Where Do the Rockets Go From Here – The Power Forward Position

Of all the points I made you highlight rockets TEAM 3pt PPS and compare it to LMA MID range PPS... thats not a fair comparison.

My point and reason for referencing the chart was how much HIGHER LMA midrange % and PPS were compared to league average.

Secondly, I figured most would be able to separate the fact that it is not a fair comparison to compare LMAs midrange to the rockets TEAM 3pt PPS/%. You would ONLY be comparing it to the PF output of the rockets.

My MAIN POINT however was that LMA total offensive output of increasing our team midrange PPS, FT PPS, and within 8' PPS plus the defensive upgrade and giving us a backup center and center insurance policy GREATLY outweighs the fact that you get slightly more PPS out of 1 element of the offense and from one position, in regards to having a stretch 4.

You would also mostly like lose out on all the other aspects of the game that LMA brings to the table. Higher FT PPS, higher within 8' PPS, higher Mid range PPS ,better defense, posistion premium...etc (over hypothetical stretch 4)

While only adding a small percentage of shots at a slightly higher PPS.

In other words...its not worth it.

 

I edited the above response and took out the rude stuff lol

 

Not necessarily.

You're assuming that efficient shot selection can predict wins, and perhaps this is correct in the regular season. But you can't assume in playoff situation that your most efficient shot will always be available. Offenses break down in the 4th quarter of playoff games.

Tim Duncan is not a great shooter, but I've seen him destroy teams with his ugly midrange bankshot. Karl Malone could destroy teams from the elbow. Having a reliable midrange game is an important skill for elite power forwards, particularly when your center has no midrange game. You shouldn't rely on it, but it's an important part of the arsenal.

 

The benefit of three stars is that losing one of them doesn't necessarily kill your playoff chances. That doesn't mean that Miami could have won with just Wade and Bosh, but could OKC have made the Finals with just Durant and Harden?

Also, what if Dwight is a bad fit and the Rockets have to trade him, but can't get a star in return? Then we are back to having just one star.

If the Rockets have a chance to add a third star, they have to do that even if the star isn't a 100% perfect fit. I understand the allure of two stars and a bunch of excellent role players, but I think three stars and a bunch of decent role players is a better situation.

Depth is necessary, but depth should not take priority over acquiring a third star.

 

if Dwight is a bad fit then a possibility maybe harden is actually a bad fit

 

How willing are the thunder giving us Ibaka to fill out our roster? Maybe they don't want Miami to 3peat

 

No

What affected us mostly in the playoffs was having no answer to Durant hurting us. We have scorers and Morey has went and gotten us more shooters. We need Defense.

 

LMA is not a good midrange shooter yet insist on shooting them. He took the most midrange shot of any player in the 2012-13 season. Much rather have Chris Bosh who is an extremely dangerous and accurate midrange shooter. Plus with Dwight, the dude doesn't have to worry about guarding centers but guys closer to his size.

 

I'm not sure I'm ready to believe someone at the 3-point line is better for spacing than a someone standing at midrange. Sure, he's further away, so there's physically more distance for switching defenders to cover. But, having shooters at both mid-range and long-range could improve a passer's passing options and then the mid-range player then has some options (to shoot, to drive, to pass to the long-range shooter, to pass to a cutter, etc) that are not all as readily available to a 3-point shooter. I can see a high-post role like we used to have Chuck Hayes in, except LMA would also be a shooting threat in a way Hayes never was. Or he can stand weakside on Howard post-up to crash the offensive glass or receive a bail-out pass. A midrange shooter doesn't always have to shoot to put pressure on the defense; the defense just needs to respect his shot. Looking at shooting efficiency and PPS is only looking at part of the picture.

 

wow

Wow. I knew that we were low range but nothing like that. This off season did show we are going to stay on course having to rely on the long ball or attacking the rim. Thanks for showing that start reality.

As they say if we live by the 3 we will die by the 3.

 

He really is. I would love to see DMO grow into this role and I think he'd be adequate at it. But ultimately Ersan is really the best choice from a role stand point and also from a contract stand point.

 

I think your post makes a good point, but remember that Aldridge had a very rough year last year. As recently as 2011, his shot selection was identical to 2011 Luis Scola's (and his percentages were similar, and he drew more fouls). I don't recall many here ever complaining about Luis' offensive efficiency, and I've heard a few say that Luis would be the perfect complement to Dwight.

 

If Aldridge were available for, say, Asik+DMo or Jones+ a draft pick, my guess is that Morey would pull the trigger on such a deal right away and worry about fit and everything else later. Aldridge is an excellent player and you want excellent players on your team. Besides, whatever you think of Aldridge's fit, he is a better fit with the roster than Omer Asik, whose limited shooting range makes things a bit difficult if you want to play him next to Howard.

The issue really is that that Portland isn't trading Aldridge for that price-- they have said it and have reportedly demanded higher prices from other teams already. Portland probably would want Parsons+Asik+picks in any Aldridge trade (to keep for themselves or flip to another team) and at that price, I have doubt about pulling the trigger both from the stand point of talent and that of team chemistry and the issue of "fit" becomes something that may tip the scale in favor of not making a deal.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/drgEaplEYxA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

The point I'm making is that you have to compare the two in the concept of shot selection, and it is a fair comparison. It's not about comparing how good LMA is at an inefficient shot vs. how good the Rockets are at the same shot.

Put LMA on the Rockets. The end result of every Rockets possession (barring turnovers) is a single shot. If LMA hits 0.86 PPS, and the Rockets 3pt shooters hit 1.16 PPS, which shot would you rather have end a possession?

 

When many of you talk about "shot selection", it sounds as if you can freely "select" one of the shots from a 60% layup, a 38% mid-range jumper or a 36% 3-pointer. This line of thought gives no distinction to how a shot is defended, and gives the false impression that a 3-pointer is as easy to make as a mid-range jumper. One could very well argue that the overwhelming majority of the 3s in NBA are open shots, while probably half of mid-range jumpers are contested. Those mid-range shots are sometimes the result of bad decision-making, but more importantly often the last resort when a superb defense shuts down everything. It's generally better than a contested 3 pointer or a layup in heavy traffic.

An good offense from a purely analytical point of view goes roughly as the following:
1) You get the possession and try to run a fast break for a lay up. This is a shot of 70%~95% depending on how wide open the layup is, 1.4-1.9 PPS.
2) If you can't get a good layup, give the ball to a trailing shooter while the defense is not set. If you get a pretty wide open 3, that's around a 50% shot, 1.3-1.7 PPS.
3) If you can't make things happen early in possession, you settle for half-court offense. You run pick-n-roll or try to post up a big man deep in the paint, the goal is to either create a 50%-65% shot at the rim plus drawing fouls (1.1-1.4 PPS) or an open or semi-open 3-pointer (1.2-1.4 PPS).
4) If your opponent gives your capable shooter an open long-2, you take it and get 1.0-1.2 PPS.
5) If you spend 15 sec in the offense and can't create these "good shots", you let your star to make something out of nothing, such as a pull-up three (you can get 0.8-1.0 PPS if you are T-Mac), a 18-ft fadeaway (you can get 0.8-1.0 PPS if you are Kobe), a power-drive-in-traffic (you may draw a foul 40% of time if you are James Harden), or a turn-around 15-ft jumper (you can hopefully get 0.8-0.9 PPS if you are Lamarcus Aldridge).

Well, I made up these numbers, but you get the idea. I don't have advanced stats to back it up, so feel free to disagree. My point is that Morey obviously prioritize creating at-the-rim shots or 3-pt shots over creating open mid-range jumper, but it does not mean that you can "select" those shots whenever you want. As good as the Rockets in creating 1)-4), in many possessions you have no choice but to take a shot described in 5). Moreover, in crunch time when the defense is at its maximum, it's increasingly difficult to create a good shot in 1)-4). (Remember how many pointless Harden-iso's we saw in the 4th quarter? Where's motion offense?) That's why the Kobe's, the Wade's and the Dirk's win the championships. Their go-to-moves are hardly the most efficient shots in the game (if fact they are all below league average in terms of PPS), but those are the shots whatever defense can never take away from them.

 

Another important point to be considered is the cost of creating the "good shots". Pushing the tempo to make early shots often comes at the cost of transition defense. Dribble penetration for layup or kicking-out-for-3 has a high risk of turning the ball over. While the Rockets successfully got the efficient shots more than most teams, they also suffer from the most turnovers. It's not necessarily Harden and Lin are bad ball-handlers. It's just a cost of the creating the high percentage shots, and this cost obviously isn't taken into account in the PPS statistics.

On the contrary, a contested mid-range jumper, while much lower PPS on average, is the least turn-over prone play. That explains why we see those shots so much in end of game scenarios, considering it's so much harder to take care of the ball (even in-bound the ball) in those scenarios.

 

They rather be the ones to stop it personally.