Trevor Ariza, the Rockets and the concept of ‘fit’ in the NBA

Good article.

 

This quote is actually quite funny because Ariza was drafted strictly on athleticism. He had zero skill. Obviously, now he's a savvy role player but that was not always the case.

 

spot on.

 

It never seems to fail. The author compares which player is better, Parsons or Ariza, and no mention is made of defense. The comparison is in the 2nd paragraph, and Ariza's defense isn't even mentioned until the 15th paragraph.

 

What article did you read? He most definitely mentioned Ariza's defense as a reason for him being a better fit.

 

What post did you read? When the author talked about who was the "better" player, no mention whatsoever was made of defense. Just minutes, points, assists, and fg%.

Why does being a good defender make you a better "fit", but not a better player?

 

Good piece. Really liked this quote:

If Ariza "completes" Harden, we need a PF that "completes" Howard. To me, that means:

1) Shooter
2) Rebounder (when Dwight goes to contest the shot)
3) Solid individual defender that can guard out to the 3 point line

Obviously, you'd prefer a star type like LMA or Horford to fill this role, but assuming they aren't available, I'd prefer Millsap or Bass.

 

A very good point. Morey stated on the radio that the Rockets have top five defenders at the 1, 3 and 5. Half of the game is played on the defensive side of the ball. It used to be said about the NBA that defense brings championships. I have not heard that much recently.

 

Parson, Harden and Lin was just TOO MUCH.

That was three defenders that were not consistent. All three did not know when to switch and all three failed to fight through screens.

Now it is easier for EVERYONE on the court. Human nature is also such that it is easier to defend your position (Harden) when the other guys on the floor are getting the job done.

 

Give me one example of when Parsons didn't fight through a screen.

 

Hyperbole. Parsons took a dive defensively last year, as compared to the year before.

 

Good players fit.

Mediocre players don't.

I felt Chander, Ariza, and Asik fit great.

Lin, not so much.

 

I feel that a very good example of fit is Diaw. He was labelled a "has been" and was not getting any playing time until the Spurs signed him. We all know what he did in the playoffs.

 

If it wasn't for his quickness and reach he wouldn't be a standout.

 

I think you might have left out the most important part - IQ. The NBA is littered with players that have reach and quickness.

 

The only issue I have is in the conclusion he draws that, in a vacuum, Parsons is the better player. He is a little better offensive player (seriously, he is not some sort of LeBron James offensive creator...where did this come from?) but Ariza is worlds better on defense.

Last year they had identical PERs and Ariza had a higher WS/48. You can argue back and forth which is better, but the consensus that Parsons is clearly a much better player is farcical.

Now which one fits better with a team is a different discussion and this article does a very good job explaining why Ariza is a better fit.

 

Well Although you are right when you compare two players one should consider both sides of the game, attacking and defending, it is a fairly common occurrence to give more value to attacking skills. Why? Because "usually" creating is more difficult than destroying.

Defending requires a lot of skill on itself, to be a top NBA defender you need to be extremely quick, intelligent, agile, and have the appropriate physical tools to dominate your opponents depending on the position you play. However it is arguable that premium attacking skills may be a lot more scarce and therefore valuable than defending skils, and this is why most people tend to favor attacking skills over defending skills when proposing a match up between two players.

I like soccer a lot, its the only sport i like better than basketball, and it i can tell you that in that sport it is very common to see that when pundits or fans rank up players the attacking virtuosos are ALWAYS higher on any list than the defenders or goalkeepers, regardless of how talented the latter may be. I dont know if you are familiar with the sport so i apologize if you know this already, but you will never see a Buffon or a Casillas (maybe the best goalies in the world) or a Pique or Terry (some of the best defenders in the world) be on top of a list or ranking above attacking players such as Messi, Ronaldo or Neymar, i mean Never ever ever, the best players on any list are always going to be the attackers.

I believe the same reasoning is applied in basketball where attacking skills are better valued than defending skills (perhaps unfairly), so much so that players like our own Harden who until not so long ago was a perfect zero on the defensive end, was so good offensively that he would still make any top ten list.

 

Sigh. What happened to the old adage "Defense wins championships in the NBA"? Premier defensive players are very rare in the NBA, and for Morey to go on 790 and declare that the Rockets have a top five 1, 3 and 5 in the league just highlights the importance. There is a very good reason none of those offensively dominant Phoenix teams never won a championship.

 

I think his passage of play towards the end of the game against Miami captured who he is now as a player. Perfect defensive stance, long-ass arms to steal the ball from Wade, composed and cold-blooded enough to dribble down and shoot the open three to ice the game.