The Evil Empire Revisited: Lakers General thread

[McBride11]

Phil couldn't, however, prevent MJ from gambling and being banished to baseball for 1 year. Then in that 93-94 season, Phil could not lead that team to a repeat championship. A roster largely unchanged, except for the departure of MJ. And it was not until MJ was back being MJ in 95-96 (and some dude named Rodman was brought in) could Phil the Great bring the Bulls back to an NBA chamionship.

To me, this lends more credence to the argument Phil is a great ego manager, but he certainly couldn't coach up those same role players to championship caliber. He isn't a great Xs and Os guy. But certainly he was very smart about getting into good situations. Now, if you look at how the NBA works, the majority of "great" coaches have all had first ballot HoFers on their teams with which they made their names.

 

[bbc23]

Phil couldn't, however, prevent MJ from gambling and being banished to baseball for 1 year. Then in that 93-94 season, Phil could not lead that team to a repeat championship. A roster largely unchanged, except for the departure of MJ. And it was not until MJ was back being MJ in 95-96 (and some dude named Rodman was brought in) could Phil the Great bring the Bulls back to an NBA chamionship.

To me, this lends more credence to the argument Phil is a great ego manager, but he certainly couldn't coach up those same role players to championship caliber. He isn't a great Xs and Os guy. But certainly he was very smart about getting into good situations. Now, if you look at how the NBA works, the majority of "great" coaches have all had first ballot HoFers on their teams with which they made their names.

Wait, so you're seriously trying to tell me that it's Phil's fault that he could not win the title in a year where he lost the greatest basketball player of all time?

 

[McBride11]

Wait, so you're seriously trying to tell me that it's Phil's fault that he could not win the title in a year where he lost the greatest basketball player of all time?

So he could only win championships with the greatest basketball player of all time? Or Top 5-10ers? It most likely is not entirely his fault, but at the crux of this discussion is Phil a great coach or product of situation (aka great players). And when he had a roster essentially unchanged except removing that "great player," he didn't win. And he didn't win until MJ was back in prime form. Would Brown or Popovich or Red have done better that year? Can't say. But that certainly seems more like that he succeeded because of the situation (Jordan) than his coaching skills.

 

[bbc23]

So he could only win championships with the greatest basketball player of all time? Or Top 5-10ers? It most likely is not entirely his fault, but at the crux of this discussion is Phil a great coach or product of situation (aka great players). And when he had a roster essentially unchanged except removing that "great player," he didn't win. And he didn't win until MJ was back in prime form. Would Brown or Popovich or Red have done better that year? Can't say. But that certainly seems more like that he succeeded because of the situation (Jordan) than his coaching skills.

Tell me how many championships Red wins without Russell, Riley wins without Magic, or Popovich wins without Duncan?
Generally when teams lose their best player (and especially when that player is one of the greatest of all time) it has a bit of a bigger impact than when a coach leaves
And also, for some reason Red WASN'T able to win a title in the 16 years he was coach of the Capitals, Blackhawks, or Celtics until he got Russell and yet you judge Phil for not winning in the 1 season he did not have Jordan

 

[nighthob]

Tell me how many championships Red wins without Russell, Riley wins without Magic, or Popovich wins without Duncan?
Generally when teams lose their best player (and especially when that player is one of the greatest of all time) it has a bit of a bigger impact than when a coach leaves
And also, for some reason Red WASN'T able to win a title in the 16 years he was coach of the Capitals, Blackhawks, or Celtics until he got Russell and yet you judge Phil for not winning in the 1 season he did not have Jordan

Thing is that in 2004 & 2008 when being a great coach could have delivered the Lakers titles, Phil was lost. He could manage the egos, but when Boston and Detroit were able to attack Tex Winters' offense, neither of them had an answer.

 

[bbc23]

Thing is that in 2004 & 2008 when being a great coach could have delivered the Lakers titles, Phil was lost. He could manage the egos, but when Boston and Detroit were able to attack Tex Winters' offense, neither of them had an answer.

So a great coach should be able to win 100% of the times they play in the finals? I think that's denying how good the 2004 Pistons were under Brown and how good the 2008 Celtics were under Rivers. For the Celtics you can easily make the argument they were the better team that year.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

Thing is that in 2004 & 2008 when being a great coach could have delivered the Lakers titles, Phil was lost. He could manage the egos, but when Boston and Detroit were able to attack Tex Winters' offense, neither of them had an answer.

Unless you're contending that Phil told Fat Andy Bynum to sit on Perkins and break him I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. For the first five games, when Boston wasn't starting a short-armed 6'7" guy at center the greatest coach in NBA history was getting pantsed, again. Once Perkins' injury turned games six and seven into volleyball matches the Lakers were able to win. But mostly because Boston's inability to control the defensive glass had taken the coaches out of the equation.

So Phil's 11th title shouldn't count because of the Perkins injury, but he should be criticized because he couldn't win a title in 08 without Bynum. Got it.

 

[lars10]

So Phil's 11th title shouldn't count because of the Perkins injury, but he should be criticized because he couldn't win a title in 08 without Bynum. Got it.

What I remember about Game 7 was the +20 FT advantage LA had... and that Rasheed Wallace had to play 36 minutes and the Celts leading by 12 halfway through the third quarter... I don't think 2010 is the proof that Lakers fans think it is of Phil's genius... hard to argue he isn't a great coach, but in 2010 his team was outplayed and should have lost in six if not for Perkins injury.

and the C's lost in 7 by 4 points in 2010...Lakers lost in 2008 in 6 by 39...not exactly the same thing.

and Bynum getting hurt mid season vs. Perkins getting hurt in the finals is probably not similar either i'd imagine.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

This is an incredibly disturbing post, NK!

One, because bashing Jackson like is going on here (I love the parsing, too -- players may have played better under Jackon, but he didn't "develop" them...oh, okay) is only justifiable if you do it because you're a Celtics fan. Otherwise, it's just...the equivalent of the BB bashers being discussed on the Pats' page/Gronk thread.

Two, because you like Kobe. Really? Hell, about half the Laker fans I know don't even like that douche.

Do you really think that is what anyone here has said, or what has been shown about individual players? I'd be curious what posts suggest either conclusion to you.

Seems like setting up fake straw men to knock down may be fun, but it doesn't advance a discussion any more than the "Gronk shouldn't have been in the lineup!!11! nonsense does.

 

[Tony C]

I just went back through old posts, including posts specifically about how Jackson didn't develop players. I don't think I invented a strawman at all.

To me, this lends more credence to the argument Phil is a great ego manager, but he certainly couldn't coach up those same role players to championship caliber.

Seriously, that he couldn't coach a team of role players to a championship is now the test? Is that the test for Auerbach, too? For Holtzman? Who are the coaches who have gotten a team of role players to championships? Lenny Wilkins for the Supersonics in '79, by that standard, is the greatest coach of all time (and maybe he was).

 

[McBride11]

The point was made about Phil being a great coach of players taking them from okay players to good ones and good ones to great ones. I simply pointed out a 2 year window where he was unable to do just this. At the end of my initial post, I also emphasize that pretty much every great coach had HoFers to work with. In BBall, unlike the other major sports, 1-2 players can win the whole thing and can make any coach look great. What has been pointed out are some glaring errors that Phil made in his coaching career, eg not guarding the corner 3, being steadfast to the triangle, etc.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I just went back through old posts, including posts specifically about how Jackson didn't develop players. I don't think I invented a strawman at all.

Really? Who do you think made the argument you originally cited - "players may have played better under Jackon, but he didn't "develop" them"

I think that's absolutely a straw-man, and just not a reasonable description of anyone's view here.

That is in no way a defense of some of the descriptions of Jackson here which go WAY too far in denigrating his amazing track record. But pretending there aren't a few questions about the incredible situations he has inherited is not much better, seems to me.

 

[Tony C]

Well, I could go back and cite posts and string them together, but if we all now agree that the 'he didn't develop players' trope is a non-starter, then no disagreement and no need to bother except for the sake of a silly internet semantics tussle. And if we also agree all great coaches worked, coincidentally enough, with HOF players and doing so is not an indictment of their coaching, then again we agree.

And, in terms of him not taking on tough situations, in turn I agree with that. I don't think that's the test of a great coach, but I do agree he's chosen not to be a turnaround artist a la Larry Brown and there's something to be said for the moxie it takes to take on those sorts of challenges (not that Brown has necessarily been that successful, but doesn't mean he's a bad coach). Jackson lacks that ambition. My only point is that, while one can legitimately knock him for that, that doesn't mean you can take that to mean he's not a great coach.

 

[nighthob]

So a great coach should be able to win 100% of the times they play in the finals? I think that's denying how good the 2004 Pistons were under Brown and how good the 2008 Celtics were under Rivers. For the Celtics you can easily make the argument they were the better team that year.

No, but he should be able to do something more than stand on the sideline with a befuddled look on his face muttering 'It's supposed to work, why isn't it working?"

 

[nighthob]

So Phil's 11th title shouldn't count because of the Perkins injury, but he should be criticized because he couldn't win a title in 08 without Bynum. Got it.

I think the point is that if we're going to anoint someone "the greatest coach in any spoht eva!!!!!" he should actually be able to handle the technical end of the sport too. He may be the greatest sports psychologist ever, but I'm pretty sure that these are separate issues.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Well, I could go back and cite posts and string them together, but if we all now agree that the 'he didn't develop players' trope is a non-starter, then no disagreement and no need to bother except for the sake of a silly internet semantics tussle. And if we also agree all great coaches worked, coincidentally enough, with HOF players and doing so is not an indictment of their coaching, then again we agree.

No, I don't think you can---the position you described is really one no one here stated, so I called it a straw man. Maybe it's not worth worrying about, but geez...the words people actually said matter if we're going to bother discussing things, seems like.

The point McBride made that I thought was ridiculous was about using role players...I think Jackson has proven he is exceptional at that. Developing players more generically is broader than that, and already discussed (for better or worse).

 

[wutang112878]

Back to the present day, sounds like the D'Antoni era is off to a great start:

D'Antoni said the Lakers needed to "get in a little bit better shape."

"Guys have got to get used to this pace," he said. "It might take a little bit, but we're going to run up and down. And if you can't run up and down and play quickly, then we'll have to find guys that do."

If D'Antoni sticks with this attitude this will end very badly, and I cant wait to watch

 

[lostjumper]

This is great. He has 2 of the best post players in the league, and he wants to "run up and down and play quickly". Though, if his knees hold up Kobe will love this if he can get 50 shots off a game.

 

[McBride11]

The point McBride made that I thought was ridiculous was about using role players...I think Jackson has proven he is exceptional at that. Developing players more generically is broader than that, and already discussed (for better or worse).

Oh, I definitely picked an extreme example. And even conceded Red may not have done much better those off years.

I am curious where the lines are divided? Is it just Lakers fans saying Phil > Red or Lakers+Bulls, or just Bulls? Cause I'd also be curious why Lakers fans don't add in Riley? Nonetheless, it seems whichever team your partial to, you are picking that coach.

 

[Tony C]

I know the Lakers aren't in NY Jets territory yet, but I'm hoping for similar levels of schadenfreude.

This is great. He has 2 of the best post players in the league, and he wants to "run up and down and play quickly". Though, if his knees hold up Kobe will love this if he can get 50 shots off a game.

And here's from the LA Times post-Memphis game w/ Gasol benched for the 4th Q.

Pau Gasol was one of the big losers when Mike D'Antoni was hired to coach the Lakers instead of Phil Jackson.
Jackson had a deep fondness for Gasol, often sticking up for him publicly and privately whenever the four-time All-Star went into a slump.
But he never benched Gasol the entire fourth quarter, which happened in the Lakers' 106-98 loss Friday to the Memphis Grizzlies.
Gasol left for good after picking up his fourth foul with 1:19 left in the third quarter. Why?
"I was thinking I'd like to win this game. That's the reason," D'Antoni said.
Gasol had six points on three-for-eight shooting, continuing to toil in D'Antoni's push-the-pace offense. He also posted a dud two days earlier against Sacramento, scoring eight points on three-for-10 shooting.
Maybe it's a conditioning thing, the 12-year veteran never required to run as much as in D'Antoni's system.
"He'll be rested for [Saturday], that's for sure," D'Antoni said.

What I love is not only the benching, but the snarky sarcasm to boot -- that's sure to win loyalty. With Howard getting single singles in 2 games in a row and Gasol riding the pine, the D'Antoni era is getting off to a great start. Wonders of wonders, leave to Kobe to actually say the lines a coach trying to get his guys in line should say:

Kobe Bryant, a big proponent of Gasol in the past, joined the guessing game afterward.
"He's just missed some of the shots that he normally makes," Bryant said. "He's getting great looks. They just haven't fallen for him…. If he feels like he needs to get more touches, then we'll get him some more."

I've always like D'antoni since his teams are fun to watch, but what has he accomplished to be so arrogant? It's not like the Knicks have missed him. Who knows, maybe when Nash is back things will get into the order he wants.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-sp-lakers-grizzlies-20121124,0,7868954.story

 

[lostjumper]

Jeff Green likes to run! Maybe we can talk with D'Antoni and trade him straight up for Gasol...
Howard won't be a big fan of this either after a couple of weeks. I would love for this to go badly for the Lakers.

 

[jon abbey]

Wow, Lakers totally collapsing down the stretch at home to Orlando, up 84-77 with 8 minutes left and ORL has gone on a 30-11 run since, now up 12 with 90 seconds left.

 

[jon abbey]

ORL has 31 points in under 6 minutes here, that's some solid D.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Kobe said he wants Gasol to "put his big boy pants on."

This is making the Celtics rough start much more bearable.

 

[AMS25]

Kobe said he wants Gasol to "put his big boy pants on."

I would hate to be Kobe's teammate. I know he thinks he's doing this for the good of the team, but he's always calling his teammates out through the media. Pau seems to be a favorite target.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

To be fair, it's like the 3 season in a row with Pau being sub-par.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

To be fair, it's like the 3 season in a row with Pau being sub-par.

In the two years preceding this season, which is a small sample size involving 3 head coaches, Gasol finished 2nd and 10th in the league in win shares, and had PER's of 23.3 and 20.5. Neither are perfect stats, but he's certainly been a good player.

 

[Tony C]

To be fair, it's like the 3 season in a row with Pau being sub-par.

He's been one of the most consistent, efficient players in the NBA.

 

[nighthob]

Not at all. In 2010, Gasol averaged 18.8/10.2 while shooting 53%. In 2011, he averaged 17.4/10.4 while shooting 50%. This year, he's averaging 12.6/8.9 while shooting 42% so the dip has only been this year. And part of it is because of Howard.

So, in conclusion, Kobe is just being a douche.

Yes, Kobe's a douche, but no it isn't Superman's fault. It's the offensive set that D'Antoni runs, and insists on running. Gashole's game doesn't fit with Howard's within that set. Which is why he's increasingly sitting. His range as a shooter doesn't extend much past 16', which isn't enough space for the offense, so they've backed him out to 18'-20' and he's missing a ton of shots as a result.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Yes, Kobe's a douche, but no it isn't Superman's fault. It's the offensive set that D'Antoni runs, and insists on running. Gashole's game doesn't fit with Howard's within that set. Which is why he's increasingly sitting. His range as a shooter doesn't extend much past 16', which isn't enough space for the offense, so they've backed him out to 18'-20' and he's missing a ton of shots as a result.

Yeah, it's basically the exact same issue the Knicks had when they added Chandler and Amare's lack of shooting range screwed up the spacing in D'Antoni's offense. At this point, I think a Gasol trade is all but inevitable. The popular rumor is Josh Smith, but it's not like Smith's particularly well known for his shooting range. In my mind, Gasol for Ilyasova, Dunleavy, and Dalembert would make sense. Ilyosova has more range than Gasol, Dunleavy gives them another shooter, and Dalembert makes the contracts work. On Milwaukee's end, they get to hedge in case Ilyasova's start aren't a fluke and they immediately add front court scoring, of which they have very little. Nobody would want to play that Milwaukee team in the playoffs. They'd have a front court rotation of Gasol, Udoh, Sanders, Henson, and Gooden, excellent wing defenders in Mbah a Moute and Tobias Harris, and a Brandon Jennings and Monta Ellis in the back court.

 

[nighthob]

I think the Smith rumour has more to do with LA's desperation at retaining Howard, because Kobe is a douche (I certainly don't want my post above to be interpreted as excusing Bryant's douchiness), and the first thing he did after the trade was throw Howard under the bus, and let the entire LA media corps know that if the Lakers won a title it was because it was his doing and if they lost it was going to be Dwight's fault. So, if the Lakers don't win it all the media will turn on Dwight to at least the extent that they did James after 2011. And with nothing but money to hold Dwight in LA, he just might bolt to play with buddies (like CP3 and Smith). This is also why I think it's increasingly likely that the Hawks hold onto Smith and trade Horford instead.

 

[ifmanis5]

Pau not going anywhere, per Ric Bucher on something called Sulia:

Source: Ignore any and all trade talk about Pau Gasol because the Lakers landed Steve Nash by promising
him he would get to play with Gasol. Nash made it a prerequisite for passing on offers from Toronto and the Knicks that Pau would be around, the source said.

 

[ElUno20]

Nash and a healthy gasol will help but honestly, the thunder are so much younger and more explosive its hard to see the lakers beating them 4 out of 7.

 

[Tony C]

Nash might just might make this team more schizophrenic -- gives a tool for D'Antoni to run the team his way, so that could be a positive, but I'm not sure that meshes with the rest of the talent.

D'Antoni's looking like an awful hire so far. Maybe with Nash he can make it work, but Gasol's value is down (nice job by D'Antoni there) and Howard doesn't look healthy -- not sure if that's a matter of him needing to round into form or just that he returned too early and the pounding now won't help him fully recover.

heh heh...just going to enjoy their down time while it lasts.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Nash can help but he will also make the D significantly worse, and who knows what Mikey D will get out of Gasol.

Come playoff time when the game slows down, a team will exploit the Lakers D, and what will this guy do about it?

 

[nighthob]

Gasol's injury is a third degree deep ego bruise plus strained facial muscles from making the Gasol face too much this year. The reality is that he's just a hideous fit for D'Antoni's offense playing alongside Howard. If they hadn't traded for Howard this wouldn't be a problem because Gasol would be the primary pick & roll big man. What they need is someone with Antawn Jamison's offensive game that can play some defense, because AJ leaks like a drunken Irishman.

Watch them defensively, they make their first rotation, but teams with a little bit of patience always find an opening because they're awful when asked to make multiple rotations. They all stand around waiting for Howard to bail them out. Hopefully they keep doing that because I think that, as much as anything else, will cause Howard to start casting around the NBA to look for a landing spot for he and CP3.

 

[Tony C]

It's too good to last, and the Lakers are too talented to have it last, but so far this season is going from schadenfreude high to schadenfreude high. Magic is now openly criticizing D'Antoni's use of Gasol, Legler is talking about half the team -- specifically Howard -- not playing hard for D'Antoni, Kobe talks about Jackson with open lust, and last night D'Antoni semi-loses it with a reporter. Dysfunction.

It's going to be on Steve Nash -- a D'Antoni true believer -- to pull things together. Both in terms of their desperate need for a point guard but I think they also need a leader who can get the team focused and believing in D'Antoni, and it's on Nash to do that once he's back as clearly D'Antoni isn't working -- he seems out of his depth. i haven't really seen much of Nash the last few seasons, but be interesting to see if he can get Gasol (who basically told D'Antoni 'fuck you, if you want to scapegoat me I'm not playing hurt') and Howard into the offense and playing hard.

And to go back to an earlier theme in this thread, those criticizing Jackson as just a guy who rides on the shoulders of talented teams should have a look at how well D'Antoni is doing with that talent.

 

[nighthob]

Mostly because D'Antoni is there to run his scheme, only without a PG and PF that has no role in the offense.

 

[ifmanis5]

Stephen A. has a serious sit down int with Kobe. Overhearing the playout now. Should air on ESPN tonight I'm guessing. Gist of it is that he doesn't want to overreact to all the bad news.

 

[LondonSox]

D'Antoni didn't make much sense to me as a hire anyway. You basically have because Nash is there as the main it will ok reason.
Look at the Knicks since he has gone, huge jump in performance, especially at the defensive end this season, and a team that is together and playing for each other.
Now either d'antoni couldn't do that or didn't care to.
He couldn't handle melo and his ego, and I think most would agree Kobe is at the very least as bad.

I just don't see Kobe being a good soldier when Nash is running the pick and roll with gasol or Howard all game. He's shown no ability to adjust to a new game plan in ny with no point guards or so far with the lakers.

 

[nighthob]

As Howard is going to be playing 36 minutes most nights Gasol will spend most of his time pouting until he's traded.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

D'Antoni didn't make much sense to me as a hire anyway. You basically have because Nash is there as the main it will ok reason.
Look at the Knicks since he has gone, huge jump in performance, especially at the defensive end this season, and a team that is together and playing for each other.
Now either d'antoni couldn't do that or didn't care to.
He couldn't handle melo and his ego, and I think most would agree Kobe is at the very least as bad.

I just don't see Kobe being a good soldier when Nash is running the pick and roll with gasol or Howard all game. He's shown no ability to adjust to a new game plan in ny with no point guards or so far with the lakers.

Here's where D'Antoni coached teams finished in terms of defensive efficiency during his career:

PHO 04-05 -- 17th
PHO 05-06 -- 16th
PHO 06-07 -- 13th
PHO 07-08 -- 16th
NYK 08-09 -- 23rd
NYK 09-10 -- 28th
NYK 10-11 -- 23rd
NYK 11-12 -- 5th* (coached 42 of 66 games)

So basically, all of the Phoenix teams that earned his his "doesn't coach defense" reputation were league average despite being led by one of the league's worst defensive point guards in Steve Nash, and the league's absolute worst defensive center in Amare Stoudemire. When he got to New York, he got to coach well-known defensive stoppers such as Eddy Curry, Chris Duhon, Danillo Gallinari, Al Harrington, Nate Robinson, David Lee, and Amare Stoudemire again. There isn't a coach in the world that could turn those Knicks teams into average defensive teams. They were terrible.

Also, the Knicks are worse defensively this year than they were last year. Woodson was there as an assistant, but I tend to think the Knicks jump last year had more to do with defensive player of the year Tyson Chandler than it did with Woodson. After all, for all the talk of Woodson as a defensive guru, he had a bunch of mediocre defensive teams in Atlanta.

 

[LondonSox]

Well yes good point. I would point out two things for the suns.
First they were so good offensively that helps re setting your def, also they had a hell of a lot of talent. Being average defensively with Good players isn't really proving he's an average coach. At the Knicks until his last season he was bad, chandler is excellent but my memory is post coaching change the Knicks improved a lot, certainly the results were.

 

[nighthob]

Also, the Knicks are worse defensively this year than they were last year. Woodson was there as an assistant, but I tend to think the Knicks jump last year had more to do with defensive player of the year Tyson Chandler than it did with Woodson. After all, for all the talk of Woodson as a defensive guru, he had a bunch of mediocre defensive teams in Atlanta.

You're not being particularly fair here, because during D'Antoni's 42 games of defensive awesomeness they were actually pretty bad and six games under .500. While under the "overrated" Mike Woodson they were dominant and playing .750 ball. This year their starting two is so old that even Ray Allen calls him "Pops" and their starting 4 is just over 6'7" in his sneakers with a well deserved rep for being a less-than-committed defender. They ain't exactly built to be defensively dominant.

In Phoenix D'Antoni was playing with a guy that was a legit DPOY candidate in Marion as well as a raft of defensive roleplayers and/or two way players like Kurt Thomas, Grant Hill, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw before he sucked, etc.. While in Atnalta Woodson inherited a team that wasn't exactly overflowing with quality NBA players. Christ, they were drafting defensive roleplayers that couldn't play defense *cough* Shelden Williams *cough*

 

[Blacken]

@MagicJohnson: I have to apologize to my friend @SpikeLee for believing my @Lakers would beat the Knicks...

@mdotbrown: State of the Lakers: THE MAN WHO BEAT AIDS HAS GIVEN UP ON THEM.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

You're not being particularly fair here, because during D'Antoni's 42 games of defensive awesomeness they were actually pretty bad and six games under .500. While under the "overrated" Mike Woodson they were dominant and playing .750 ball. This year their starting two is so old that even Ray Allen calls him "Pops" and their starting 4 is just over 6'7" in his sneakers with a well deserved rep for being a less-than-committed defender. They ain't exactly built to be defensively dominant.

In Phoenix D'Antoni was playing with a guy that was a legit DPOY candidate in Marion as well as a raft of defensive roleplayers and/or two way players like Kurt Thomas, Grant Hill, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw before he sucked, etc.. While in Atnalta Woodson inherited a team that wasn't exactly overflowing with quality NBA players. Christ, they were drafting defensive roleplayers that couldn't play defense *cough* Shelden Williams *cough*

A couple of things:

The Knicks defensive efficiency was pretty steady from D'Antoni's time last year to Woodson's. You could argue that Woodson was the d-coordinator, and solely responsible for the improvement, but again, I think it had more to do with personnel.

Shawn Marion is a good on ball defender, and an absolutely terrible off the ball and help defender. If he ever wins a DPOY award, it will be a crock of shit. In fact, I was just listening to a Paul Shirley podcast where he spent a lot of time going into detail about Marion was the dumbest player he ever played with (he was on one of those D'Antoni squads in Phoenix) and how Marion and Amare were historically bad. He said that on the defensive end, you could basically just tell Marion to stay in front of his man, but that he had no sense of the greater goal or strategy of the defense.

But really, my point is not that D'Antoni is a defensive wizard or anything like that, but rather that I think defensive schemes are overrated and that the right personnel is what truly matters, and that the whole "D'Antoni doesn't coach D thing" is just sort of a lazy trope that isn't particularly relevant to what's happening on the floor. The Lakers defense is terrible right now, and people will point to D'Antoni and pretend it's a symptom of his not caring about that end of the floor, but it's really their personnel that's awful. Howard obviously is a phenomenal defender, but outside of him they're giving Jamison, who has no lateral quickness left, big minutes at the 4. Chris Duhon is playing 30 minutes a night, Kobe has always been inconsistent at best on D, and Jordan Hill has no sense of where to be. Artest still puts in the effort, but has lost a lot of quickness, and got flat out abused by Carmelo last night.

And I've come to appreciate Woodson and if anything I think he's underrated. I hated his style in Atlanta, but what we're seeing with the Knicks is basically D'Antoni's system with a couple more set plays thrown in. The biggest difference between Woodson and D'Antoni in New York, honestly, is that the Knicks players seem to like Woodson. I never got the feeling that they liked D'Antoni, and I certainly never got the feeling that key guys had fully bought into his system. And that's evidenced by the fact that there are a huge number of similarities between D'Antoni's system and the offense Woodson is running. In fact, one of the biggest things Woodson's had in his favor during his tenure as HC in New York is that Carmelo and Amare have barely had to share the floor. The way Carmelo is being used right now is how the 4 in D'Antoni's offense is designed to be used.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I am suspecting that the bigger factor and Woodson's fortune was having Amare injured a longer amount of time than D'Antoni did.

 

[wutang112878]

and that the whole "D'Antoni doesn't coach D thing" is just sort of a lazy trope that isn't particularly relevant to what's happening on the floor.

This got me thinking about evaluating D'Antoni's defense in light of his offensive strategy. The current Lakers case is a different scenario, but historically I think we have to look at his defensive efficiency stats a little differently because he likes to play at such a fast pace. If we assume that on the whole offense efficiency is generally greater on fast break plays in comparison to half court basketball. Because of the nature of the play, a fast break on offense is more likely to lead to a fast break for your opponent than a half court offense. As a result, your defensive efficiency is going to suffer because you are giving your opponent more opportunities to run more efficient offensive plays.

The goal of a coach should be to implement a system where the difference between your offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency is the greatest. We can debate if this up tempo style is really the best strategy to accomplish that for the Lakers considering the roster they have to work with, but I think D'Antoni is one of the few people on the planet that thinks it is. What we can probably reasonably assume is that as your pace increases your defensive efficiency is inevitably going to suffer to some degree. So D'Antoni's defensive efficiency suffers because of his offensive approach, so we should probably look at it with that in mind when evaluating his historical defensive efficiency. The same way we look at 'time of possession' in football differently for a running team vs a passing team.

 

[Tony C]

There's a debate about his defense, but in good part because he has made quotable statements disparaging defense. My guess is those were taken out of context as I actually always thought his Phoenix teams played good defense, but in a PR way those statements haven't helped him. Neither was he helped by refusing to hire a defensive specialist in Phoenix, nor to bring in Nate Macmillan with him in L.A... It sends a message that he doesn't prioritize defense, and if so many believe that I'm guessing that has an impact on what players believe. More important to me is it sends a message that he wants to win his way, which leads to the next debate.

There's a debate about whether an up-tempo system can work with any team. I doubt it -- slow and plodding tends to win in the playoffs, imho.

The real debate, though, is if the Lakers can win with an up-tempo system. There the answer is a clear, crashing no. The question is if D'Antoni can adjust to his players. The early returns were negative in that he immediately began disparaging Gasol, which may have been among the stupider ways to introduce himself to the team ever. Now we'll see what happens when Gasol and Nash are back. D'Antoni's standard response is that things will get better when they're back, and obviously they will to some degree. But with the bashing D'Antoni is taking, will he also consider changing his system some to one that works to Gasol's strengths? I think that's necessary. Nash can do wonders if healthy, but in terms of the team psyche and offensive efficiency, but for the team to be as good as it can be it'll need D'Antoni to dispense with the run and gun stuff and work out a way for Howard and Gasol to work together just like Bynum and Gasol did.

 

[nighthob]

Shawn Marion is a good on ball defender, and an absolutely terrible off the ball and help defender.

Not five years ago he wasn't. And he's not a terrible help defender even now despite the fact that his quickness is gone.

If he ever wins a DPOY award, it will be a crock of shit.

Given his age & height it would require the mass death of a lot of guys. But D'Antoni isn't coaching Dallas this year and was coaching Marion in Phoenix when he was still an all star.

But really, my point is not that D'Antoni is a defensive wizard or anything like that, but rather that I think defensive schemes are overrated and that the right personnel is what truly matters,

I'd go even further, Dick Motta always used to say that 90% of coaching defense consisted of getting your guys to buy in and commit to it. And that's where I think that D'Antoni mainly fails, because I've never seen much evidence that the defensive end of the floor is really all that important to him. He basically just sticks some defensive roleplayers on the floor with a little handwaving and leaves it at that. No one else seems to have thought that all these guys that Shirley claims are stupid are stupid. They really only seemed to be stupid in Phoenix under D'Antoni. Amar'e isn't stupid, he simply didn't/doesn't commit much effort on that end of the floor. Not uncommon for offensive roleplayers. I mean, given that Nash gives even less defensive effort than Amar'e, why isn't he "stupid"?