I imagine Morey's analysis is more complicated than the PPP calculation. It probably takes into other factors as well. He probably got it all figured it out.
Sounds like you're saying, "Game 7, what do we do?" My answer would be that we've been doing it for so long, that coaching instincts and Harden's instincts will have done it so many times that they'll get a good feeling about one way or the other and that's another point of trust we'd have to reach as fans, but experience will dictate the best action. We just sit in the stands, by tvs and radios and say, " " <--- that's an end quote. The picture is too long to quote it.
Amen to that. Even Harden said what's amazing about this team is there is still lot of room to improve.
I keep hoping we end the season on a 13 game winning streak due to those improvements. My gut says that the time is prime to start playing our best.
Like their energy, but cringes about some of those shot selections and careless possessions. But understand this is Dantoni V.1 and Harden's first year playing PG. Very very happy about our records no matter what happens next.
The numbers just don't back you up. Your perception is that those shots have a far lower chance (10% vs. 40-50%) of going in. That's just absolutely not the case. If that were the case, you would be right. See the math I posted above. You would have to have dramatically lower FG% during your 2-for-1 attempts to forgo the 2-for-1. One consideration, though, is transition defense. The Rockets are not the best transition D team. If going 2-for-1 further impacted that, the opposing team's efficiency could be higher on a 2-for-1. But it would have to be almost 50-60% higher to overcome the fact that you are getting 2 possessions. Like I said, the numbers don't back you up. If we lived in a fairytale land where we shot 10% on 2-for-1 attempts and the opposing team shot 80%, then I agree - let's not go 2-for-1.
I think the model perhaps is more complicated than the simple math you are proposing here. See my posts above.
Rockets seem to turn the ball over in the 2 for 1 situation more often than not. By default they get 2 for 1 because the first possession is either a turn over or a bad shot.
I think you're 100% right - that model was literally off the top of my head, and not meant to be taken as anything as a rough sketch. But even with that rough estimate, you'd need to have pretty large swings in FG% for either team to change my conclusion.
Agreed with PPP swing. Not so sure about impacts to wins and losses. Once again, just looking at these numbers in aggregate may not be an accurate guide as to whether an individual shot is warranted in that situation for that game. I guess what bothers me (not necessarily you are wrong) is looking at these numbers across games and say yeah that's the right shot. Stats like these make a lot more sense to me when looked within the game. Pardon my poor articulation.
I don't think we are too far off in what we are saying. I agree that taking a contested 3 is not your ideal shot. That still doesn't negate the extra production just from having another possession. But like I said earlier, there are extreme situational variables too - like facing Kawhi Leonard or Draymond Green. You'd have to consider if they would contest your quick shot much better than a half-court play. I actually think you'd have a better chance at getting a good shot when they can't get set.
