Ignoring midrange in favor of ball movement into the maximum possible open spot-up threes and layup/dunks with a big man that can play pick-and-pop and shoot the three along with the other four guys while also being able to roll to the rim and finish WILL win us a championship.
I agree if it is in the flow of the offense that they should take those midrange shots. I mean, don't take the long 2's where you are lazy and not show awareness of the 3pt line. But if you get a solid pick and are wide open for FT line extended jumper, then sure. Especially Harden & CP There was one possession where Harden had a nice elbow look but didn't take it, and instead took a "contested 3pt shot" that didn't go in. I seem to remember the analytics actually favored a contested 3pt shot versus an open 2pt shot but that just seems whack.
You're discussing a theoretical defense. SAS does not play a gimmick Memphis / OKC defense of covering the shooters and leaving one man back. They use a sophisticated help defense. In practice this is what happened: Game 1: we absolutely blew them out with 22-50 on 3s, because they weren't guarding the arc enough Game 2: we got blown out by 20 pts in the 4th Q starting with a 9-0 run to start it while Harden rested, but EGo and Ryno were a combined 7-10 from 3s in the 1st 3 Qs. In the 9-0 run, Gordon was 0-2, but he and Bev also missed two midrange jumpers of 10 and 14'. So even with a 4th Q blowout, SAS wasn't playing a rim and arc defense throughout the game. Game 3: In a similar close game, Harden and Ariza shoot 10-25 from 3s, and Harden scores 43 points to include a ton of drives to the rim. Again, SAS did not play a rim and arc defense. They just won the game in the 4th, because they are superior closers, and Harden attempted to play the entire 4th this time, vs Game 2, and that's just not sustainable. Game 4: we absolutely blew them out with 19-43 3s, because they weren't guarding the arc enough. Game 5: Bev, Ariza and Ryno were a combined 11-21 from 3, because SAS was not playing an arc and rim defense, it was a sophisticated Help defense. Harden was 7-11 on drives to the rim, and got to the FT line for 7-8 FTs. We took the favored team in a Game 5, Away in a 2-2 tie to Overtime. Can we stop saying Popovich played OKC's failed rim and arc defense. He didn't, and his inability to guard all the 3pt shooters in the 1st 5 games shows that, plus that monster 43 pt game by Harden in the Game 3 loss where he attacked the rim at will. Our system worked just fine given beating SAS would have been a significant upset. They beat us in Game 3 and 5, because SAS simply is the better 4th Q closers...and the superior team. Now we are adding Paul and better defensive bench to that.
I like the midrange, but saying we need to mix things up is not proof. There are statistics backing up our shot selection. All of our players, Harden and CP3 included are much more efficient from deep. Basically only Dirk, Nash, and Curry would be good enough from midrange to justify taking them in volume. And Curry doesn't even take them, he took 961 threes last year! I thought our fanbase had come to a consensus on this, but like anti-vaxxers we can apparently ignore all evidence and want to go backwards. "Omg, we didn't win the championship last year with only one person on the roster who has ever made an all-star team. Moar midrange!!!!" What next? Demanding a post up big man so we can play inside out?
Analytics are a toolset from which one can derive different interpretations. "3's at all costs" is one interpretation; but I think the better one is "take the best shot available", and I think Morey would agree. If Harden has a chance at a decent step-back, it's better than passing to someone smothered on the corner 3, for example. IF guys are passing up sensible mid-range shots, it's hard to say what's driving that.
Take the open shot, if it is a 15 footer, take it. If option A&B are layups and 3s, option C should be midrange. A team that has multiple ways of beating you is better than one that is reliant on just a couple. Don't IGNORE the midrange, just make it a tertiary goal. DD
And when you have an Elite Driver/Dish-man like Harden, you must always factor in which offense creates the most free throws for him, too. So, "best shot available" is quite often forcing the defense to foul you on a drive. Free throws are, hands-down, the best shot available. That is not debatable.
I use to spend hours and hours trying to convince idiots not to be idiots. Just let them be. If you want this team to chuck threes and be predictable and call this cookie cutter offense the twin of the warriors so be it.
I'll gladly take a 50 win team that gets to the WCFs over a 60 win team that doesn't. Who wouldn't? This offense has been figured out by good defenses. It's that simple. Adapt. Make some tweaks. I expected that to happen with Paul but all I see is the same crap as last season with Paul sitting in the corner instead of Beverley. What a waste.
I agree. And if Paul does not exploit the proper weakness in the defense, then he is to blame. In his two MVP years, Nash took over 25% of his shots from 16 - 24 feet, which is as much as Paul has ever done. The statement in the Opening Post suggesting MDA and Morey are messing with Paul's mind and are to blame for Paul not making the right play is just like any ESPN Media Conspiracy that coddles Chris Paul throughout his career and Attacks the Rockets. We all saw this coming. The arrival of Paul will be used to attack MDA, Morey and Harden, with no blame given to a HOF pure PG for not playing like Nash and using his midrange. Paul is to blame if he doesn't attack the midrange when it is the best option. Not this statement by the OP:
These two things don't correlate. Historically, 60 win teams fare far more superior in comparison to 50 win teams. This is undeniable. What are you trying to say and argue here?
Historically the Clutch city Rockets were a 6th seed and swept the finals. Historically a 73 win team should win the Championship. History doesn't mean **** in the playoffs.
And that is why historically, a 6th seed does not normally win it all. The probability of one of the top 3 teams winning it all is historically higher than a 6th seed.
I do agree with that. "Take what the defense gives you" is often good advice. The Spurs dared the Rockets to take that shot in the playoffs and the Rockets never even tried it.
