[Wages of Wins] Does Houston Really have that Big of a Problem?

That's a losers mentality, I'm a proud Rockets fans and I'd rather see them fight for every win they could muster. Losers find it easy to lose, winners are gonna fight. I believe this Rockets team is made up of a bunch of winners. The final roster isn't even set yet and the season hasn't even started.

In your eyes any team that doesn't have a chance to make the playoffs or even the ones that do,(that supposedly according to the fans, not the players or team) that won't get out of the first round, should be looking to dump to get a high draft pick trying to get another Hakeem. What a league that would be?

I understand Rockets fans expect to make and advance in the playoffs, as I do also. I also understand the difference between a having a losers mentality and a winners. You have to keep in perspective that there's over 30 teams in the NBA and only the "Best" make the playoffs. I'd much rather stay in the top of the league while rebuilding than becoming a loser in hopes of pulling some sort of miracle out of the draft.

But that's just my perspective, the dumping talk around here makes my skin crawl.

 

You really think we will be a 4th-5th seed at that time? If so I agree we definitely need to make a run. But I believe we won't, and by Olajuwon, I didn't mean a dominant bigman, we already have Yao, what I meant was a special player.

 

The real big problem the rockets have are all these damn injuries. It happens every single year.

 

Honestly the way the roster is shaped up it is highly doubtful that we get a "special" player without giving up McGrady. I mean it does take 2 to trade. We really don't have that many attractive pieces other teams want. I mean the only attractive piece is McGrady's expiring.

 

Would you prefer if he put it in terms of points per 1 minute? His argument would be unchanged. The use of 48 or 36 or 24 or whatever doesn't really matter. If you're trying to project a player's production in an upcoming season when his minutes will likely change, you have to consider what the player has done per minute (or per possession) in previous years. The scoring rate could obviously change with a different role or different attention from defenders, but its good enough as a starting point for projection.

 

Good point with the verbs, considered and be.

Not sure if the years are a typo but it seems DJ is pulling stats from 2007-8 when Barry played well for the Spurs.

 

"With the exception of Aaron Brooks, these players were above average before 2008-09. This suggests that these players will be above average in 2009-10." -DJ

Barry, who's much older, definitely declined in 08-09, which doesn't suggest that he will be above average in 09-10

 

Well said. Lmao.

 

NY tried to rebuild on the fly and look where it got them. In the NBA, you almost always have to get worse before you can get better and to acknowledge this reality doesn't make you a loser, it makes you a realist.

This is the NBA, not a Hollywood movie. Moral victories don't mean ####.

 

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, you have missed the point completely.

There is a difference between the following;

1. Tanking
2. Doing what you can with what you've got
3. Make every possible move, as long as it equals more W's

So, starting from the top;

1. Tanking - Not gunna happen, lets move on

2. Doing what you can with what you've got - This is the fine line you are drawing between those with a "losers mentality", and those with a "winners mentality."

There is a big difference between walking into a season with an undersized roster, who don't stand a snowballs chance against stacked teams like the Celts, Cavs, Magic, Lakers, Spurs, who still fight for every game refusing to roll over vs. tanking.

You can lose with a winner's mentality. Reread that previous sentence. You can lose with a winner's mentality. It happens all the time. Therefor, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a realistic idea of how your squad stacks up against another and planning accordingly.

Moving on...

3. Make every possible move, as long as it equals more W's - And here sits your deranged definition of a "winner's mentality." If the Rockets wanted to do everything in their power to achieve more W's this season, Marcin Gortat, regardless of price, would be on the roster because he would equate more W's.

However, it is foolish to throw away your teams future in season's to come for a roster that is not going to do anything more than give you 52 W's and a first round knock out either way.

Either way you look at it, we are in no position to win a Championship this season, or come anywhere close for that matter. So, why screw yourself over today and tomorrow when the end results will be exactly the same.

A first round knock out, at best

So go visit your Doctor, you have chiggers and/or lice, not a "winner's mentality"

slam.

-Garner

 

Why is it so hard for people to admit when someone's way of calculating production is wrong? Are we supposed to give it merit simply because it is some form of metrics?

In the case of Brooks and Barry, this guy's Wins Produced formula is flat out wrong...by a mile. We all know this, we watched these games throughout the season, we've probably seen much more of the rockets than this guy ever intends to see.

I agree with the overall premise of the article. The rockets are better than people think they are because we have guys that contribute to wins in many ways other than scoring but I can't take him seriously with that wacky formula he's using.

 

This team has demonstrated to be able to compete with other good teams without Yao and TMac. I think everyone will score more, including Anderson, Taylor or Chase. As long as you are good at defensive end, you can win some games, just look at Spurs. In the end, Rockets could be better than Suns.

 

IMO the worst case scenario will happen. Houston will win enough games to finish out of the lottery but wont go anywhere in the post season

Scola, Battier, Landry and company will grind out the entire season with heart and will catch some teams during the soft middle stretch of the season when other teams mail it in... in the long run it's obviously better for the team to just suck, no one get injured and have a ping pong ball in the Wall lottery

 

I made it clear what I'd prefer:
a) don't use that stat, it's junk, ESPECIALLY when the upcoming season will be completely unlike the environment in which the previous numbers were generated.*

b) if you HAVE to use that stat, project out to real minute likelihoods: 36 mpg for starters, 15 to 20 mpg for backups. Projecting out to 48 makes as much sense as projecting out to 1 minute.

c) I'd prefer a starting point that makes a world more sense as a starting point - games that didn't involve Yao, McGrady, etc (Artest, Wafer). How did those games go?

Take the last 4 games of the playoffs, where Artest was averaging Ariza numbers: 9.5 ppg. It's not perfect (Ariza won't waste endless possessions....I hope), but it gives you an idea of how the guys play in the absence of the franchise players.

Shane: 35.5 mpg, 9 ppg
Scola: 34.5 mpg, 14.5 ppg
Hayes: 26.8 mpg, 4.5 ppg
Brooks: 37.3 mpg, 21.8 ppg
Landry: 22.3 mpg, 7.5 ppg
Lowry: 19.5 mpg, 6.5 ppg

Team: 85.5 ppg, 39.3 rpg, 17.3 apg
(reg season: 98 ppg, 43 rpg, 20 apg)

Out of those numbers, the only one that doesn't look like a realistic projection carrying into next year would be Hayes, who'll surrender a good chunk to Anderson. I'd also hope that Lowry can bounce back from an underwhelming playoff run. Brooks may struggle to keep his average that high now that defenses will scout him as a primary scoring option. He caught the Lakers by surprise.

Taking the season averages and projecting them out on a per minutes basis is a bad idea, because it completely ignores the fact that those numbers involved Yao as the dominant focus of the offense and included McGrady and Ron's high involvement in games. None of those things exist now. Battier isn't getting wide open looks because his man doubled Yao in the post. Landry isn't coming down the weakside....because there's no Yao to establish a strong side. Brooks doesn't get underutilized because McGrady's not there to hog the ball on the perimeter.

Evan

*fun example: calculate McGrady's per48 his last year in Toronto to decide how he'd do his first year in Orlando. per48: 23.7, real world: 26.8 ppg in 40 mpg. When the role changes significantly, throw per48 out the window.

 

I wish Chris Wallace was this stupid

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=l45j5o

 

haha, basically

 

If you think the upcoming season is completely unlike the prior environment then the conclusion would have to be its impossible to make any sort of projections on what the Rockets will do next year. And if that's your view, then your problem isn't with "per minute" rates. Its that performance projection, in general, is a waste of time.

Its certainly going to be a different situation for many players, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from what a player did, per-minute, last season.

We don't know how many minutes players will get next year, but if you have any idea simply scale the per-minute rate appropriately. That gives you an estimate. It beats just using PPG from prior season and assuming that will hold regardless of change in minutes.

The criticism here really has nothing to do with per-minute stats. It's an issue with any sort of box-score stats that aren't context-oriented including, of course, your standard per-game numbers that people like to quote. Looking at numbers per-minute is an improvement over per-game in that, at least, it focuses on what the player does while he's on the floor.

Tracy McGrady's ascension to stardom after being a role player in Toronto is actually a pretty good argument in favor of per-minute stats for projections rather than per-game stats. He wasn't the prolific scorer he'd eventually turn into in Orlando, but his PER (a summary, per-minute, box score metric) was all-star caliber in his 2nd and 3rd seasons. As a 20 year old, he was averaging about 20 points and over 4 assists per 40 minutes, with an impressively low turnover-rate. He also displayed great athleticism with his rebounding and shot-blocking per-minute numbers.

So his per-minute numbers didn't peg what he'd end up producing in the subsequent year precisely. You think that means we need to just throw it out? By the same logic, let's not pay any attention to the player's PPG, or anything else he does that shows in the boxscore. It's all useless, because it doesn't stay constant year to year. Would you agree with that?

 

Thats exactly why we give it the good old tank. Then either keep the pic or trade it depending if the player available is NBA ready or not.