actually I don't agree. I don't believe in "potential" . . . reality is what it is. I agree with Bill Simmons, actually, who argues for "teamwork over talent" in his Book of Basketball. The Rockets just don't seem to have a "team"--even last year, we lucked into the conference finals seemingly in spite of ourselves. So as tongue-in-cheek as I was with the earlier crack about fringe playoff team, I still see us as that. Whereas the Raptors have a "team." Right now, the Warriors have a "team." San Antonio has always had a "team." We have the second coming of Melo and a bunch supporting characters, including Dwight. So no, I don't agree. Here's a nice summary of what Simmons has to say in case you haven't encountered the book--just an excerpt, there's more at the link: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/judging-the-royals/article342766/Bill-Simmons-and-the-secret-of-basketball.html
On this point, I fully agrees with you. GS, Spurs, Clippers, Raps, ... have a better "Team" or more clearly: They does have a "Team". And that was a nice read. I think what the Rockets are lacking, are a solution at PF and a backup PG. I am not saying that if they do have a solid PF and a backup PG that they can compete at a very high level; but in my opinion, then they have a "team". But I don't see the Melo-Harden Connection.
I agree with you about team vs talented individuals. What I dont get is how a player makes another player better? Like the comment you said about potential, how you don't believe in it. The reality is a player is only X good. They don't mysteriously get better when you put another player in. There is only an effect based on what the Defense does. example. player A is a 45% 3pt shooter but can't get open looks, but when player B enters in the game, he draws defenders to Double him. This opens up Player A to shoot uncontested. A & B by themselves are good but when put together they are great. One doesn't make the other better. The answer to creating a team is how each player helps another player impact the game in a positive way. And players understanding their strong suit and filling those roles. Back to the example, Player A needs to know that if he sets up to close the driving lane, he allows the defender to get to Player B faster causing a potential turn over. Therefore he needs to understand what to do to maximize both Player B and A. This is why you see the spurs have a concept of teamwork. Everyone is in a position to give other players to fill their best attributes. At the end of the day, each player has to think about making those around them more effective by using their best attributes. It is a way of being selfless on the court. If you had a player that is Great and can get buckets all the time but puts their teammates into bad spots, that player will be seen as selfish/ballhog but will score 30-50. The perception is he is the only one doing work but it is also because it is self induced. He will always have to carry a load like that for a team to win.
this is a good comment--the article linked above, right after I cut off the excerpt after the Bill Russell quote, says this: This is potentially the issue with Harden: many of us here on CF suspect (note: I say "suspect", I don't think anyone really knows the truth of the matter) that Harden may just be an example of "the guy with great stats" who "might drag the rest of his teammates down." Again, I am emphatically NOT saying that Harden is the cause of the team's problems, just that it's one plausible explanation. The article goes on to mention Shane Battier as the classic "player's player"--the one with paltry statistics but who always seems to make his teammates better. This I take it is the point of the various "x factor" threads. (I've never understood the DMo x-factor thread, but so be it.) I just don't think this team has one or more of those guys. In the Beverley thread, people are trying to make Beverley out to be "that guy." I just don't see it. He's key, I grant that, but he is not Shane Battier-key. I don't know, these are hard issues to analyze and discuss. Part of the reason what discussion boards like this are so much fun. Virtually all of us here are flying blind, we don't really know what goes on behind the closed locker room doors. All we can see is what's on the court night after night. We're almost always doomed therefore to interpret our view of reality via eye test. But to your question, "What I don't get is how a player makes another player better? " I wish I had the answer. It's a little like the Supreme Court's definition of p*rnography: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. See? even the Supreme Court uses the eye test.
The article mentions using Brewer as the "nominal power forward". What the heck does that mean? Also, going small against the Raptors makes a lot of sense. Scola is a crafty ole veteran, but youre not exactly scared of him offensively, and he isn't the rebounder or bruiser of a power forward that many others in the league can be. And he's not great defensively. That's probably why Brewer felt so comfortable.
He's not a power foward, but he plays one on TV. I thought this part was interesting. Anyway, given the problems the Rockets have at the PF spot, small ball with either Brewer or Ariza as the "nominal power forward" has probably been our best option. But it can only be done based on the matchups, and risks fatigue and injury to the players.
