Clyde's keys to the game: 1. The guys gotta show up tonight! If they don't show up to the arena and take the court, they have no chance of winning! 2. Now that they've shown up, they gotta put the ball in the basket! 3. Go out there and play hard, have fun. You do that, good things will happen. Back to you Bill & Bull!
Somehow I knew this would end up being a hate on Drexler thread. There is always hate for those who speak truth. Before this thread Drexler was known as a championship winning Houstonian. Now he is grumpy old man who knows nothing about championship basketball. Good ol' Clutchfans!!!
Drexler was a great player from a bygone era. When you played during an era where 3pt shooting wasn't seen as such a valuable shot, you are probably not going to place much value in it. Thing is, the game HAS changed and for his analysis to be applicable, his mindset has to change and follow the new meta.
Clyde the player and Clyde the analyst are 2 different things. It's okay to love one and not the other.
Our fanbase was prob the hardest on WB. Heck, I still crack half serius jokes about him. Can't expect everyone to change on a dime. A positive thing about WB is that he's the type that'll earn your respect while maintaining who he is. We just have to see if it's a chip winning combo.
If you're agnostic to point values then you're looking at it wrong. You have to factor in those values. So, 40% from 3 is equal to 60% from 2. Clyde was a career 32% three point shooter, so are you telling me his midrange game was better than 50% (well 48%)? Most players would easily say no to that. Maybe certain maestros like Kobe would say yes, but all in all most are a flat no. Now, I don't have the data to support or defy if those numbers go down as volume increases. If that's you're argument, I'll listen for sure.
Keep in mind that Harden and Westbrook will each average somewhere around 34 minutes per game, meaning they'll each sit for about 14 minutes. And we all know how MDA sticks to those rotations. That's quite a bit of time when only one of them on the court and is allowed to be his ball-dominant self without worrying about stepping on the other's toes. For example, let's say they each sit 6-7 minutes per half while the other plays (just a little more than last year with CP3, but MDA won't be as cautious with Russ). That's more than half the game minutes that WON'T be shared between the two. It's that other 50% or so that will require one or both to play differently. My point is that we don't have to worry about them meshing perfectly all game long for 82 games. And by the time the playoffs arrive and the minutes go up, they should have worked things out pretty well as to who does what. If not, we're in trouble.
Exactly, Clyde doesn’t know ****. I appreciate his contributions to the second championship but he’s pretty mediocre at anything that doesn’t actually involve him playing the game. Even his bbq sucks.
I know why the 3pt shot is a more efficient shot and I am a huge supporter of our philosophy. My point was that for a player like Drexler, especially considering his era of basketball where 3pt shot was not prevalent, a midrange is more efficient for him simply because he can make it much more consistently. A player like Drexler isn't thinking about how he has to hit 50% from midrange consistently for it to equate to a 33% 3pt shot. All he is thinking of is, which one is a better shot for ME?
Again, I'm not afraid of them meshing either, it's just, you have to think of Westbrook like he's a tool. You can use a dictionary as a hammer in certain situations just fine, but that's not what that tool is used for. WB and Harden will overlap for roughly 20 minutes per game. In those 20 minutes, one will be in his MVP form and the other will not. I'm not saying there will be no synergy at all, but, to assume that the other still plays at an MVP level is folly. Who knows, that might be fine.
I think it's been well established by now that a great basketball player may not necessarily know how to build and/or coach a team. See Johnson, Magic. See also Jordan, Michael. On the positive side, it is truly amazing to see Clyde and Barkley agree on anything.
1991 Portland TrailBlazers 112.8 ORTG (2nd) 2018 Houston Rockets 114.7 ORTG (1st) 2019 Houston Rockets 115.5 ORTG (2nd)
The point I'm making is that the three is better for him, he just couldn't think of it. He's a great guy and a fun commentator, but let's be honest I think most of these guys struggle understanding the stats. They didn't get into the NBA because they scored an 800 on the SAT math section here.
I've always thought Westbrook was a tool, until he was traded to my team. Yeah, I think we're all just crossing our fingers and hope it works. I initially thought this would either be a spectacular success or a Hindenburg-esque tragedy. Now I'm thinking there are probably a lot of gray areas where it could work pretty well or fail somewhat. As long as the success parts far outweigh the failure parts, I'll be happy.
Drexler is a Rockets legend who was one of the biggest reasons we won our second championship... But yeah - he's a pretty terrible announcer and that comment about mid-range being more efficient means he doesn't understand basic math.
idk, did he get canned as a tv analyst? We need Robert "Hakeem was 20x better than Duncan" Horry as the analyst.
It was NOT this FWIW. He repeatedly said he loves the modern game and the players and loves that they make so much money now. He even joked how happy he is that he doesn't have to practice.
Yeah this was just so weird. I mean he flat out said the midrange was "more efficient" than the 3. I don't think he understands the meaning of the word "efficient." He bragged about those teams taking more "2s"
