You are leaving a lot of context out in your oversimplification of what happened in 2009. Yao Ming wasn't just our rim protector; he was our best scorer in those playoffs. The next best player was a tie between AB and Artest, neither of which are the number 1 or even number 2 option on a good team. If Yao was just Mutombo and our top scorer was someone else (hell, even T-Mac), then the playoffs would have gone a lot differently. After Yao retired, Hayes was actually our full time C and we had a pretty good D if memory serves. Here is the thing about PJ Tucker; we don't need him to be anywhere remotely close to Barkley. We just need Tucker to be Hayes on D and hit that corner 3 on O. Whether he can sustain his typical corner 3's being our full time C, that remains to be seen.
Don’t forget in the playoffs D’Antoni likes to shorten his bench. He goes with a four man rotation and spots the other team a player On the floor. I believe the theory is our four best players can take their best 12 over 48 minutes.
when you play against a historic team like GS who forces guys to be unplayable, yeah that bench is shortened. especially when your bench was pretty much trash in the first place like last year. GS simply forces that hand that other teams don't. You don't want to be benched, then play better or don't be a negative on the floor. Other than that the rotations in the playoffs outside of GS are pretty much what they should be. people still hold onto the GS playoffs and believe that applies all around. Nah, context is everything.
I strongly recommend you do a bit of research here. So, to throw some factual monkey wrenches into your argument here: First and foremost, the Bucks are the best rebounding team in the league. Them crushing us on the boards was completely expected and something we can gameplay for. Every team has a weakness and the Bucks is 3pt defense. In a game all about matchups, of course it's going to come down to 3pt shooting vs rebounding. 3pt shooting is literally the only way we can win against a team like the Bucks. Bucks have the fastest pace in the NBA this season at 105.38. Rockets are 4th at 103.72. This means they actually have MORE possessions each game than the Rockets do. To say that we play faster is not correct. With WB, it may seem like our team plays fast due to the HUGE bump to transition offense, but overall we still play pretty slower than the Bucks. What ended up happening was that they tried to force the interior offense against us and THAT bogged down their pace. While the Rockets have the 2nd best offensive rating at 113.6, the Bucks aren't too far behind at 7th (112.2). Combined with pace, this means we do more with less possessions. While banking on steals itself is risky, the benefit of being smaller and faster is we can afford to play passing lanes more aggressively. Even if we aren't getting or going for steals, it's still something the O always has to keep in mind. This in itself limits things offensively for the opposing team.
The Rockets defense is like everything else the Rockets run, based on mathematics. The Rockets philosophy since Bzdelik has been to force turnovers and get out in transition. Initially the Rockets utilized that defense to cover some of the limitations defensively on the perimeter. Now the Rockets still emphasize getting steals and forcing turnovers on the perimeter, but they do it to limit the effectiveness of scoring inside. Initially the defense was to exploit the Warriors pass heavy offense by forcing turnovers, not it is to limit post heavy teams. By this point the whole league knows what the Rockets are doing. They have somewhat built their defense outside in..... however it isn't easy to neutralize what the Rockets do. A team needs to be a strong perimeter team that does not really turn the ball over, which means a team that typically does not pass the ball too much BUT is capable of bring the ball up.... most teams that are strong on the perimeter are not also strong inside.... so it is difficult. Further, even if a team is able to get the ball to a post player, that team needs to be able to get back in transition defense.... it can be done but there are not many teams that consistently do that. Honestly the key to beating the Rockets is to rebound well and not turn the ball over and that is a rare duo in this league in 2020. The biggest concern I have with the Rockets system is that it gives the Rockets what they do very very well, but it also requires a really small margin of error by the Rockets. The Rockets have to win the steals battle, the turnover battle and usually the free throw battle to win against a good team.
I do NOT believe in this team because of the rebounding. No rebounding means you make the game incredibly hard to win no matter who you're playing. You make the game harder than it should be. Sure you can beat ANYONE, but you can also lose to ANYONE, when the rebounding is this lopsided. There are plenty of aspects of team basketball that you can punt. IMO - defensive rebounding is not one of them.
They're not punting blocking out bigs. They're accepting trade-offs. I don't understand the point you're making. Last year during the playoffs, Capela got abused so badly by the Warriors with the regular switching scheme. That is why the Rockets changed the switching scheme in game 6 with Durant out, in hopes of keeping Capela in the game for productivity on offense and usefulness on defense. But with the regular switching defense, Capela got hunted and the Rockets sucked, which is why some of the better playoff lineups the last two seasons were all small-ball. Now add that factor to the mix of bigs the Rockets currently have. They don't have a true dominant big anyways. So in addition to getting hunted on defense, the bigs the Rockets already have are going to get abused in certain post situations. So what true benefit is it to have a regular big in the Rockets' current defensive scheme? As you stated, it's a little better rebounding in certain situations. But the trade-off is much worse perimeter switching D, nullified rebounding when the big is drawn out and hunted, and on the other end, terrible spacing because we have Westbrook instead of a shooter. So yes, blocking out tall offensive rebounding monsters will be a struggle the Rockets have to deal with, but they've consciously decided to accept that struggle as a trade-off for better perimeter defense, active hands in the steal lanes, and maximum offensive spacing. And even when they had traditional bigs in there in the past, that struggle still existed on varying levels. The only situational benefit of having a slow true big in there in my opinion is during a free throw rebounding late game situation with a timeout taken immediately afterwards.
Well, keep in mind that Milwaukee is likely the best post team in the league. There are a few others but the Bucks are very big and long.... and they get away with it because their best player can also run like a guard and defend on the perimeter. Also we look at the scoring in the paint and are shocked that we are outscored by 40 in the paint and win......... but right now, I guarantee you there are coaches on the Bucks looking at the statistics and wondering what the Bucks can do to prevent them from being killed by 40 on the perimeter and are concerned that they do not have the players to stop it.
When this season started I said that match ups would matter more than they have in a long time. Seeding is always important, but there isn't a team in the West that can beat all comers. With the Warriors demise and the Raptors losing Leonard... we are seeing that match ups really matter. Every single team in the league has a weakness that can be exploited. For example, as strong as Milwaukee has been this year and everyone praises their size inside....... but they also give up a really high number of open 3's... as a consequence of their size.
Unfortunately that player you mentioned was Harden, Giannis just picked tpalmed the rebound without jumping and Harden was too short and too far away. I think by giving up the paint a little to Westbrook but fortifying perimeter D, would have been a danger. The old 'Let the stars have theirs, we lock down your role players' scheme.
Yeah I am much more concerned about our lack of depth and heavy minutes to our main guys. That concerns me more than lack of height.
The Rockets’ defense late in the fourth quarter won the game yesterday. Their switching defense and active hands forced numerous turnovers down the stretch, and the Bucks had more than 20 turnovers for the game. Danuel House’s awareness to sink to the corner and intercept Giannis’ pass on a drive and kick under 20 seconds left with the Rockets ahead by one was pivotal in the outcome. Also, I give the NBA a lot of credit for finding a way to pump in realistic crowd noise. Other than fans not being there in person, this had the feel of a playoff game. I found myself enjoying last night’s game experience more than I thought I would.
Your last paragraph basically sums up why I don’t think this strategy will work long term (I.e championship). Now I know some of the more optimistic fans don’t want to hear that but you are right. We don’t have much margin (read: almost none). The guys have to be near perfect night in and out over the course of multiple series. Given the unique nature of this season, assistant coaches and team staff members will have even more time to pick out any potential flaws in the Rockets strategy and game plan for them (it’s not like these guys can go anywhere). I’m concerned about the ability of guys like Tucker and RoCo to but timely shots when they are running heavy minutes against bigger players.
We are on opposite sides of the fence with the court noise lol. I found it annoying as it often drowned out the commentary and on court calls.
that doesn't mean without playing small ball, that those problems didn't exist in traditional lineups which also presented those problems in addition to others. every single way a team plays presents its own standards and what they need to do to give their best chance at winning. there's no such thing as a sure fire way to win a ship. When people say this strategy doesn't work and they use the simplistic view of just playing small ball as the reason, it just doesn't hold much merit. if the rockets stuck a traditional big out there, I could literally name a ton of reasons why that wouldn't work either. pick your poison
yup I've enjoyed what they've done since this thing has started. I don't even find myself thinking that these guys are playing in a basically empty arena anymore. The presentation has been awesome. The intense level of play is still there coupled with tv presentation has me glued to this thing just like it was prior to the season coming to a pause. at the end of the day all these guys are going to compete and when it gets down to less and less teams this is going to be one for the books.
When did I suggest that these problems were inherent to small ball? Honestly it's irrelevant if these problems exist with traditional line ups because the Rockets have gone all in with this atypical line up.
Since the Rockets made the deal for Covington they are 10-6....... (that included a 4 game losing streak before COVID) Since the Rockets made the deal they have been out rebounded by an average of 10 rebounds a game. There does not seem to be a correlation between how badly they are out rebounded and whether they win...... they lost when they were out rebounded by the Knicks (-34) but beat the Bucks (-26). In fact they actually out rebounded the Hornets (+10) and still lost the game. 3 of the 6 loses since the trade can directly be traced back to horrendous three point shooting. The Rockets shot 22% against the Suns and lost, 16% against the Clippers and lost and 28% against Orlando and lost. The only really lose that raises a red flag is the Clippers loss....... the Rockets were 7/42 from 3 against the Clippers and lost by 13..... how much of that was the Rockets shooting poorly and is a fluke, and how much of that is that the Clippers have the best wing tandem on the perimeter since Jordan and Pippen? If they Rockets shoot 33% from 3, they win that game.
It was a general post but it doesn't really matter if you suggested it or not. It's what the rockets are doing and that's what the whole discussion is about. It isn't irrelevant bc we've seen the rockets using traditional lineups with this team prior and boy was it not very good
