The problem with the Rockets has always been obvious --

Put harden in the corner. Also I agree that he needs to stop bringing up the ball with russ on the floor. Even when russ is out have rivers bring the ball up more.

 

This very true. Also, decensewins championships and we have none. The whole issue when MDA was hired was to have a good defensive coach because if not this type of season would occur. We have no credible defensive coach (due to tightwad owner) and this is the reality we live in for the near future

 

BzDelic firing is still a mystery to me

Rocket River

 

No, it's not that simple. Just because you are a good 3pt shooter doesn't mean you should shoot more. (It's like say that because Harden is such an efficient scorer, he should shoot on EVERY possession.) It might be that those guys are at their optimal volume. If they shoot more, the result might be worse.

We just don't know until they actually do shoot more or shoot less. Again, it is not a predictor. In statistics, there are predictors and non-predictors. You have to understand which is which.

 

Using field goal percentage to call the rockets scorers "inefficient" is either disingenuous or ignorant. Three pointers give you more points than two pointers. If you want to ignore free throws and just look at shot making ability, then use eFG. The league average eFG is 52.5%. Here's the eFG for the top 10 rockets in minutes per game:

Hartenstein 67.8%
Capela 63.2%
Tucker 58.1%
Mclemore 57.8%
Harden 54.7%
House 54.7%
Clark 54.2%
Rivers 48.3%
Gordon 46.7%
Westbrook 46.5%

Gordon obviously had a terrible start due to injury, but since he's been back he's been above average as well. The only two players we have on the roster who are actually below average here are Austin Rivers and Westbrook.

 

Out of his arse per usual.

 

I don't think we are disagreeing much. However I think 3 pointers have been historically undervalued and they still are to a degree. I believe these guys are far from their optimal volume. If Steph curry can hit 8 3s a game shooting 38% instead of 4 3s a game at 42% he should go for it. One example from the article is the team with Del Curry and Glenn Rice. That team would be amazing with today's offenses. We will look back again in 10 years and realize how much more current players could have shot the three. D'Antoni's dream of averaging 50 threes a game will be a reality league wide.

If Harden could maintain anywhere near his current efficiency taking every shot, you do it. He is scoring 1.54 points per shot, Capela is at 1.41, McLemore is third at 1.26. Just to be ridiculous, at 91 shots a game (their current average) with Harden's efficiency the Rockets would score 140 points a game. If he could score 1.4 points per shot, taking 40 shots, again you do it. There is definitely an argument to be made that Harden should shoot more even though that would make the average fan's head explode.

 

consistency is the problem, whether it be offensively or defensively or both. You don't know which team is going to show up.

 

The biggest mystery is why Morey never seems to sign personnel who actually fit his system/philosophy. He did once, a couple of seasons ago, and it worked out pretty well.

 

Tilman happened

 

imagine using overall FG% in 2020

 

except that Gordon is almost untradable with his contract.

 

This year specifically we don’t have the shooters, this isn’t an always thing. Our offenses have relatively been always great, our defense has consistently been lacking.

IMO

#1 problem - Tilman
#2 problem - defense
#3 problem - WB
#4 problem - lack of size
#5 problem - lack of shooters

 

Wait are you saying he can waive the no trade clause ? If so that is very interesting.

 

The mistake that many of us make is that we keep using efficiency stats that look at whole season or a segment of games. But that is not what matters in this sport. It doesn't matter if the "efficiency" is great for the whole season.

You have to split those shots, numbers, plays, into 48 minutes segments every few nights. So consistency, i.e. the team/player's mean/median efficiency for each game and the variation for each game from that mean/median, is most important. Basically, a shooter who is shoots 35% basically every night is better than a 38-40% shooter who is super streaky with a number of games below say 20%.

We all know this of course. So, I would assume that an organization so statistically-oriented as the Rockets should as well.

The issue is a scheme that is poorly designed. This scheme is an analog of McCarthy's GB Packers offense that required every WR to win their match up and Rodgers to be great. Even with a few great players, they won't win every time. I know it's a different sport, but the concept still applies. On top of that the Rockets have not really added significant wrinkles over the past 3-4 years, basically just Harden but that is not enough.

Great teams require schemes with counters, the ability to elevate poor players, and to make things easier for the great players. So,...that maybe they have the energy to play defense. Plus making changes as teams start to figure you out.

Lastly, a lot of other teams have implemented elements of Moreyball, so even the value added to playing such an extreme style has decreased over time.

Then we have to figure out if Harden and Westbrook can really learn new tricks towards the end of their prime. I feel Harden has a high BB IQ, but he seems to always need to be in control, maybe because he doesn't trust anyone else?

I don't know if Westbrook can completely rein in his "out-of-control" nature, but he definitely talks a good game so maybe he is willing to be a team player. So, with a consistent solid direction, he might be able to limit it some.

I still like Morey. He may not have keyed the correct players in recent years, but the Rockets have not had a better GM at figuring out a way to get players and manage a cap. There are very few GM's could find a few pieces without 1st round picks over the next few years, and most are already hired by competitors.

But MD has run his course. Sad, he will probably be remembered as the Don "Air" Coryell of the NBA.

 

It’s not a no trade clause so he can’t waive anything. They signed him for higher than the amount that would be allowed in a sign and trade. Thus, he can’t be traded during the first year of the contract.

 

You can’t trade his salary this season. It’s a contract stipulation

 

I'm posting in this same thread about the game against Utah because I think that game supports the idea I referred to as our "gut" feeling. I've read Agent94's rebuttals and don't necessarily disagree with the summation that the article is just another way of looking at 3-point percentage.

The "gut" feeling for me, and maybe not others, is that a simple hypothesis or thought experiment illustrates the gut feeling which is that 3-point percentage as computed normally is really just an average. It may be fool's gold in an important way.

Suppose we have a player whose 3-point percentage is at that 40 percent level. But suppose his game stats are that he alternates every game from 6 of 10 to 2 of 10. The nights he shoots 6 of 10 fans will say he's on tonight and on the next game when he shoots 2 of 10, fans will predictably say he's off. That night the team might struggle unless his fellow 3-point shooters make up the slack.

We have seen too often games when the whole team is "off" that night. That is when the Rockets can really struggle to make a competitive game of it. A more pointed example would be for a player to go 0 for 10 one night and the next game go 8 for 10, still resulting in a 40^% average. The point is there needs to be a better evaluation of "true" 3-point shooting -- a weighted statistic that shows more accurately if a player is closer to his average on a game-to-game basis, or whether, as in the examples offered, you really don't know what you are going to get on any given night. It really does boil down to how many games a player is within a "better" margin of deviation from that average. And that is, to me, what the article is trying to suggest. Maybe the author didn't really express in math what I'm expressing in words. On any given night, Curry and Klay were closer to their average for more games than not. I think that's a succinct way of putting it into words.

So I was thinking today of another "what if.' What if the team that played Utah on Monday night were to play the starting lineup for the Rockets? And played with the same energy and focus? Of course the starters would lose PJ Tucker. (And of late, Eric Gordon.) But there seemed to be better ball movement and player motion. And as a recollection, it just seemed like there was more aggression in attacking the basket for layups. It seemed to have taken the Jazz by surprise. Most likely the starters would still win, but Eric Gordon getting 50 points? The Jazz at home have been very good.

I still say volume 3-oint shooting demands 3-point shooting ability that the Rockets don''t have. Their 3-ooint shooting is too much like the examples presented. They have too many "shooting slumps" across the lineup, and struggle more than the "system" would indicate. That's just my "gut" though.