I noticed in the recent McGrady radio interview, he said that the Rockets would be better with him because during the Lakers series they did not have a go-to guy. The Rockets could definitely use a better go-to guy than Aaron Brooks, but based on the LA series McGrady isn't that guy. Fact: The Rockets have not been a great closing team in the Yao-McGrady era against playoff caliber opponents. Particular criticisms that go around the board are about Yao's turnovers in the post against aggressive post defense, and McGrady dominating the ball causing a loss of offensive movement from the rest of the team. Fact: The Rockets did not LOSE a single game in the Lakers series in the 4th quarter (unlike the regular season). Conclusion: The Rockets don't need McGrady to be a go-to guy. During the Lakers series, every loss occured in the first 3 quarters. Never once did the team carry a lead into the 4th quarter and collapse. What they need is a consistent offense in the first 3 quarters of the game. McGrady could help more in this way Game 1: Won game in 4th Quarter Quarters 1 to 3: Houston 70, LA 67 Quarter 4: Houston 30, LA 25 Game 2: Lost game in first 3 Quarters Quarters 1 to 3: Houston 77, LA 86 Quarter 4: Houston 21, LA 25 Game 3: Lost game in first 3 Quarters Quarters 1 to 3: Houston 62, LA 74 Quarter 4: Houston 32, LA 34 Game 4: Won game in first 3 Quarters Quarters 1 to 3: Houston 83, LA 54 Quarter 4: Houston 16, LA 33 Game 5: Lost game in first 3 Quarters Quarters 1 to 3: Houston 54, LA 94 Quarter 4: Houston 24, LA 24 Game 6: Won game in first 3 Quarters, held off run by Lakers to win Quarters 1 to 3: Houston 74, LA 65 Quarter 4: Houston 21, LA 15 Game 7: Lost game in first 3 Quarters Quarters 1 to 3: Houston 50, LA 69 Quarter 4: Houston 20, LA 20
good post. however, you can see that you miss tracy by looking at the road record this year and in previous years, and how we perform on the road in the playoffs. this reg. season, we were below .500 on the road for the first time since tracy has been here. tracy might not score consistently in the 4th like we all hope he would, but he does make the right play. in games 5 and 7, we just turned the ball over repeatedly and don't know what to do on the road.
I definitely think the Rockets are better with him, just not when he is playing the role of the "closer". He isn't Kobe. In fact, during this series I was amazed at how good Kobe was. I knew he was good, but I was still impressed at the difficult shots that he would consistently make. Another thing that amazed me even more, was how BAD of a passer Kobe was compared to McGrady. I now consider Kobe a very average passer. He may rack up a few assists because he can beat his man so often, but when it comes to creative and opportunistic passes, McGrady is far superior.
Since Rafer was traded, the 4th quarter has been our strength rather a liability except the Bulls game.
you hit it on the nail. i think people perceive "closer" with scoring all the time. and tracy is obviously not kobe in terms of the "scoring" role to close out games. obviously he can make shots, but he hasn't been able to do it at a high rate the past few years (unlike 04-05). but yes, kobe is ridiculously good at taking tough shots down the stretch and making them. last night was another prime example. however, like you said, tracy can still play the closer role with his "passing." you want the ball in tracy's hands down the stretch for the simple fact that he knows what plays to run, where certain players are on the floor, and naturally he always prefers to pass. with the scorers on this team, i think tracy will come out next year (if he's still on this team) looking to be more of a playmaker more than ever. i mean brooks is a lethal 3pt shooter off of passes. can u imagine tracy throwing it to brooks for the 3 down the stretch instead of rafer/head? or artest who's a great spot up jumpshooter? we missed that. ultimately, it's the organization of the team down the stretch that's key. we have the players to score. we just need to execute the game plan down the stretch and put those scorers in the position to score.
I think Brooks can develop into that go to guy. The things he needs to work on to be that go to guy is add a little bit more strength, speed up his jump shot, use his quickness to draw fouls, and of course passing. It sounds like a lot, but over the next couple of years with a lot of hard work from books, I think it can be accomplished.
Just take a look at the game against Devner. Kobe hit a killer 3 pointer, we don't have the player that can go one on one and get us a crucial bucket. SheMac was that girl until 2007. Kobe, LeBron, and Dwade, any of those 3 and we're still playing and you can subtract SheMac and Artest.
i think i'm part of the minority who thinks we're better without t-mac. t-mac will stop the ball and stunt brooks' offense if they are on the floor together. we don't need a playmaker. we need SCORERS around yao. as far as im concerned, this team is already smart enough to make the "right pass". our ball movement was excellent and less static without t-mac. how would adding t-mac's "playmaking" help? sure he might pass to the open man, but it's at the expense of holding the ball for 10 seconds till making his move. in other words, our offense is stagnant and less efficient when t-mac is on the court. the numbers tell us that. we need a scoring wing, not a "playmaking" wing, and we defintely don't need a very inefficient, ball stopping "playmaking" wing.
by the way, if t-mac is back on the court playing big minutes next season, i garauntee we will regress as a team and not get nearly as far in the playoffs as we did this season.
go to guy doesnt equal closer, or doesn't have to ....Tmac can be our go to guy throughout a game and not close it...he can also be the go to guy at the end of a close game, to set up or create something, but doesn't mean he has to close it by scoring, just that he's the guy you go to get something started.
If McGrady has a 'come to Jesus' meeting with himself and realizes that he no longer has to be a superstar and takes a supporting role on this team he could still have value to us.
I don't see why people are saying that we're better with T-Mac as our "closer" or "playmaker" at the end of the game. Numbers prove we obviously perform much better without him. This isn't baseball, we can just bring him in at the end of the game and make him go to work. We need a Go-to-guy that makes the rocket team better as a while on a consistent basis; not just a "closer" ...
If numbers before this season count, our record was pretty bad whenever T-Mac did not play. This is the first season the team has shown they can win without T-Mac. Before, that was not the case. The numbers will show. We may not necessarily need T-Mac to be the go-to guy, but we're going to need someone to be. All the elite teams have a guy they can give the ball to and get a bucket when a play breaks down.
Yea we need a go-2-guy BUT we don't need a Tmac-type go-2-guy that jacking up shots while reducing everyone to standing around. We can develop Brooks as the go-2-guy PLUS we have Yao. But the most important thing imo is that WE NEED Battier and Artest on the court at the same time to make life miserable for the other teams in every game we played. When we lose to Lakers in game 7, it makes it easy to say oh we need a go-2-guy, but i think if we have Yao, it doesn't matter that much. Plus Yao is our go-2-guy and is more effective when he gets the ball. With Tmac, our defense suffer... With Tmac, the flow of our offense suffer... With Tmac, our chance of getting 2nd chance shots suffer... With Tmac, our shooting percentage suffer... So my conclusion?? Trade him!
im not saying we are better or not, mainly because i dont know and i dont think anyone else can know with certainty...the numbers are misleading because if you're looking at past seasons, then our team is different now, if your looking at this season, well the team is different mentally and tmac was injured, so it's hardly valid. I think with the current guys, after the chemistry developed as much as it did late in the season, we covered most of the holes we had, but we still lacked that one guy, that tmac, while before we had him but he was injured and we still had those other holes...i think now Tmac wouldn't force things as much and others wouldn't stand still as much and be a lot more vocal towards him.
Tracy McGrady is a legitimate 20 point thread when 80% healthy on any given game. As long as his body is up to it, he can easily put up points. The guy is a great scorer, plain and simple. Problem is, his work ethic is questionable as well as having a tolerance to pain, so expecting him to be even 50% on any given day is questionable as well. Point is, he is a scorer with GREAT court vision. Add that to his 6'8 stature, and we have an amazing wing player that only idiots will believe does not make our team better. The main questions are, will T-Mac be remotely close to 80% healthy and will he ever buy into the TEAM concept and realize that this is no longer his team? It is a contract year for him next year, so I am decently hopeful that he will do great and we can relegate Artest to the bench where he belongs.
