ClutchFans Game Thread: Rockets @ Warriors 5/21/2015 (Western Conference Finals, Game 2)

1 point loss stings but Rockets showed some real heart against a very strong opponent in a very hostile environment. . Hoping they come back and finally kick some "Bay Area But". Go Rockets.

Refs should be a little friendlier here, role players should play better. Rockets will have some fire in their eyes after letting two "Shoulda' had 'em" games slip away. Dwight will have two more days to heal his Knee and staff will have more film to analyze and make adjustments.

 

Thumbs up!

 

That better hold up this series. The only problem is the Warriors are the only other team to not lose 3 in a row all year and the Rockets have to win 4 out of 5 to advance.

 

Really thought we would take take 2. Even being down 0-2 I still think we will win this.


Rockets in 6.

The magic sseason will end with a ring. It has too. Book it

 

I am glad I gave up when I did last night. If Harden makes this, I would have smiled this morning and gone about my day. If I was watching this live, I like Harden would have committed acts of violence on random furniture.

<iframe src="https://vine.co/v/eqZOI9BHEwA/embed/simple" width="300" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script>

 

Funny thing was that Green flopped his little butt off on that play.

 

if the rockets hold serve and can steal one at the Dubs home gym we have a chance. it's not like the dubs are overwhelmingly superior and we really should have won this last game.

 

I'm still pissed that we didn't call a timeout especially when harden got doubled. **** it. Win Game 3.

 

The Warriors' regular season record is just 13% better than us, meaning they won 11 more games out of 82.

But the media thinks we are a #8 team that barely made it to the playoffs trying to hang with the big boys.

 

Falling back into defenders after setting screens in dangerous. **** him.

 

GS was not the winner of last night's game, to me.

This is the type of game that returns me to thoughts about winning and losing and how those words can become vague and questionable. I wonder if tweaking how winning is defined is practical?

The Clipper/Spurs series is a good example. It went 7 games and was decided on a last second shot. For drama it was everything that the NBA and BB fans would wish for. But I have a problem with games decided in the last few seconds of regulation.

That last second shot by Paul to win the game did nothing to really establish that team Clippers was clearly superior to team Spurs. What if it was a 9 game series? Or just a 5 game series the way 1st rounds used to be? When a series gets decided in the last game, in the last second, it seems too arbitrary for establishing a "winner."

Teams do hope for certain seed positions to avoid other teams they don't match up with very well. That in itself calls into question the validity of claiming the title "Champion." (Remember who the Rockets seem to have the Bulls number?)

It just seems that some sort of tweaking could be done to make "winner" more meaningful in 1-point games.

There is already talk of eliminating back-to-back games. How valid is a win against a team that is exhausted because of their road schedule? And many have said for a long time that 82 games is really too many. Players -- active and retired -- question the status quo.
Listen to JVG and other coaches who are now analysts and you'll hear them talk about things they'd like to see changed.

I think the product could definitely be improved. Just how much is practical and doable? When the league can't even get control of flopping it's hard to see any major changes to improve the current product. But fans deserve a structure to the contest that allows for the fairest outcome. Missed calls is a prime example. Fans could argue the Rockets lost 2 games due to bad calls on Harden at the end of games this season. There were a couple of crucial missed calls in last night's game. Van Gundy and Mark Jackson both noted fouls not called against the Warriors. It all evens out, right? Not really. These bad calls often prevent momentum shifts and discourage players. Get a few non-calls against you and it's easy to see how a player might think, "What's the use?"

Hack-a-whomever, missed calls, and flopping are the more obvious blemishes to the NBA product.

I don't know if 1-point games should be added to the list of improvements or not. Because of the aforementioned dubiousness of what team is truly better in any given game I would at least put in the discussion. As a starting point, how about just saying it also qualifies for overtime as well as a tie score? Certainly not a perfect solution, but I'd rather a team win by more than 1 point to be called "winner." I know. You have to call the game over at some point. But a more clearly defined definition of winning, if agreed upon, might take away some of the sting of a loss like last night's.

It could be constructive for fans to collectively have such a discussion to improve the NBA and help eliminate the frustrations that should be fixable or at least, could be improved upon. A "Plan" could be offered to the Commissioner and the media. Sports radio talking-heads could certainly occupy themselves with that topic to add weight to the discussion.

 

i wish we could play tonight.

 

I'm hoping playing at home will help guys like J Smith, C Brewer, T Jones, and JET play better. We HAVE to get production from those guys in order to beat GS. Harden and (a hobbled) Howard alone will not do it. They are too good to be beaten by 2 players. We are so close, just have to get over that hump. GS is getting production from multipe guys at different times, we have to match that.

 

Rockets proved they are the better team. They'll win the next 4 out of 5. Not a shadow doubt in my mind.

 

One in each game where bad ref call on who the ball went off of at a critical juncture in the game and both ended up scored in each game for 2 by GS. Obvious bad calls! Rigged? Twice in two games late in 4th! Coincidence? WTF is going on? Bad luck. Those were killers imo. Plays are non-reviewable so I guess it's just one big FU to us. Whatever...I hate basketball.

 

America- and the world - are obsessed with winners. Particularly champions. Let's face it- if the Rockets win the championship, we are going to say , "hey, best team won" but there are others who will say the best team didn't win b/c that was the GS Warriors.

It works both ways- in 1994, weren't the Sonics truly the best team? Yes, in the regular season. But that's why you have the playoffs. What about 2013? Shouldn't the Spurs have won that? Possibly. Look at how close the 2010 Finals were. 7 games, and Boston loses by 3- and they had a chance to tie with 6 seconds. It sucks, but what can you do?

You can argue about this a lot- particularly in the NFL where a team could have one bad game- in the Super Bowl- and there goes the championship. Ultimately, no matter how few points you lose by, if you lose, you lose.

That's why there's always the 4 point rule. If you keep your lead at 4 points, particularly at the end of a game, you guarantee you'll win (b/c officials aren't going to call a foul on a 3-point shot in the final seconds). Anything less than that, and you risk the other team chucking up a crazy 3-pointer to tie- and then anything can happen in OT.

Harden didn't lose that game last night- the Rockets did b/c they kept it too close. On Saturday, they have to keep that "4 points or more mentality" in the 4th quarter.

 

"As a starting point, how about just saying [one point game] also qualifies for overtime as well as a tie score?"

Come on, man.

 

Thanks for the reminder of another blemish on the game, as far as I'm concerned... the definition of a foul seems to be different in the playoffs vs. the regular season. We've all heard the phrase, "the playoffs are more physical... they're lettin' 'em play." And you are right, fouls are generally not called on the last play of the game. That's no crazier than suggesting more than a 1-point lead to win a game. So, in essence, the referees can truly decide a game by not calling a foul when everyone watching the game and seeing replays see the foul.

That is another changing parameter. So a "winner" in the playoffs is different from a winner during the regular season because the rules are "bent" to allow for more physical play, etc.

JVG gets peeved by this, also. A rule is a rule and the criteria for enforcing it should not be dependent on the weather or time of year.

 

I know it sounds crazy but it's no crazier than tennis. Even if you win a point tied at 40-40 (deuce), you only have "advantage." You have to win another point off your own serve to win the game. Seems to me if you win a point more than the tie, you should win the game because as long as you haven't reached 40-40 it doesn't matter who served you get the point. (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_scoring_system)

Sports rules have changed in almost all sports over time. Older players like McHale, Barkley, Jordan, etc. were allowed to hand-check. The game was quite different when that was allowed. It was still in force when the Rockets won their first championship. Dealing with hand-checking is a skill that doesn't exist with modern players. So we have "champions" who played under different rules across the history of the NBA. It's one reason discussions of how would a modern team fare against one of these older teams is a bit moot. They may not have played by the same rules.

Rules are not absolutes. If you can get everyone participating to agree it becomes "the rule."

I'm just saying it could be starting point as an "idea." I don't know if it would be a solution anyone else would agree on. Obviously, you don't.

 

Colin Cowherd Gave Harden Much Respect today:

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=12931983