"You Gotta Love It Baby" Official Jazz thread

[Surfah]

Ha...I knew you'd wuss out. Another assertion you are not even going to attempt to back up. I even called it to begin with:

It's the only statistic that matters. Kind of like the Jazz point differential lead over the Lakers. Hang your hats on that while we hang banners.

[Surfah]

It wasn't my point to prove, I didn't make it. You are the one that said he made Nash.

For the record I don't think I ever said D'Antoni made Nash. I believe he was already an All-Star before getting to Phoenix. I said there are teeth to the argument that D'Antoni made Nash an MVP. Which he did.

[Blueintheface]

For the record...I wish I'd never suggested D'Antoni shouldn't be employed. Good grief.

[MarkGrace]

It's the only statistic that matters. Kind of like the Jazz point differential lead over the Lakers. Hang your hats on that while we hang banners.

Hold on now, we're not comparing the Jazz vs. the Lakers, you are just copping out on a real argument again. I'm just asking to see the proof behind your claim. Championships are the only statistic that matters in terms of proving which team is best, sure. But that's not what you said. Here's your comment again:

Everyone should adopt the triangle offense because it's proven to be superior to anything else in the last 20 years.

Citing championships in support of this statement is just a red herring, as winning a championship means nothing in and of itself in terms of offense. The Celtics won it all two years ago ranking 10th in offensive efficiency, and the Pistons won a few years back with an offense that ranked 18th.

Since you are claiming that it has proven to be the best offense in the last 20 years, I just want to see that proof. If true I actually think that would be cool to know, and would wonder why every team doesn't run it.

[Surfah]

Hold on now, we're not comparing the Jazz vs. the Lakers, you are just copping out on a real argument again. I'm just asking to see the proof behind your claim. Championships are the only statistic that matters in terms of proving which team is best, sure. But that's not what you said. Here's your comment again:



Citing championships in support of this statement is just a red herring, as winning a championship means nothing in and of itself in terms of offense. The Celtics won it all two years ago ranking 10th in offensive efficiency, and the Pistons won a few years back with an offense that ranked 18th.

Since you are claiming that it has proven to be the best offense in the last 20 years, I just want to see that proof. If true I actually think that would be cool to know, and would wonder why every team doesn't run it.

Of course it's a red herring. I am just trying to make an argument as ludicrous as your assertion that it's system over coach.

[Blueintheface]

Of course it's a red herring. I am just trying to make an argument as ludicrous as your assertion that it's system over coach.

I rather enjoy arguments that have absolutely no way of being proven unless you were witness to the practices day in and day out, saw what Mike did or didn't do, and could definitively state the answer. It's what makes chat boards so enticing.

Now hug it out, bitches.

[Surfah]

I rather enjoy arguments that have absolutely no way of being proven unless you were witness to the practices day in and day out, saw what Mike did or didn't do, and could definitively state the answer. It's what makes chat boards so enticing.

Now hug it out, bitches.

Bill Simmons actually wrote an article about this very argument a few years ago that spawned the same argument in a bunch of the basketball blogs and websites out there.

There really is no way of qualitatively identifying what attributes or skills MD imparted to Nash. All we can know is that he went from all-star to superstar. 3rd team all-NBA to 1st team and won two MVP's under Mike D.

Personally I think that MD deserves all the credit simply because the voters decided Nash was the MVP not once but twice. The first one I'll give him because the Suns were something like 30 games better than the previous year (though again, who deserves the credit Nash or D'Antoni especially since I believe that Dallas' record also improved that same year sans Nash), but he should not have won the second. That second trophy was nothing more than Kobe hate, though Nash had a better season than his previous MVP year.

[MarkGrace]

Of course it's a red herring. I am just trying to make an argument as ludicrous as your assertion that it's system over coach.

So you don't actually believe that the triangle has proven to be the best offense of the last 20 years? It seemed like you were dead serious in that assertion, though maybe I was misreading it.

[MarkGrace]

There really is no way of qualitatively identifying what attributes or skills MD imparted to Nash. All we can know is that he went from all-star to superstar. 3rd team all-NBA to 1st team and won two MVP's under Mike D.

And without Mike D, he can still play at 1st team level (he'll probably get it this year) and match his MVP level. I guess that's just where I don't see how MD was so instrumental in his success.

Personally I think that MD deserves all the credit simply because the voters decided Nash was the MVP not once but twice.

This is the exact problem I have with what you're saying. If all the credit should go to MD, then once he's gone Nash should have been a lesser player. Remember, I didn't say that he didn't deserve any credit, I'm just rejecting your absolute.

[Surfah]

And without Mike D, he can still play at 1st team level (he'll probably get it this year) and match his MVP level. I guess that's just where I don't see how MD was so instrumental in his success.

This is the exact problem I have with what you're saying. If all the credit should go to MD, then once he's gone Nash should have been a lesser player. Remember, I didn't say that he didn't deserve any credit, I'm just rejecting your absolute.

But again this is where we'll continue to disagree. Why does there have to be a corresponding dropoff once a coach leaves? A good coach leaves his footprint no matter where he goes. If a coach is able to teach a particular skill or set of skills, good players will continue to use them and even refine and hone those skills regardless of who is the coach.

[Surfah]

So you don't actually believe that the triangle has proven to be the best offense of the last 20 years? It seemed like you were dead serious in that assertion, though maybe I was misreading it.

I did respond initially with the very argument you precluded me from making.

Who knows what the best offensive system is? I don't even know how one could begin to determine that. I am sure Holliger or someone like him would look at team PER and make up some other statistic to show that one is better than another. And like you said, offense is only one half of the game.

[MarkGrace]

Who knows what the best offensive system is? I don't even know how one could begin to determine that.

Neither do I, that's why I was shocked you said that it had been proven and was curious to see how got to that conclusion.

I am sure Holliger or someone like him would look at team PER and make up some other statistic to show that one is better than another. And like you said, offense is only one half of the game.

Oh he's done articles on which teams he thought were best, and of course championships are an obvious part of the consideration there. But your claim was to offense, which would be a lot harder to determine.

[MarkGrace]

But again this is where we'll continue to disagree. Why does there have to be a corresponding dropoff once a coach leaves? A good coach leaves his footprint no matter where he goes. If a coach is able to teach a particular skill or set of skills, good players will continue to use them and even refine and hone those skills regardless of who is the coach.

Because you said all the credit. All = everything. If it was all tied to MD, it just seems logical to me that once he was gone what he brought would leave too, at least to some extent. And it hasn't.

It's just hard to me to accept the "all" portion when it's been shown that it can be done without him.

[Surfah]

Because you said all the credit. All = everything. If it was all tied to MD, it just seems logical to me that once he was gone what he brought would leave too, at least to some extent. And it hasn't.

It's just hard to me to accept the "all" portion when it's been shown that it can be done without him.

Do we have to keep riding this carousel?

So if I didn't say all you'd agree? Does most work? Half? Some? 1/8th?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Do we have to keep riding this carousel?

So if I didn't say all you'd agree? Does most work? Half? Some? 1/8th?

You have to say without Derek Fisher and his leadership Kobe would never win a championship.