"...we feel he's like the future of how bigs could look." did strike me on tow levels: 1, Morey seem to think undersized athletic type is the future of how bigs could look. This is collaborated by durvasa's citing that Morey thinks "size is overrated". I don't know if anything happened in game 5 and 7 changes his mind a bit. 2, it's a pity that Dorsey has such poor attitude. Otherwise, we may have a better chance of evaluating Morey's vision of "the future of how bigs could look". Hence, Ouch.
I would guess his mind, like yours, hasn't changed much. You see what we did in the 2009 playoffs as demonstrating the failure of not getting bigger in the front court. I'm sure game 4 and game 6 didn't change your thinking there one bit. He probably thinks that the outcomes in some way validates his views. We got to game 7 of the second round against two very big, athletic front-courts without a backup 7-footer, and we went 2-2 against perhaps the biggest, most athletic front-court in the league without any 7-footers. We out-rebounded the Blazers, one of the best rebounding ball clubs in the league in round 1, playing essentially with only 1 7-footer. Moreover, it's not like the success we achieved during the playoffs was due to some blistering offensive output. For the most part, we won by scrapping, out-hustling, and out-toughing the opponent. He's probably thinking to himself that the priority is getting more potent on the offensive end. As in the last offseason, he's not going to invest in a 7-footer just because he's tall. There are lots of tall, pogo sticks out there who can't defend their position and are useless on offense -- those guys don't make you any better and they certainly don't prevent blowout losses in game 5 and game 7 against the Lakers in Staples Center.
Using game 4 and 6 as supporting evidence has problems in multiple front. First, there's issue of stochastic dominance. Nothing in game 4 and 6 tells that approach will be successful in the long run. In fact, if you look at point differences of win-loss, it's glaring. Then, let's look a bit deeper at the games. In game 4, Rockets are hitting all kinds of shots they usually don't hit, Hayes, Landry, you name it. Gasol has figured out how to attack by the 4th quarter, he ended up with 30 points. In game 6, we didn't win because smallball is so magnificent. We won because we shot 50% and Lakers shot 36%. In fact, Rockets are outrebounded 45 to 39, with offensive rebound deficit of 15 to 7. All in all, nothing told me that would be a successful approach in the long run other than we did win game 4 and 6. Of course, no one wants a stiff who can't defend nor play offense, so that's not the argument here.
Imagine that, thinking about money when that's why these particular people are in the NBA business. Sure they may be fans, but bottom line it's about making money.
Against the Lakers? No. They are the better team, obviously, when we're missing not only Yao and Tracy, but also when our "Big Third" is in a terrible shooting slump. But it did help demonstrate they are good enough to be part of a winning team once we add some star players who can create and make shots consistently. And that, individually, players are capable of stepping up in big moments. It's not like Scola, Landry, and Hayes played out of character in those wins. They did the things they are expected to do when they play well. As for some of the details in your argument, I'll have to disagree. Hayes and Landry hit a grand total of one field goal each in game 4, and neither's offensive production was instrumental in us blowing open the game. Battier and Brooks had their best offensive outbursts of the season (Batter more in the first quarter, and Brooks more in the second half). Artest and Scola, our two best scorers from the regular season, shot 8-30 from the field. And Gasol scoring all those points in the fourth, to a large extent that had to do with the Rockets changing their defensive strategy to not allow 3-point shots. In game 6, how do you think we managed to shoot 50% to their 36%? Do remember what Scola and Landry did in that game? Yes, the Lakers outrebounded us on the offensive glass (having 19 more missed field goals to work with). They grabbed 32% of the rebounds on their end of the floor. Pretty good. Against the bigger, more athletic Denver Nuggets in Game 1 yesterday they grabbed 36% of those rebounds. The Rockets, in fact, were the fourth best defensive rebounding team in the league all year, despite hardly ever playing backup big over 6'7. You think that's all due to Yao? Not really -- according to 82games our defensive rebounding% as a team was virtually identical with him on the floor and off the floor. In other words, even when we played small, we still were amongst the best defensive rebounding squads in the league.
Ok, but I'm asking. Because I watched the link, maybe I heard wrong so that's why I'm asking. He says that he will miss him as a player and as a friend.
I don't remember him saying that. No decisions have been made yet on Artest. And Yao wouldn't be the one to know them anyway. I don't think the Rockets consult him on who they're signing or trading.
We didn't play the Jazz this year,they have a powerful short rebounder/defender in Milsap, and a tall one in Okur, Boozer is better than Scola and Landry. The Lakers aren't the only team that can give us trouble in the future. A short player with a wide base like Chuck Hayes is far likely to do better than a tall,thin 7 footer but we need height,athleticism and size. A taller backup C/PF who can defend,rebound and score to some extent can also help in changing the pace of the game and not only give Yao rest, but help us overcome the fronting problems to an extent as well. Unfortunately, either Scola or Landry will have to go if that were to happen.
The undersized front line had a great showing against LA but to some degree the success was fool's gold. Bynum was a shadow of himself in the series and Gasol is soft and a slow learner but he did catch on to the fact that he could torch the Rockets if he remembered he is 7 feet tall. I'm not taking anything away from what the Rockets did but the Lakers were catching on just like every other team will. Size wins in basketball more times than not. I agree with Morey that you don't just get a 7 footer because you want a tall guy on the roster but if getting a legit, backup Center with size and athleticism isn't #1 on his list of players to acquire this summer he is making a mistake. It sounded to me like he understood the importance of getting an athletic big man and then realized that he just painted himself into a corner so he backtracked a pretended like it isn't that important.
You could be right. I think he sees it as "a need", but one of many needs the team has to take the next step. He's also looking at it from the perspective he has a limited amount of resources to use, and what he's able to do will also largely be dependent on the pool of players out there and what other teams are going to do. My hunch, though, is that he considers it a lesser priority than boosting the offense with better scorers. Unless you go after a real star or a 3-point shooting big, I don't think we can improve the offense much by spending money on another frontcourt player. So, I think the Rockets will probably target a wing or, perhaps, another PG. If they can pick up a nice big in a package deal, they'll take it -- but I don't think that will be the primary pursuit. We'll see.
Isn't this the also the evidence that "small bigs" isn't the central reason of the win? I suppose this changing defensive strategy is also the reason Gasol continue to have good offensive output in other games? What's Laker's front line's offensive output when Yao Ming was still playing versus when he was not? yeah, they played out of their mind. Do you expect them or trust them to do this against big front courts consistently? Well, we have a lot more defensive boards to work with also, it goes both ways. We are outrebounded, it's simple. First of all, it's nice they are good in the regular season. But it's the playoff, where teams are bigger and more athletic that counts. There is a difference between doing it in spurts against second tiers and doing it all year without Yao and Deke (who has size). IIRC, out rebounding trouble, especially without the two bigs, are most severe against Boston, Cleveland, and SA. Of course, Morey sees something in the data, just as you do, otherwise he won't say "size is overrated". But the problem with his "future vision", other than the sample difference, is that you can't generalize. Chuck Hayes is good defensively and rebounding, no doubt. That's the sole reason that he is in NBA. However, Chuck is a special case. you can't generalize that to "size is overrated". You need to compare average players with size differences. If you are setting out to find undersized "future types", sometimes you find a Chuck Hayes, sometimes you find a Joey Dorsey. I guess what I'm saying is: given everything else equal, I'd like to have size. The "future type" vision hasn't been born out so far.
I think everybody can agree with that. But how much more does the market dictate that player deserves, and does he tend to be overvalued? And are we better off overspending on a complimentary player, or using that extra money to improve what is perhaps a bigger weakness? For the Rockets, I'd say the bigger weakness is generating efficient offense consistently, particularly under pressure. The Lakers have size in the middle, and yes that hurt us. But they also are a pressure defensive team, and I thought our lack of offense was the bigger issue in game 5 and game 7.
