Chuck Hayes 6'5 vs. Jordan Hill 6'10

So us losing 42 games is all you have to check, and you didn't even get that right (we lost 40 games). The burden is not on me to show Hill would be worse, its on you to show that Hill would be better. That's the point of this thread, right? If you want to argue that Chuck is the reason that we lost 40 games last year, explain why you think we wouldn't have lost even more with Jordan Hill. If you don't have enough information to even offer such an explanation, then maybe you shouldn't be so certain that you know better than the head coach on this matter.

 

We'll never know because according to you Adelman is trying to duplicate that 42-40 Lottery season from last year. He didn't play his boy Miller either. Hell if we're going to the lottery again why not just trade Chuck & his Veteran brethren, play the young guys & let them develop. Because at the end of the day, you're either

1.Contending
2.Mediocre
3.Going to the Lottery

This organization needs to make up its mind & act accordingly! If you're not contending, the only way to get better is the lottery. Being mediocre solves nothing!

And BTW I'm still waiting for the names of those contending teams that Chuck would be in their top 8 rotation.

 

Look Chuck Hayes is the evidence. He isn't tall enough. Thats how we lost all of those games. Every team had a height advantage. Hill and Hayes skill set are negligible. They are so close literally the only thing separating them is basically size. Chuck cant block shots and teams get easy layups. There are no stats to explain certain basketball logics. There is either tall and players dont get layups with a player of similar skill or short and players lay the ball up and make us a shorter team. Hill didnt lose those games by himself but certainly being short had to do with it as the WHOLE THEME of last year had something to do with it. I dont know more than the coach. He isnt starting Hill perhaps because he was a rookie LAST YEAR. So he starts veterans. He follows a certain pattern of this same thing every year. Veterans who know system better over raw talent with more upside and talent. Thats not saying I know more than him its him and his decision of when its time to start considering to use his assets. Thats his habits. I can point to the Theme of all of last year being short and undersized and losing. Thats the only stat I need. Same player? A little difference in offense and defense? A little difference in intelligence made up by physical talent? Same results excapt in the NBA. Where size does matter. Layups do happen if you dont have size and rebounds over the back do happen without size. Thats a proven history of the NBA during its entire existence.

 

I can't think of any. Can't think of any that Jordan Hill or Jared Jeffries or Brad Miller would make, either.

Let me throw you guys a bone, though, because I just looked this up. Last year, in crunch time minutes, Hayes played 28% of the time (55 minutes last season, not a lot). And in that time, we performed very poorly. We "won" those minutes only 3 times, and "lost" those minutes 13 times.

So if you want to make a case against Chuck Hayes playing in the closing minutes of tight games -- especially when Yao isn't there -- you could start with that.

 

Stat geeks. Height isnt a stat. Its a fact of the NBA. Why does Brooks look inferior to taller guards every night with his guady stats? He is too small to guard them. His stats wont tell you that. The game result will.

 

This. Size Matters People! If the people in your life tell you different its because THEY REALLY LOVE YOU!!! Sort of like a lot of people here love Chuck Hayes. Just sayin'

 

He is short. Short on skill too. He has his workman like effort and thats what people fall in love with here in Houston. Shane Batier and Chuck Hayes types are adorable to Houstonians. Rebounding over the back will continue to be a theme this year if he plays Yaos minutes or Hills at center. Layups will be a theme too. Thats what it is.

 

Agreed, players do adapt. We can't even compare the "Dumb" 6'11 Hill of right now becuase he hasn't been given a chance to prove himself. There is always a chance that he progressively gets better as the season goes on with his increased playing time. After 82 games if Hill hasn't progressed at all, than "Dumb" could prove a better case. Right now Chuck is playing most of Hill/Miller/Jefferies minutes and we are losing. Like they say, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" Well, its broken. Hill/Miller/or Jefferies may not be the right part, but the crank ain't turnin unless something is done.

 

Full of WIN! lol

 

What do stats reflect, if not "facts of the NBA"? Opinions?

 

What stats matter besides wins and losses? Stats are facts. Chuck at best is a 42 win center. Hill doesnt have a stats history there yet. So we go to the next argmuent. Their effectiveness during games we have seen and during the only win this season. Hill got alot of minutes. We are taller which was our weakness with Chuck and people cant rebound over Hills back. Which also is a theme of Chucks inability when we are losing to teams.

 

Don't you hate it when people use logic and data to back up an argument? How dare you bring sense into this thread

 

I like to have alot of stat stuffers on the team. I dont consider Yao one and Battier and Chuck one. Martin is one dimensional and so is Brooks. I really favor the multi purpose players like Scola and Ariza.

Types I like


Granger
Joe Johnson
Gerald Wallace
Al Horford
Josh Smith
Lamarcus Aldridge
Brandon Roy
Rondo
Rudy Gay
Artest
Odom
Igoudala

Guys who have multiple facets. If Morey had built this team on guys like that instead of their one dimensional talents? We wouldnt need so many peices to fit the puzzle together. You could do it with a few guys who can play all facets of the game on offense, defense, rebounding, assists. We have Scola who can go offense, rebounding, and carrying a team for stretches. Thats about as versatile as it gets on this team. Everyone else is so one dimensional. Lowry can pass and defend and create his own shot. Which is why he is so effective also. We need more Lowrys and Scola and less Battier, Hayes, Martin, Brooks type players who are all one dimensional.

 

Jordan Hill fits that category also. Scores, rebounds, can block shots, can make a jumper or dunk, athletic. Multi faceted game.

 

Like you said, stats are facts. So you might as well ask: "what facts matter besides wins and losses?" Well, does the fact Hill is 5 inches taller than Chuck matter? Does the fact that Hill is a better rebounder in traffic due to his athleticism matter? I think so. And the reason those "facts" matter is because they impact winning and losing.

So, returning to your original question -- what stats matter besides wins and losses? Answer: any stats that impact or reflect winning basketball. Pretty obvious.

You point to Minnesota game. Remember when you said that we shouldn't just take a stat without connecting it to actual basketball? That applies here as well. Hill got more minutes than Hayes, because the game was a laugher by half time and Adelman decided to go with the young guys. Hayes played 14 minutes in the first half, and Hill played 6 1/2 minutes. The game was won in the first half.

 

Wrong. You know better than any no lead is safe with the Rockets in the second half. It rather showed Hill is better to keep in the game during the second half when we lose all o fthe games so far this year. Shows we still jump out to leads early regardless of who plays. Nothing else.

 

I tell you what. Next time we lose a double-digit lead against a bad team like the T-Wolves at home with Chuck playing rather than Hill, than you can bump this thread and say, "I told you so!"

Come on, now. That second half was extended garbage time. Saying we won it because of Hill's second half play is a bit of stretch.

 

Thats a loaded unwinnable bet. How about next game we lose with Chuck playing substantial minutes you lose the bet? Hill plays more and we win I win the bet?

 

I"m sorry, I don't care how much better IQ or effor Hayes puts than Hill, there is a 6" height difference here. Sure hayes may stay on his man better or create more charges but what about the rebounds we lose? All the 2nd chance opportunites our opponenets will get? Easy lays ups and looks we give up inside because of the height mismatch?

That's assuming chuck hayes plays his role! Which hasn't always been the case this year, how many times in the first few games would Chuck have the ball and try to penetrate for a layup or hook shot only to 1.) lose the ball, 2.) get called for Traveling, 3.) brick a hook shot 4.) blow an easy lay up 5.) get fouled and miss both free throws.....

 

Advanced Box Score Basketball Reference.com

I just don't get it. Using this game the data says Jordan Hill sucks. If you look at the normalized numbers such as defensive rebounding % and ORtg and DRtg, Hill had a terrible game.

This great TALL rebounder only grabbed about 10% of the defensive rebounds. Hayes got around 20% which was about tops for the game among the bigs.

This box score shows the Rockets were worse on offense and defense and rebounding with Hill in the game.

One other thing the box shows is that John Wall is a badass and pretty much the reason the Wizards won.

Hill's taller though. Thanks for the insightful analysis.

To me, Hill is "Bad Beat Syndrome" for any poker players out there. He makes a few spectacular plays, so he gets remembered, aka the bad beat. No one remembers their suck-outs. As such, the bad beat percentage gets exaggerated by poor players looking for an excuse.

Hill the bad beat.