We place confidence in the fact that Harden, Lin and even Parsons can break down the defense and create chaos to free up our shooters. We try ball movement and transition to create those open looks. It's an embedded memory in my head, McHale telling Goran (way back) to "just turn the corner faster." That's his advice to all our guards, apparently until today. Along with "play harder." Harden at times uses those screens to free himself for a 3 or an alley-oop to Dwight. But yeah, we seldom set screens for Jeremy. Sometimes those screens just bring on a trap by two defenders.
Nah, I doubt that. I bet they only exclude primary fastbreak. I'm sure secondary transition baskets are two hard for the vidoe cams to decipher and are counted as half court. imo, wrt the Rockets, you need to exclude the first 8 seconds of transition.
Oh come on, you know there wasn't much thought behind that, don't mess with him. Maybe he just likes watching inefficient mid-range jumpers clang off the rim.
I think Asik can set very good screens but it seems like when he gets called for an illegal screen (which he does every game), he doesn't picks with as much aggressiveness afterwards which makes them less effective for our guards
How about I'll tell you "why" they are instead? They are inefficient because they are a low PPP shot. The shooting % on them is almost never enough to overcome the fact that they are only worth 2 points and very rarely lead to fouls. A lower % on 3 pointers or the might higher % in the post with the much higher chance of getting to the line are the more "efficient" route because they lead to more points per possession. Mid-range BS leads to fewer points per possession, thus less efficient use of a possession. It's pretty simple actually.
Synergy isn't the same as SportsVu. Synergy doesn't use computerized trackers. They have a team of "loggers" that do manual counts of each play and "tags" the appropriate type from captured game video. SportsVu is the service that uses computer processed camera tracking.
You fail to mention a predictable offense may work in the regular season, but not in the playoffs when the 3 point line is defended well and the inside starts getting clogged every time someone puts the ball down. Having a mid range game opens up the passing lanes. It opens up the outside game and keeps the defenders on their toes while you blow by them. Being unpredictable is what you need to win a championship. Your man never knowing what your going to do next. It is much easier to defend someone knowing they either want the three or the layup. Chase them off the three and beat them to the rim to contest their layup. An efficient mid range game wins. An ineffiicient mid range game still keeps the defense honest. The playoffs usually expose things like having barely any mid range game.
It is good to have an offense predicated on maximizing layups an threes since they are highest in ppp. But doing this by virtually eliminating the mid range game will only result in more heavily contested threes and layups which i would argue have a lower ppp than a contested mid range jumper. Also consider, the fact that the refs let them play physical sometimes and especially during the playoffs. This makes contested layups even more difficult than mid range jumpers since you cannot touch the player when he is going up to shoot it. That is why the rockets miss the most lay ups in the league even with a player like harden on the roster. I guess you could argue we miss the most threes because we take the most threes which is why i will leave that out for now.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Great teams have an identity. It is often very predictable what a great team will do on offense; it's just that sets have multiple ways of unfolding that make it difficult for a defense to take all options away. The championship Rockets were famously predictable. Everybody in the world knew that we'd dump it down to Hakeem- so what? Single coverage, you're dead. Double team him, he kicks it out for the three pointer. Incredibly simple, incredibly predictable, unstoppable. You're describing an oxymoron. If the 3 is well defended, then by definition the inside is more open. If the inside is clogged, then by definition you are further from perimeter defense. This is the entire point. I don't understand this. The multiple options of championship offenses are finite, knowable things. Whether it's the triangle of the championship Bulls and Lakers, the Spurs offense, you name it- the opposing team was well-versed on what to expect. The point isn't that the defense doesn't know; the point is that even though you do know, you can't stop it. If an offense scores in a way that's totally unpredictable or new, then what happened is your set play broke down, and a player made a fortunate shot in a way they don't normally do. Again, you're describing an oxymoron. If you've successfully chased someone off the three, your momentum is carrying you out of the play. Most closeouts end with a defender literally jumping out of bounds to challenge the corner 3. Crap, even slow-ass Casspi can do a half hearted head fake and get past his man to the middle. How? What playoff team with no midrange game got exposed in the playoffs? How is having the ability to shoot a long 2 introducing any level of complexity or unpredictability that makes up for the fact that you make fewer points than a 3? By the way, we have a midrange game: the Harden crossover to stepback 2, what Worrell likes to call the "Harden Hop." I'm perfectly happy having no midrange game outside of that. If we're going to watch Parsons and Lin and Beverly hoist up long jumpers, let's make 3 per make instead of 2.
Ok, wait. The entire point of any inside/outside offense (whether it's low post, drive & kick, or p&r) is predicated on the idea that you can't defend both perfectly. A good outside shot improves your inside game. A good inside game improves space for your outside shot. So, that being said, what is so special about a long 2 'creating space' that makes up for the fact that you make 2 instead of 3 on each make? How on earth can a team that doesn't have to worry about covering the midrange somehow find it easy to cover the 3 and the basket? It's never easy. That's the point. On this you are flat wrong and it has already been detailed why. There is no way a long two has any increased efficiency that makes up for the fact that it's 2 points instead of 3. No way. It is vastly underestimated what a huge difference 3 is over 2. You only have to hit 33.3% of your 3s to equal hitting 50% from 2. There is no gained efficiency that can make up for those points. Layups are far, far more likely to get the foul call than a midrange 2. Many missed layups will be made up for by 2 foul shots, and then there's the 3 point play the old fashioned way, and getting the opposing team into foul trouble. You're introducing numerous advantages to the system. What efficiency is introduced by taking a longer 2 point shot that is less likely to go in, and almost no chance of a foul call? Lastly- of all complaints about the Rockets, why on earth would you choose offense? Our offense is predictable and everybody knows what we are going to do, yet we are among the greatest in the league in offensive efficiency. If the Rockets are so easy to scout, why aren't teams stopping us from scoring? Dude, we just scored 145 points in a game last week. Even in our recent losses, nobody is stopping our offense, because it's a damn good system. Offensive systems do not need to be complex or unpredictable to be good. Now if you want to talk about the Rockets defense lately, well then, there's something to complain about.
Hold up. Did you just use hakeem as an counter example of why having no mid range game makes your easy to defend and predictable? Lol Come on seriously. The point is you need triple threat players on offense who can drive, dish, or shoot FROM anywhere on the court, especially the mid range. Being able to drive in and kick it out, drive in and pull up for the mid range jumper if the defense sags off, or pull up off the screen if the defense goes under...that is what wins games. Having an unbeatable mid range player like hakeem who can post up anywhere within 15 feet makes it impossible to guard you if you have knock down shooters.
You keep using that word oxymoron, i dont think you know what it means. When someone puts the pall down to drive, bigs start to sag off as well as wing players. It is only natural. Maxing threes and lay ups is not having an identity. Our identity is live by the three, die by the three. Especially in the playoffs when they dont call bumps and drawing charges can make guys like harden useless. There is not 1 championship team that did not have a deadly mid range game. The spurs with parker and duncan. The heat with wade, allen, bosh, and james. The lakers with kobe and gasol. The celtics. You know i am right.
