I don't think we are collapsing because of a collective shooting slump. I don't think the coach was fired because the players were missing wide open shots. It's the way they are playing without effort and without spirit. You can argue that it's the shooting slump that got them down. If that was true, it just reflected on the "leadership" or lack of. Good leaders not only don't quit like that themselves, but also don't let the people they lead quit like that.
Well said, some of my comments have been more comical/facetious lately. I'm honestly just frustrated with this team more than ever. I mean it's like there's a difference when a team tries their best or mails it in, and lately this team looks like it's just collecting checks. Just look at the body language during some timeouts or the communication while on the floor, then compare it to previous years. I mean it's night and day, and even when some of the good teams aren't winning or shooting well they don't fall apart typically.... Okay maybe the Clippers are on the same path (but I hope our franchise is better than that).
I think there's a real misconception that Morey doesn't strongly consider intangibles like heart and character. I have had extensive conversations with him, in good times and bad for the team. He has never been satisfied and when he shares problems or concerns about a player it's never been about his stats; it has always been about how hard or how smart they play or how they keep missing assignments or some other thing that has nothing to do with analytics. He talks about his feelings about analytics in this situation or that when I ask but he never brings it up himself to explain what he thinks needs improving. And, again, he always thinks the team needs improving. I liken this to a theatre director I worked with in the 90's. He used a method called Viewpoint Theory that was not so much in use then but since has come into vogue and now every actor has it on his/her CV. It had to do with being aware of (and doing creative exercises involving) six 'viewpoints': space, shape, time, emotion, movement, and story. Over time the theory expanded to include sub-categories like repetition or architecture or kinesthetic response. This is, on it's face, an academic theory and it can be seen as contrary to emotional truth in acting. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Viewpoints can be a tool. This director was a little embarrassed of the method that he used, one that he had helped the originator of it create as a student of hers, specifically because of its academic nature and the way that might leave out emotional honesty. He said that with every project he was ready to give up on the Viewpoints to try working another way but he realized that we all use the Viewpoints; we just don't always call them that. And that they are just a way of talking about what we're doing already. They aren't a substitute for it; they're a way of talking about it. Analytics are the same. Viewpoint theory is about the way we talk about the work we make. Analytics are about measuring what can be measured. Each only takes you so far. The director knew that and Daryl knows that. It drives me insane that people think of DM's work in analytics as something that means he doesn't care about heart and soul. He cares about heart and soul MORE than analytics. They are not mutually exclusive things. He's a great GM because he cares immensely about both things and understands that analytics only go so far.
I think houston Moreyball needs a few treaks but I still think it can work I think the Crew needs to go on the SMITH REGIMEN! 200 MADE Threes at the end of every Practice ALL OF THEN Rocket River
Sounds like a lot of hot air to me. If you care about chemistry, then you must (almost by definition) hold the coaching profession in high regard. There is no way the man even understands chemistry, much less knows how to teach it and establish it on a bball court, as well as coaches do -- coaches like Rudy, JVG and Adelman. He doesn't hold the coaching profession in high regard, which is why Adelman left/got fired. In your analogy, he might understand Viewpoints from an academic sense, but he doesn't know how to teach it or use it. Your analogy about Viewpoints compares a theater director to Morey, when really the theater director is analogous to a coach -- Morey is the producer. (Forgive me for making a simpleton comparison of a GM to a Producer, just trying to say that a Coach is the Director of a Play, not the GM.) It doesn't matter if Morey the producer believes in chemistry and leadership, the director/coach is still the one best suited to spotting it and getting it out of the Players (pun intended). Morey has a history of meddling in the affairs of the Director/Coach...through both trading away chemistry for unknown assets and insisting on a system that requires shooters that he doesn't have.
I think it's another unfair knock on Morey that he doesn't care about coaching. The Adelman story is one that I got to know and it completely turned my head around on that move. I've always been more attached to our coaches than our GM's, going back to Rudy, but Adelman was a bad fit for us. That's all I can say about that. I know that's lame but I can't help it. All I can say is I think if you knew the background you'd be with the Adelman move. I don't say that means you would have approved McHale but you would better understand why it wasn't really possible to continue with Adelman. That "coaching makes a 5 game difference" line was unfortunate. I know him to care about coaching much more than that and maybe that's an evolution in his thinking. Certainly he is concerned about coaching NOW. But he has always been more concerned about heart and chemistry than analytics. That's from hours of friendly conversations. You can believe it or not. I'm just sharing the unique perspective of someone that's been lucky enough to spend a lot of time talking basketball with him. And the play we are working on together began as a narrative that directly addressed this discrepancy. In DM's original idea the play's thesis was that heart and effort win out over analytics every time. That came from him. It was his premise. The play has evolved a lot and now it has nothing to do with that question, but it began as a way for Morey to express his belief that intangibles matter more than analytics. If that doesn't make you reconsider the conventional wisdom on him (which is the opposite of that) I don't expect anything would.
The only way this works is by Morey being the hands on coach. Gms aren't needed IMHO, you just hire one of the fantasy nerds on here. You need to be hands on with coaching, not third person coaching
Thanks for sharing Batman. Really appreciate whatever insights you have on what you think, or hear, is going on in Morey's head right now. Also as someone who is married to a theatre director and lifer.. I can appreciate the cross references. I look at the NBA coaching metrics argument like this- Its not that NBA coaching doesn't matter because it does. But other than being able to point out the truly elite coaches (Pop, Riley, Phil, etc.) there is very little differentiation in tangible production on the court 95% of the time that a coach makes a difference on. That doesn't mean that coaching doesn't matter. What it means to me is that there are very few people that get to coach at the NBA level that didn't get there for a very good reason, and know what they are doing to some extent. Even less admired NBA coaches like Byron Scott, Rick Pitino, and to some extent Kevin McHale have had coaching success in different coaching situations. I know that Morey and Les put a great deal of time, and effort into looking for not just a quantifiable "great" NBA coach, but they absolutely are evaluating the "right coach for the right situation" more than anything. There is nothing "Moreyball" about that decision honestly.
My pleasure. I normally wouldn't share that much but I really think it's important for people to get this point because, given what I know, the basic knock on him is a terribly unfair one. And I see it over and over and finally I just had to say something because the DM I'm reading about on the board is not the DM I know. I have no idea what's going on in his head now. If I did, of course I wouldn't be able to share that, but I don't. Our most recent conference call to discuss the play was postponed as it had been scheduled for the day after McHale's firing. I've been giving him his space. I'm curious: is your spouse a Houston director? And, if so, what's her or his name? If they work locally I'm sure we know one another. Otherwise, good post.
Then why did he trade for the washed-up alcoholic who quit on his team last season? Morey snagged Lawson as an undervalued asset after he burned all his bridges in Denver, but he's got a reputation for poor character and he's a bad fit next to Harden. It's the sort of move you'd expect from Sam Hinkie trying to find the first piece of the puzzle, not Daryl Morey trying to find the last. Don't get me wrong, I think Morey is a fantastic GM overall. No other GM in the league could have pulled off the Harden trade, and without Harden we'd be sunk. But it takes a different mindset to put a team over the top, and Morey needs to adjust.
Noticed you're expertise in data collecting. Just wanted to make sure I was right, not a knock but a compliment. Good career man.
You mean the guy that was second in assists last year when our greatest need was another playmaker? The guy we got for absolutely nothing? This is the kind of low-risk, high-reward move that has made DM so successful. They don't all work out but we didn't lose anything when trading for him. If he had been a more reliably great fit (if he didn't have issues) we couldn't have gotten him for a package of players headlined by Nick Johnson. I'd venture that 99% of the board would have done the same given the opportunity and the other 1% is just not too bright. That the experiment hasn't worked yet isn't on Morey. He got the second assist man in the league for free. How you turn that into a bad thing is beyond me.
Understandable about not sharing personal stuff about Morey. Whatever you can share though, even in generalities is great to hear. I think he's such a misunderstood sports figure its amazing that people still buy into the Barkley-type of narratives. If you want to direct message, I'd be more than happy to share about my better half. We unfortunately are stuck up in DFW, but she knows pretty everyone down there since she also is from Houston and has been involved with Theatre her whole life. I'm a music guy myself but I've come around. Favorite show I've seen lately is Next to Normal. I'm a dude so usually I like the darker stuff of course, but that one was incredible.
A couple of points: 1. What teams in the NBA aren't primarily focused on 3 point shooting and shots at the rim nowdays? It's not like we play that different than most other teams. The Spurs were one of the first teams to figure out that strategy. The Spurs figured out that pick and roll and corner 3's were extremely efficient and started trying to maximize those opportunities. Likewise, they began to try to deny 3's and shots at the rim to their opponents. The team the Rockets have assembled is suited to play this style. We finished 2nd in the west and went to the WCF last season playing this style. If our entire roster shot like this all of the time then sure it would be a bad fit but this is an exception. We've got shooters, they just all happen to be in a horrific slump at the same time. Our offense has worked for the last 3 years. This stretch doesn't disprove that the offense works. 2. There's a difference between not having respect for the coaching profession and believing that NBA results are primarily player driven. JVG says it all the time, coaches win with great players. Most any ex-player you hear speak on the subject will say that players make the difference. That was the reason that Magic, Shaq and every other retired player that I've seen weigh in on the Rockets firing McHale has said that it was a mistake. That's not a knock on coaches, it's just the fact. In the NBA talent is the most important factor. I know that lots of people prefer to think that the Popovich's of the world are coming up with schemes and diagraming plays every night, but that's simply not true. SA won because they have really good players and they are very good at assembling the pieces. Need I remind everyone that Luke Walton is coaching the team that is about to break the record for the best start in NBA history. Kerr got tons of credit for GS success, but realistically they are stacked and they are great on both ends of the floor. If coaches had that huge of an effect, then shouldn't GS have gotten off to a slower start without Kerr? Not only, didn't they fall off, they've gotten better. Nothing to do with coaching ( unless you believe that Luke Walton is some type of coaching savant), they have really good players and lots of them.
Some of the responses are a bit funny and completely polarize the discussion (aelliot). I'm one of the biggest proponents of the use of analytics in basketball and have a history of creating threads breaking down advanced metrics for the Rockets on CF. My very first line is a question and meant to bring up discussion. Which of those criticisms of sabermetrics apply to the Houston Rockets (because apparently Morey's job is on the line, according to cyberx)? Can some be fixed? Are some really a consequence of a sabermetric-oriented organization? It's clear modern organizations use sabermetrics in conjunction with traditional methods. It's foolish to think that sabermetrics can't provide insight into the most fringe aspects of basketball and that analysts aren't successful in generating the right metrics to tell a correct story. By no means am I insinuating the Rockets only use sabermetrics. But it's also foolish that there isn't a weight of sabermetrics vs. traditional on every decision. The Spurs again, clearly value sabermetrics at the highest level, yet with proof many times over ultimately choose their players with heavier emphasis on 'heart'. Furthermore, it's also foolish to think that you can measure everything, like Hakeem's quote. That happened before the game. It might have been in the locker room or in the tunnel. No on-off court number or any advanced metric can measure how that elevates (or even possibly decrease) a team's performance. That's character and character between teammates. It digs and drives a lot deeper than analytics can deduce.
Our offense does not work, and it is more than "we just aren't hitting our shots." Defenses have gone to school against our team. And our chemistry sucks, such that we cannot adjust to the adjustments defenses have made to us. It is chemistry as much as anything. We have far too many turnovers vs 3FAs to have a successful offense. And this was true last year as well. It took tremendous guts and chemistry to get us past the Clippers. Run this analytic vs all successful playoff teams in the history of the NBA -- not just title teams. Put last year's 3FA/gm on the X-axis and TO/gm on the Y-axis. It is shocking how much of an outlier we are to the history of the NBA. One of the great things about using 3s heavily and quick offense is it should bring down your turnovers and give you more quality looks at the basket. We fail at that analytic measure. Hence, whether we make our 3s or not, we don't have the ability to protect our possessions well enough like SAS, GSW and ATL.
Thx, but it really has little to do with the fact that I'm an IT guy. More to do with the fact that I have Google available. Far too many people make statements on this board with no basis in reality to back up their claims. I like to provide a few facts to backup my points.
