion etc. They have Nash,Barbosa,Richardson,Amar'e,Frye who are all as soft as tissue on defense.
The only decent presence and defender they have is Lopez at this point---yet they are still were they were years ago under D'Antoni. What doe sthat tell you about D'Antoni's ability to teach defense?

[NYC2BGI]

Well said Clyde! It is a team game and everyone must play hard on both ends of the court. Defense is about hustle and effort. You need both a good offense and good defense to win in any team sport.

[Knicksick]

Chicago under Skiles led the league in opposing fieldgoal percentage for 2 straight years and was 2nd in his 3rd year. After Skiles left Chicago dropped to 14th in opposing fieldgoal percentage. That alone should tell you something about defense and coaching.

He went to Milwaukee where he took over a team that was dead last in opposing fieldgoal percentage(48%) in 2008 and immediately improved them to 45.8% (15th ) in his first season with essentially the same player group and a major injury to Andrew Bogut---this season they are 10th at 45%.

Larry Brown took a chronically defenseless Charlotte team that won 30 games every year and was 23rd in defense prior to his hire and made them 9th in defense in his first year and second year.

[Knicksick]

Tim Thomas played 30 minutes for NY and MIL. He was only unwanted in Chiacgo where he got benched. In Phoenix he played 24minutes so I wouldn't really call it "reviving his career".

House has always been getting around 15-20 minutes in playing time. Check his career stats--he really didn't revive anything in Phoenix.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

That's true BUT he had great individual defenders in Bell,Marion(both all-defense) and good defenders in Johnson,Diaw,Richardson. All of them were good defenders prior to joining Phoenix, D'Antoni didn't improve anyone of them in that department as far as I know.

BTW , do you know what is funny?Phoenix is 14th in opposing fieldgoalpercentage this season---without great defenders like Bell,Marion etc. They have Nash,Barbosa,Richardson,Amar'e,Frye who are all as soft as tissue on defense.
The only decent presence and defender they have is Lopez at this point---yet they are still were they were years ago under D'Antoni. What doe sthat tell you about D'Antoni's ability to teach defense?

I don't think anyone is claiming he's good at teaching defense. I'm saying that his teams weren't as bas as people say they were on defense. It's not surprising that when he had better individual defenders on PHX, their defense was better than it is now with the Knicks, where we don't have too many.

And yes, their defense isn't much worse now that it used to be, but they are winning fewer games. This is my other point -- that those D'Antoni Suns teams won more than people give them credit for.

Again though, I'm someone who always prefers a good defense to a good offense, so don't misunderstand me, and think that I wouldn't love to have a coach who stresses good D.

[JohnStarksTheDunk]

Tim Thomas played 30 minutes for NY and MIL. He was only unwanted in Chiacgo where he got benched. In Phoenix he played 24minutes so I wouldn't really call it "reviving his career".

House has always been getting around 15-20 minutes in playing time. Check his career stats--he really didn't revive anything in Phoenix.

The Tim Thomas experiment was pretty much over for NBA teams. He was a throwaway. He earned himself another contract after his play in PHX.

[Red Vines]

Everyone should read Clyde's book "The Game within the Game" -- it is the complete antithesis of what D'Antoni is doing. For instance, Clyde criticizes Pat Riley for using 8-9 man rotations because the rest of the roster will become disinterested and won't be ready in case they have to play--he says he thinks the coach should give everybody a role to keep them involved. He also says how he doesn't like how players are becoming more one-dimensional and only specialize in one aspect of the game instead of becoming complete players (see d'Antoni's role for Gallo). He talks about how they became a great defensive team because they worked on defense all the time in practice, they stayed half-court and played defense. He talked about how great players don't run up and down the court shooting and driving all game--they learn to post-up and save energy for the end of the game. I know there are different philosophies but I think Walt knows more about winning in the NBA than D'Antoni.

[seren]

Everyone should read Clyde's book "The Game within the Game" -- it is the complete antithesis of what D'Antoni is doing. For instance, Clyde criticizes Pat Riley for using 8-9 man rotations because the rest of the roster will become disinterested and won't be ready in case they have to play--he says he thinks the coach should give everybody a role to keep them involved. He also says how he doesn't like how players are becoming more one-dimensional and only specialize in one aspect of the game instead of becoming complete players (see d'Antoni's role for Gallo). He talks about how they became a great defensive team because they worked on defense all the time in practice, they stayed half-court and played defense. He talked about how great players don't run up and down the court shooting and driving all game--they learn to post-up and save energy for the end of the game. I know there are different philosophies but I think Walt knows more about winning in the NBA than D'Antoni.

How about Riley vs. Walt? Which one of these two guys know more about winning in the NBA?

[Knicksick]

Everyone should read Clyde's book "The Game within the Game" -- it is the complete antithesis of what D'Antoni is doing. For instance, Clyde criticizes Pat Riley for using 8-9 man rotations because the rest of the roster will become disinterested and won't be ready in case they have to play--he says he thinks the coach should give everybody a role to keep them involved. He also says how he doesn't like how players are becoming more one-dimensional and only specialize in one aspect of the game instead of becoming complete players (see d'Antoni's role for Gallo). He talks about how they became a great defensive team because they worked on defense all the time in practice, they stayed half-court and played defense. He talked about how great players don't run up and down the court shooting and driving all game--they learn to post-up and save energy for the end of the game. I know there are different philosophies but I think Walt knows more about winning in the NBA than D'Antoni.

How about Riley vs. Walt? Which one of these two guys know more about winning in the NBA?

Well the question really is meaningless. Clyde essentially preaches the same things Riley preaches:Defense,playing the right way,playing team-oriented,practicing defense etc.
Using a 10 man rotation over and 8-9 man rotation isn't that huge a difference anyways. As long as you don't use 6-7 men like Nellie/D'Antoni. The essence of Walt and Riley is pretty similar---they believe in the same fundamentals.

[Red Vines]

How about Riley vs. Walt? Which one of these two guys know more about winning in the NBA?

Why? He was only criticizing Riley's strict rotation policy, saying he thinks it's better to keep players involved. He's not saying that you can't win a championship with a 8-9 man rotation. But he IS saying you can't win a championship without focusing on defense.

[duetta]

How about Riley vs. Walt? Which one of these two guys know more about winning in the NBA?

I love Riley, but he never won as a player and he never won without having superior talent.

[seren]

How about Riley vs. Walt? Which one of these two guys know more about winning in the NBA?

Why? He was only criticizing Riley's strict rotation policy, saying he thinks it's better to keep players involved. He's not saying that you can't win a championship with a 8-9 man rotation. But he IS saying you can't win a championship without focusing on defense.

Then why bring up the point? I like Clyde to death, but you can't use his arguments to take a shot at MD. Totally different eras, totally different basketball. Some of the stuff players are allowed even 5-6 years ago would get you in foul trouble almost immediately now.

I have yet to see a great measure that suggest MD's Phoenix team is bad defensively. And what Clyde suggested in the book shows he does not have a clue.

[Red Vines]

Then why bring up the point? I like Clyde to death, but you can't use his arguments to take a shot at MD. Totally different eras, totally different basketball. Some of the stuff players are allowed even 5-6 years ago would get you in foul trouble almost immediately now.

I have yet to see a great measure that suggest MD's Phoenix team is bad defensively. And what Clyde suggested in the book shows he does not have a clue.

Because we have had a problem this year with having a short rotation. The guys out of the rotation aren't clear about their roles, lose interest, and then when D'Antoni decides he can use them or we need them they are just thrown into the fire and it hasn't worked out well for us.

You and D'Antoni know more about winning in today's NBA than Walt Frazier who doesn't have a clue? lol