# Can D'Antoni's System Win A Championship?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Why or why not?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

It depends what his "system" truly is.

If he insists on a "7 seconds or less" offense and forces that upon his players, I'd say he probably won't win a championship in this way.

Since that probably isn't the whole story, I'm sure with the right players he could win a championship. This is a players league, and games are won/lost depending on who has the best and most refined set of players.

There is nothing particularly glamorous about the triangle offense, for example, but it's won Phil Jackson 10 titles because he had the players to get it done. The Timberwolves under Kurt Rambis didn't look too good under that same system.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

yodurk said:


> It depends what his "system" truly is.
> 
> If he insists on a "7 seconds or less" offense and forces that upon his players, I'd say he probably won't win a championship in this way.
> 
> ...


I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask why "7 seconds or less" can't win a title? People cite defense (or a lack thereof) as why this offense can't work in June. Although defense is certainly crucial in winning ball games, I believe its the ability to control the tempo of a game that ultimately dictates its outcome; defense just so happens to be the most utilized method in doing so. 

D'Antoni's system specifically aims at dictating the tempo, pushing the ball up the court so fast the other offense has no time to respond and thus forcing a more uptempo game that is generally not in many teams game plan. Fortunately for him, his offense has proven to be the best uptempo offense we've seen in the past decade making him sort of the prime ying to the yang of defense-first basketball philosophers. Essentially the question boils down to why an offense-first team geared toward dictating the tempo of a game can not best a defense-first team geared toward the same thing? After all, George Gervin said it best when he stated "good offense beats good defense."


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

With LeBron and Dirk, yes it can.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask why "7 seconds or less" can't win a title? People cite defense (or a lack thereof) as why this offense can't work in June. Although defense is certainly crucial in winning ball games, I believe its the ability to control the tempo of a game that ultimately dictates its outcome; defense just so happens to be the most utilized method in doing so.
> 
> D'Antoni's system specifically aims at dictating the tempo, pushing the ball up the court so fast the other offense has no time to respond and thus forcing a more uptempo game that is generally not in many teams game plan. Fortunately for him, his offense has proven to be the best uptempo offense we've seen in the past decade making him sort of the prime ying to the yang of defense-first basketball philosophers. Essentially the question boils down to why an offense-first team geared toward dictating the tempo of a game can not best a defense-first team geared toward the same thing? After all, George Gervin said it best when he stated "good offense beats good defense."



I agree his offense dictates the tempo; that is why it was so successful over an 82-game season. (Not undermining Steve Nash here either)

It also catches many teams off-guard b/c it's so different from the other 28 teams they play, and leads to alot of victories.

IMO, it is not going to be nearly as successful in the playoffs because you play the same team multiple times and allows them to adjust. If and when the 7-seconds or less offense is disrupted, D'Antoni's team is done for. Rhythm lost, and game over.

The caveat I mentioned above is, if D'Antoni actually prepares his team to play some reliable half-court offense (and maybe he does, I don't follow the Knicks these days), then sure he can coach a title team. As can many coaches so long as they have the horses.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Even though, Suns never got through to the Finals, it's evident that it can be done. You don't have to see it happen to see the potential that it has. Teams seeing multiple times isn't going to change much or help to prepare. Only 1-2 teams ever had an answer for it in the playoffs. And Suns went to multiple WCFs and those teams had a lot of bad luck with injuries/suspensions. If Amare is on that 05-06 team, Phoenix beats Dallas and faces Miami in the Finals. They took them to 6 games without him (and blew a 17 pt lead that would've forced a game 7). Beyond that, if you add a superstar or even just more star power to what that team had and/or D'Antoni extends the bench, they can do it easily.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

offense has never been the problem its always been a lack of versatility .

they play the spurs who can play uptempo , slow it down and defend with equal strength the suns would then lose because the spurs would slow it down a bit and the suns couldn't get the needed stops to win. 

i use the spurs because they faced D'antoni's suns and beat them most often.

but you can look at the teams that get to the finals both the lakers and celtics are versatile , they can play big or small , slow and fast 

d'antoni's suns couldn't play well big , or slow...so if they couldn't control tempo they lost and the other team(speaking of which ever team would beat them eventually) would pound them inside .

the problem of course is how to aquire a roster full of big , fast, talented, smart & versatile led by 1 or 2 quality superstars...those teams are always the title contenders no matter what system is used.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> offense has never been the problem its always been a lack of versatility .
> 
> they play the spurs who can play uptempo , slow it down and defend with equal strength the suns would then lose because the spurs would slow it down a bit and the suns couldn't get the needed stops to win.
> 
> ...


Great post -- you took what I was trying to say and nailed it.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

I agree with you both. The Showtime Lakers won a string of titles not just because of the fast tempo and open court wizardry, but also because they could adjust when some opponents forced a slower tempo in the playoffs. Magic, Kareem, and Worthy were all great post-up scorers.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

The 7 second or less offense requires big time players to get it done in the playoffs. When stakes are higher in the playoffs the lesser players start missing shots and instead of being like other teams that fall back on their defense when things get tough, a D'antoni team has nothing to fall back on.

So the answer to your question is it is possible to win with that system but it requires a lot more than a conventional system imo. A team that has a solid defense will always be more consistent than a team with a solid offense. When push comes to shove in the playoffs whatever you can do consistently becomes the only thing you can do sometimes.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Damian Necronamous said:


> With LeBron and Dirk, yes it can.


I think the same thing also but Dirk is a bit to old for LeBron (30 yrs and not getting better). We would need to find a longer-term solution as his #2 guy.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

yodurk said:


> I agree his offense dictates the tempo; that is why it was so successful over an 82-game season. (Not undermining Steve Nash here either)
> 
> It also catches many teams off-guard b/c it's so different from the other 28 teams they play, and leads to alot of victories.
> 
> ...


That is an excellent point and why I couldn't really defend the opposing point-of-view any further. The question is, can you really stop/disrupt the offense if you have a team that can continually score in the paint? Amare gave the Suns a hint of that and they nearly upset the Spurs as a result. If D'Antoni had, say, another 6-8 250lbs uber-athletic beast (that can score in the paint any time he wants, cough...LeBron...cough) would this offense be the exact counterpoint of a top-notch defense team that is championship bound?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> offense has never been the problem its always been a lack of versatility .
> 
> they play the spurs who can play uptempo , slow it down and defend with equal strength the suns would then lose because the spurs would slow it down a bit and the suns couldn't get the needed stops to win.
> 
> ...


Define "versatility." Is that purely on the offensive end? Is that the game as a whole?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

I think all of you guys made very solid points. I agree with what your saying but still want to push your buttons to see if there are more explanations/arguments that are available for this topic. All of this also brings me to my next question and what needs to be around LeBron James in this particular offense for it to realize a championship?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I can't say no yet because he's only received one somewhat flawed roster to contend with in Phoenix. They were definitely greater than the sum of their parts. All of what has been said is valid, they did have trouble with interior defense and adjusting the pace, but we also don't know if this was a result of D'Antoni settling with what he had or truly not caring for defense. 

We have to understand his 3 best players were Nash, who is one of the worst defensive point guards in the league, Amare, who's pretty good manup in the post, but in that era never really cared enough to play intelligent team defense (rotations, helping et al), and Marion, who was a decent defender but somewhat overrated, plus he disappeared in the playoffs. 

Whenever you have a weak defensive point guard and couple that with weak post defense you can't win a damn thing in the playoffs. IMO we have to give him a larger sample size. And the whole "seven seconds or less" is predicated on the primary ballhandler being an instinctive genius, which Nash was, which Lebron probably is, even though we couldn't say for sure.

At the end of the day with his system, it's primarily about the defense. It's easy to be general, but let's get specific. He's going to have to have somebody for Dwight Howard. If he had Lebron on his squad, it then becomes about 2 or 3 people big enough to handle Dwight Howard. 

And as far as your question about Lebron, it's pretty obvious he's one of the most impactful players of all time, so he doesn't need much. We're not talking about someone who needs a very specific roster. Give him a point guard who can make decisions on his own and has balls, and some defensively inclined big men with soft hands (at least 2 of which need to have jumpers), and that's pretty much it.

I don't think D'Antoni in general is going to force defense on his team, so you need guys who are already going to play it. And per the pace issue, that's easily solved by having perimeter players who can finish. You can't name 3 wing players D'Antoni's had who you could give the ball to in crunchtime and get a foul and/or bucket from. 

Pretty much like everyone's said, it's about the players. He's capable.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Define "versatility." Is that purely on the offensive end? Is that the game as a whole?


i mean able to play different styles with different skills on both sides of the ball.

the suns teams when MD coached them were all about smallball...amare is very good but he cant matchup with bynum, gasol and odom , he can only guard one of them and 2 of those guys are 7'1 he's a 4 not a 5 when he went up against the spurs in past years he was going up against duncan who is really a 5 at 7'0 or so.

ever since they changed the rules in 02 or 03 no small team has won it all...in fact i dont think a small team has won it all since the 70's...in the playoffs you have to be able to beat teams at a slower pace as well as a faster one.

to be truthful Mike D's new style is nothing of the sort ...its what they used to do in the 70's and 80's until the pistons basically changed the game with a newer rougher stlye of play.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> to be truthful Mike D's new style is nothing of the sort ...its what they used to do in the 70's and 80's until the pistons basically changed the game with a newer rougher stlye of play.


Yeah good point, there were some very good, even hall of fame worthy power forwards back then who were only 6'6 or 6'7.


----------

