The Official Discuss Coach D'Antoni Thread

[BeeBeard]

Personally, I'm a big fan of the way the Utah Jazz have kept Jerry Sloan around. Sure, he hasn't won the title, but thats a very hard thing to do, especially in the NBA, a league thats prone to dynasties. If D'Antoni keeps his winning percentage where it is, he can stay as long as he wants as far as I'm concerned. Coaches learn and grow over time and get better, you aren't going to make a coach better by firing him just because he won every game except the last one.

I don't ever root for the Jazz, ever, but they do run a classy organization and believe in supporting their players and staff to the bitter end. Another good example of this would be how they allowed Derek Fisher to return to the Lakers so that Fisher's daughter could receive better medical care.

If I had to make a list of currently active coaches who are "better" than D'Antoni--based on public perception and reputation--it would probably look something like this (in no particular order):

- Pat Riley - But his legacy has taken a beating the last two years with the Heat.

- Phil Jackson - You could argue that he's been blessed with a litany of Hall of Fame players, but he's still won a hell of a lot of championships.

- Gregg Popovich (see Phil Jackson)

- Don Nelson - started as a so-so coach, then grew into an amazing coach, unafraid to change lineups and tell his players to shoot the lights out if they wanted to.

- George Karl - turned a mediocre Sonics team into a Western Conference powerhouse

- Jerry Sloan - has demonstrated an amazing ability at keeping the Jazz competitive even during the post-Stockton/Malone rebuilding years.

- Avery Johnson - The Little General has become one of the best coaches in the league in his own right.

That's it. D'Antoni is not as good as seven other coaches in the league right now. And that's out of thirty, total. Yeah, I would take that any day.

 

[elindholm]

Westphal lost control of that Suns team, you can't deny that. D'Antoni, for better or worse, definitely hasn't lost control of this team. That's a pretty major difference.

Not really. Chris's point is that we have no basis to criticize "experts" in the field unless we could do a better job ourselves, and that D'Antoni's win percentage proves that he's an expert, thus immune to criticism from lowlifes like us. Westphal had (roughly) the same winning percentage, so at the time he was just as much of an expert as D'Antoni appears to be now. And yet, hindsight has shown us that, hmm, maybe Westphal wasn't quite such a genius after all.

So if "Win%" = "Genius" = "Free from Criticism" in D'Antoni's case, it should apply in Westphal's too.

 

[elindholm]

If D'Antoni isn't one of the very best coaches in the world then he should be subject to ignorant criticism?

Right, this is what the disagreement always comes down to: Whether the criticism is "ignorant." I believe it's possible for an informed fan to recognize things that coaches and executives are doing wrong. You apparently think it's impossible, right up until the moment a coach or GM gets fired, at which point the weaknesses in his approach magically become legitimate and self-evident. We'll never resolve this dispute.

 

[BeeBeard]

Not really. Chris's point is that we have no basis to criticize "experts" in the field unless we could do a better job ourselves, and that D'Antoni's win percentage proves that he's an expert, thus immune to criticism from lowlifes like us. Westphal had (roughly) the same winning percentage, so at the time he was just as much of an expert as D'Antoni appears to be now. And yet, hindsight has shown us that, hmm, maybe Westphal wasn't quite such a genius after all.

So if "Win%" = "Genius" = "Free from Criticism" in D'Antoni's case, it should apply in Westphal's too.

I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning, either. If we followed that same logic, then a guy like Roger Ebert would never be "allowed" to be a good movie critic unless he were also a capable filmmaker in his own right.

To put it another way, I've never figure skated in my life, and yet I know a crappy triple sal when I see one.

 

[HooverDam]

I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning, either. If we followed that same logic, then a guy like Roger Ebert would never be "allowed" to be a good movie critic unless he were also a capable filmmaker in his own right.

Have you not seen the all time classic, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0065466/

 

[Cheesewater]

Right, this is what the disagreement always comes down to: Whether the criticism is "ignorant." I believe it's possible for an informed fan to recognize things that coaches and executives are doing wrong. You apparently think it's impossible, right up until the moment a coach or GM gets fired, at which point the weaknesses in his approach magically become legitimate and self-evident. We'll never resolve this dispute.

It's ignorant if you criticize someone for something erroneously. You criticized D'Antoni for being unable to recognize the team's shortcomings when in fact it was proven that he HAD recognized them. You are ignoring the facts. That is ignorant by definition. If one does not have all the facts yet purports to know them, that is ignorant.

Certainly learned fans can see what's going wrong. But it doesn't mean that the coaches can't see them and aren't trying to rectify them.

 

[Cheesewater]

Not really. Chris's point is that we have no basis to criticize "experts" in the field unless we could do a better job ourselves, and that D'Antoni's win percentage proves that he's an expert, thus immune to criticism from lowlifes like us. Westphal had (roughly) the same winning percentage, so at the time he was just as much of an expert as D'Antoni appears to be now. And yet, hindsight has shown us that, hmm, maybe Westphal wasn't quite such a genius after all.

So if "Win%" = "Genius" = "Free from Criticism" in D'Antoni's case, it should apply in Westphal's too.

Way to freak out and take it to the extreme. You can't be serious with this.

 

[BeeBeard]

Have you not seen the all time classic, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0065466/

Pretty good try, but screenwriting and filmmaking are not the same thing at all. But that's moot anyway: If I use a different example, does that mean my argument has no less credibility?


P.S. Haven't seen it, or I would have just mentioned one of the other zillions of movie critics who have no IMDB credits to speak of. I will check it out, though!

 

[elindholm]

It's ignorant if you criticize someone for something erroneously. You criticized D'Antoni for being unable to recognize the team's shortcomings when in fact it was proven that he HAD recognized them. You are ignoring the facts.

Oh please. I overlooked or forgot one quote out of a sea of hundreds. Now, yes, I exaggerated by saying that he needed to acknowledge the shortcomings "just once," so I am guilty of hyperbole. But other posters in this thread have eloquently pointed out D'Antoni's pattern of disregarding the team's real shortcomings. If you want to disagree that is your right, but the criticism is far from ignorant.

But it doesn't mean that the coaches can't see them and aren't trying to rectify them.

So if the coach is "trying" to rectify them and failing, what does that tell you?

Way to freak out and take it to the extreme. You can't be serious with this.

Of course I am. Does a coach's high winning percentage disqualify fan criticsm of him, or doesn't it? If it shields D'Antoni, it has to shield Westphal; if other factors permit us to criticize Westphal, then one must allow the possibility of other factors permitting us to criticize D'Antoni.

 

[HooverDam]

Pretty good try, but screenwriting and filmmaking are not the same thing at all. But that's moot anyway: If I use a different example, does that mean my argument has no less credibility?


P.S. Haven't seen it, or I would have just mentioned one of the other zillions of movie critics who have no IMDB credits to speak of. I will check it out, though!

I was being sarcastic, its not an "All time classic". I mean, I like it because its weird, but its not really 'good'. Its just, a B movie.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Not really. Chris's point is that we have no basis to criticize "experts" in the field unless we could do a better job ourselves, and that D'Antoni's win percentage proves that he's an expert, thus immune to criticism from lowlifes like us. Westphal had (roughly) the same winning percentage, so at the time he was just as much of an expert as D'Antoni appears to be now. And yet, hindsight has shown us that, hmm, maybe Westphal wasn't quite such a genius after all.

So if "Win%" = "Genius" = "Free from Criticism" in D'Antoni's case, it should apply in Westphal's too.

My point was how silly it is to be overly reactionary at a moment instead of looking at the body of someone's work.

But people want to bitch no matter what so here is where they can do it.

 

[Cheesewater]

Oh please. I overlooked or forgot one quote out of a sea of hundreds. Now, yes, I exaggerated by saying that he needed to acknowledge the shortcomings "just once," so I am guilty of hyperbole. But other posters in this thread have eloquently pointed out D'Antoni's pattern of disregarding the team's real shortcomings. If you want to disagree that is your right, but the criticism is far from ignorant.

It only takes ONE. The criticism is ignorant.

So if the coach is "trying" to rectify them and failing, what does that tell you?

That it's not easy. They all have to try. It's not just on the coach. THAT's what your problem is. You apparently can't reconcile this as a team sport.

Of course I am. Does a coach's high winning percentage disqualify fan criticsm of him, or doesn't it? If it shields D'Antoni, it has to shield Westphal; if other factors permit us to criticize Westphal, then one must allow the possibility of other factors permitting us to criticize D'Antoni.

Criticize away. But his high winning percentage precludes you from intelligently labeling him as a bad coach. Or a lousy leader.

 

[elindholm]

It only takes ONE. The criticism is ignorant.

But his high winning percentage precludes you from intelligently labeling him as a bad coach.

I'm sorry, but you've done precisely zero to crown yourself as arbiter of intelligent discourse.

 

[Cheesewater]

I'm sorry, but you've done precisely zero to crown yourself as arbiter of intelligent discourse.

That's all you've got? A left-handed shot at me personally? I never implicated myself as an arbiter, bucko.

Refute the assertion. Try it. Tell me how you get that D'Antoni is a bad coach and a poor leader when all we really know is that he has a high winning percentage. Do we know if he's coaching the players well? Boris Diaw, Most Improved Player. Leandro Barbosa, Best 6th Man. Steve Nash, MVP (x2). Do we know if players like playing for him? Grant Hill picks Suns.
But we're not in the locker room, or in his office, or in his bathroom. We have numbers as facts. Does he have a consistently high winning percentage in his tenure with this team?

I don't doubt that you FEEL he is a poor coach. Your opinion is valid. It's just not based on anything reasonable that I can see. To me, your opinion is the Goofyfruit of the HaHa Bush.

 

[DuncanRules]

Suns better fire D'Antoni and hire Larry Brown or Rick Carlisle while there's still time. Not that even those coaches will get them to the Finals, but at least they might give Suns a fighting chance.

 

[BeeBeard]

Suns better fire D'Antoni and hire Larry Brown or Rick Carlisle while there's still time. Not that even those coaches will get them to the Finals, but at least they might give Suns a fighting chance.

 

[TucsonDevil]

The Official Complain About D'Antoni Thread

D'Antoni is an offensive genius...

... my

The system is Steve Nash. Mike D'Antoni's 'creativity' has been shown for what it really is - the simple theory of outscoring your opponent. That's great if you have the right pieces (like the best PG in the game, the fastest wing with the best hopps, and lights-out shooters). However, Mike can't coach an offensive system with what he has now. So, therefore, what is he really worth to this organization? Any number of coaches in the league can win with 'hand selected' players, but how many can look at a roster and design a system to win from game to game... from series to series. Not many.

I remember reading in "7 seconds or less" the quote by Mike D'Antoni to Nash, "Tell me when you are going to retire, because that's when I will as well." I laughed about that at the time, but have come to see it as 100% required. Nash is losing quickness before our eyes. I have to believe there is an injury that we don't know about - he is missing wide open jumpers, something he rarely does. Without Nash, D'Antoni really doesn't have a plan. It was never about Banks not being a fit - it was about D'Antoni realizing Banks can't scheme up offensive sets. How many PGs in the league can?! Banks required coaching/direction, and that is something D'Antoni can't do. Offensive genius...

Another example is Leandro Barbosa. A talent yes, but a dependable star, no. Mike brought in his brother to give LB 'confidence'... what LB needs is someone to show him how to dribble and pass in the lane - without staring at the ball! LB needs to learn how to play smart offensively, rather than solely rely on Nash giving him open looks and his speed to get around defenders. D'Antoni allows LB to run the offense at times, and his is not capable of doing so. Offensive genius...

Let me close by saying this - I still would do the Shaq trade in a heartbeat. Shawn wasn't giving 100% anymore, and the Suns were getting killed inside and on the boards. However, his absence brought to light the decline of Nash and Bell on the perimeter. Barry is not the answer, the Suns already can score plenty of points. He needs to coach this team defensively, and design offensive sets that don't rely on Nash's skill sets 2 years ago. Defense is the answer, and D'Antoni doesn't even understand the question.

The Suns have the players to win... they just don't have the coach.

 

[nowagimp]

You are likely not even qualified to evaluate DA's offensive capabilities as an NBA coach. When the suns hold the celtics to 75 points it "wasnt good defense", they just missed the shots. Well then I guess KG, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce suck. The Twolves beat the Jazz, the celtics lose to the wiz, the champion spurs lose to the kings, grizzlies and sonics.

Suns fans, are a bunch of whiners when the team plays inconsistently, its sickening. The NBA is a crapshoot with injuries and to some extent scheduling(back to backs) and adding new pieces. And then there are the egos of overpaid athletes. If it was so easy as just play good defense, the hornets wouldnt blow out the spurs by 25 either.

 

[jagu]

Every teams fans can't stand inconsistency. I don't blame Suns fans for complaining about it since its their money that the Suns use to stay competitive!

 

[TucsonDevil]

You are likely not even qualified to evaluate DA's offensive capabilities as an NBA coach.

You are joking right? If not, what makes you qualified to respond to this thread?! I watch the games, I have Tivo'd different games to watch again certain aspects, I watch other NBA games, I see how teams play the Suns differently... what else do I need to do to 'qualify' myself. Become an NBA coach?

I don't have to drink sour milk to know that its sour.

 

[WuRaider]

Proof that D'Antoni is an average coach: Amare has no back to the basket game and doesn't know how to play defense.

 

[bko32]

You are likely not even qualified to evaluate DA's offensive capabilities as an NBA coach. When the suns hold the celtics to 75 points it "wasnt good defense", they just missed the shots. Well then I guess KG, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce suck. The Twolves beat the Jazz, the celtics lose to the wiz, the champion spurs lose to the kings, grizzlies and sonics.

quote]

For the game against the Suns, yeah, they absolutely sucked. Garnett, not as much as Allen and Pierce, but as a collective whole, they sucked that night and would've had a hard time beating any team in the NBA.

 

[nowagimp]

You are joking right? If not, what makes you qualified to respond to this thread?! I watch the games, I have Tivo'd different games to watch again certain aspects, I watch other NBA games, I see how teams play the Suns differently... what else do I need to do to 'qualify' myself. Become an NBA coach?

I don't have to drink sour milk to know that its sour.

Oh I didnt know that you tivo games, that certainly qualifies you. I'll bet you might be able to coach in the NBA.

 

[nowagimp]

Proof that D'Antoni is an average coach: Amare has no back to the basket game and doesn't know how to play defense.

Proof that PJ is an average coach: radmonivic cant drive tot he hoop and doesnt know how to play defense. NOT!

 

[WuRaider]

Proof that PJ is an average coach: radmonivic cant drive tot he hoop and doesnt know how to play defense. NOT!

If Amare had PJ as his coach, he'd be twice the player he is now.