I don't have any stats as reference, just mostly going off of conclusions we've already reached. I don't start many threads, anyways... Shane Battier says of himself he doesn't take a lot of shots but prides himself on being efficient on the shots he DOES take. Overall Battier is still a bit reluctant on shooting the ball and using any moves besides 3 pointers. So Battier just doesn't shoot enough. Chuck Hayes, 3 points a game speaks for itself. No outside touch or offensive game to speak of besides putbacks and receiving passes after cutting to the basket, mostly by McGrady. Chuck Hayes DOESN'T score, and he knows NOT to. Besides McGrady and Yao are halfway options at point guard. So basically that puts the team at their 2.5 against the other team's 4.5 (other teams won't always have 5 scorers) Getting to the point my question is, should the offense work to even GET Battier or Chuck involved at ALL? They don't want or CAN'T score, so whats really the point of exhausting efforts to MAKE them be what they're not? Its probably too late a question considering moves might be done to the team. And its too obvious a question seeing how people are clamouring for Scola to start any guard besides Rafer to start. The slight difference being, imagining that current team had the 2 years ago versions of Mike James or Steve Francis, or even Bonzi, ONLY pass the ball between 3 people. Get the balls in the hands of the most reliable 3 scorers ONLY. And have Battier and Chuck get out the dang way and pass them the ball unless they absolutely HAVE to. None of this Rafer setting up the offense for himself to suck at scoring and setting up other horrible scorers. Basically don't "ISO" Yao but freeze out the non-scorers and make them the specialists that they are. Can this work in a motion offense, thoughts?
I'm not sure what that would accomplish. They don't shoot a lot as is. By consciously freezing them out, that would only put even more pressure on the other three guys (and, consequentially, would probably reduce their percentages).
I bet the 2 years ago version of Mike James wont happen again. James played his best basketball in his career for 3 months in Houston 2 years ago. The difference is: James worked hard for a contract then and he has a contract now. Otherwise, James is a typical journey man. Boston & Milwaukee traded James after half season in his first year. Detriot & Toronto let James walked as FA. Minnesota was so desperate they traded James for J-Ho's contract (just WOW!!! someone wanted J-Ho's contract). Larry Brown told Dumars he didnt want James back. Chris Bosh and KG wanted James out of their teams. Only the Rockets fans are so hyped up for James.
Battier is an efficient scoring option when he tries to be. He needs more touches, not fewer. Chuck, while not a scoring threat, is an important part of the offense when he's on the floor. He's one of the best passers at his position, and he's very good at finding the open man. He handles the ball well enough that he must be covered when he has the ball. Not running the ball through Chuck and Battier creates more problems than it solves.
My post comes from admittedly - being impatient, not waiting for glue guys to become scoring guys in the "system" - wanting to see some offense, which might go away from the team concept some - thinking that help won't come from within The equation involves actually having a "3rd scorer" in the lineup. So the lineup favors scoring over role playing 3 to 2. And I guess I'm seeing what people were talking about with a 3rd scorer 2 years late Theoritical approach is One good 3rd scorer w/Yao & McGrady helps the team more than Several role players w/Yao & McGrady For some reason I'm thinking, rather than devising concepts making a worse than Ben Wallace on offense and reluctant scorer into offensive contributors, shared touches between 3 good scorers actually SIMPLIFIES the offensive approach. "Freezing out" Battier, Chuck, Rafer or anyone else is really saying establish scorers 1 through 3 more, not totally avoid them. Yes it would put added pressure on the big 2 + theoritical 3rd. Though really its more Yao cuz I WANT him getting more touches. And if he's off forget relying on a committee or that night's hot hand, just go to the next available scorer. But thats already been said numerous times, and its why I'm a fan and not an expert. Still doesn't answer what to do with the bench and players not hitting their shots...And as always blame goes to having 2 humongous contracts on the cap, overrating players, etc...I didnt expect much from this thread really. So thanks for the replies, guys.
I'm tired of arm-wrestling over it. Quick and dirty... If a player has no shot beyond 5', his defender is free to roam passing lanes when that player is in the high post and double team when the player is in the weakside low block. The legions of Hayes' fans here won't buy it. But anyone with an open mind and access to the DAL video can verify it. Just watch how Dirk defends Hayes. IOW, iIf you have no shot beyond 5', any passing skills or ability to drive are severely limited because the defender doesn't have to play up on you. Battier is "efficient" if the predominant aspect of your definition is "not taking bad shots". If that's your view...you're probably happy. Battier struggles to post up anyone close to his heigth. He gives you next to nothing in transition because 85% of the time he runs to short corner arc. Is he "efficient"? Probably. Does he contribute to easy transition baskets on a team dead last in fast break points? Resoundingly "No".
I think Battier needs to be traded in a package for either a point guard (I know we have a lot but none of them have been good) or three point shooting four like Troy Murphy. Battier has been a disappointment and I just don't see him wanting to be more than a Bruce Bowen. This team needs more than that.
I've watched that game carefully, and in fact I posted a video response from that game that you never responded to (here). Being open minded doesn't mean paying specific attention to how a player you've already concluded doesn't belong in the NBA is hurting the team. It means trying to dig deeper and test that theory with evidence. When you choose to minimize the importance of actual recorded, objective data and insist on forming opinions from simply watching the game, you give yourself a very convenient path to back out of testing your theories. Instead of responding to what the data shows in general, you can simply ignore it and instead select specific cases that happen to support your views. For instance, your claim has been that when Chuck is in the game that puts extra defensive pressure on Yao. Your reasoning here makes some sense on the surface. Chuck's defender does not have to pay as much attention to him, and he is more free to roam. Now, the question is how much does that really impact the Rocket's ability to play through Yao? Specifically, here's a straightforward test you can consider if you really believe in being "open minded": How much less effective has Yao been offensively with Chuck on the floor next to him? Here's some actual, tangible data, for the last three years: Code: with Chuck without Chuck MIN PTS FGA FG% MIN PTS FGA FG% 07/08 435 23.5 17.9 51.8% 450 23.7 16.3 48.7% 06/07 725 29.9 20.8 54.9% 900 29.4 19.7 48.8% 05/06 105 32.0 20.2 54.7% 1945 25.8 18.4 51.7% Total 1265 27.9 19.8 53.9% 3190 26.5 18.5 50.5% That's a first test, and it seemingly contradicts what conventional wisdom may tell us (Chuck can't score, his guy doesn't need to defend him, that means defenses can double team Yao more easily). But we could try to dig even further. For instance, you may accept that Yao has scored better with Chuck on the average (which the data clearly shows), but maybe against the better defensive teams he hasn't. Or maybe Yao in general is a better 1st and 3rd quarter player, and since that's when most of his minutes with Chuck occur, it seems like he's playing better because of Chuck when in fact it's just a coincidence. Whatever explanation you wish to go with, you need some sort of evidence to back it up if you expect others to be "open minded" and buy into it. In reference to Dallas, you've repeatedly tried to assert that Chuck was a liability in that game. Sorry, but that's completely overlooking the big picture of what happened. You want to hand-wave any mention of +/-, but it can tell an important story in game whether you wish to admit it or not. Here's a fact: we outscored Dallas by 18 points when Chuck was on the court that game, and we got outscored by 24 when he wasn't on the court. But that doesn't square with your notion that all the Rockets problems are the fault of Shane and Chuck (and, of course, "$ball"). Thus, Chuck is still the liability and responsible for the loss, even though a bit of common sense would indicate otherwise (the guys on the floor getting dismantled by 24 points when Chuck wasn't in the game get a free pass or what?). Nevermind that we dominated in the first and third quarters of that game, with our starters. No! It's Adelman's reliance on JVG's starting five that's the source of all our problems. And nevermind that the bulk of Yao's scoring occurred with Chuck next to him, and that he struggled to convert when Chuck wasn't in the game. Clearly, it is Chuck that is holding him back! This post looks to have transformed into an lengthy rant, but my point is simple. Being open minded means not dogmatically sticking to a particular view, but rather considering other perspectives and (crucially) the evidence backing up those perspectives. ANYWAYS ... regarding the starting five, I think it's time for some kind of change. I'm pretty much convinced that Alston is a better option at PG than either Steve or Mike, but Wells has shown some life lately and Scola brings certain attributes offensively that we need. I wouldn't classify either as very good players, and putting either one in the starting lineup I think would have a noticeable negative impact on the defense. But we need more life and more motion on offense. Things just need to run smoother. If I was to tweak that starting 5, I think I'd replace Chuck with Bonzi. Just give it a shot. We don't really lose much size (though rebounding and interior defense would suffer regardless). I think that when we play Bonzi at the PF, that will hinder his post up game since he really excels at abusing guards, not bigs. But his mobility and ability to run in transition should help. I think it would just bring better passing and movement to that starting group. Another option, of course, is replacing Chuck with Scola, but I'd like to have a PF who can switch off more easily onto perimeter players.
Let's see...according the boxscore...Hayes was a minus 6 in +/- for the DAL game. And you want us to believe that the Rockets outscored DAL by 18 when Hayes was on the court. Hayes wasn't plus 18 because...Dirk scored all of his 20 points on Scola? And Dirk did that in the 11 minutes he was on the court more than Hayes. Right. I was born on Thursday...not last Thursday. And according to the boxscore...DAL won by 13. So if the Rockets were +18 (outscored DAL by 18) with Hayes on the court and were conversely outscored by DAL by 24 with Hayes off the court...your "math" says they should have lost by 6. BS on your statistical minutia. Watch the game.
I think your comparison is flawed. In "without Chuck" column, I will be surprised if Yao's drop in FGA & FG% is not a result of playing without either Alston or T-Mac or both. I suggest you compare 5 man units of Alston-Mcgrady-Battier-Hayes-Yao vs. Alston-Mcgrady-Battier-NOT Hayes(or only Scola)-Yao. Whatever the results, you will have more reasonable argument.
That's a possibility, sure. I mentioned that maybe it has to do with Yao playing better in the first and third quarters. It could be that, or as you say Yao plays better, all else being equal, when McGrady and Alston are on the court as well. I don't know specifically what stats Yao had with both those players also on the court, but I know what his starts were with one or the other.
I thought you were referencing this game, after which you made the exact same arguments (here). Look, if your conclusions are the same after every game, regardless of what happened, maybe you're not really paying attention to the entire game. Maybe you're just picking and choosing specific possessions in the game to support whatever preconceived theories you have. That's what I meant when I said you lose sight of the big picture. Rockets were outscored by 24 points in that November Dallas game when Chuck wasn't on the floor, and yet the only thing you wanted to focus on is how Chuck and Battier cost us the game. As the video in my reply indicated, some of the things you said happened didn't even happen. You see, when evidence gets dismissed as "statistical minutia", you can say any damn thing you wish without having to really back it up.
I agree that getting James was a mistake. There got to be something wrong with a player if no team wants to keep him for more than a year.
The team HAD to find an alternate to Rafer, who was the question mark of the team. And not like they felt content with just Mike James, seeing that they drafted Brooks and signed Francis, AND they already had Luther Head. I dont mind James at all when he's MAKING like he usually does. This year, ehk....anyways The other part that didnt get any mention in the suggested approach is its about getting off to QUICK starts, ESTABLISHING the flow early. (But you cant load the whole gameplan towards the first 8 minutes of the game so that flawed it a little...) Its mostly (again) having the lineup tilt toward the coaching style. I went the long way of saying it, nice other people used a better economy of words to explain it. Dont want Battier or Chuck gone, just feel ONE of them can be experimented out the lineup cuz both tend to act like 6th and 7th offensive options let alone 3rd to 5th. Its the quickest way to establish identity on a team that lacks it now and it might take too long for Adelman to suit the style of the players. Too bad a magical "3rd scorer" that the team doesn't have can't be inserted in.
