Why the Rockets Can't Lose: The McGrady Trade and the Myth of Team Building

Probability is the likelihood of a specific event occuring, while percentage is, well a percentage. You can say that a percentage is a way of expressing a probability. That's probably as bad a definition as you'll ever get of a percentage.

 

Thanks for definition, it was actually pretty good. But I was hoping LCII would answer it since I was trying to make him realise what he was actually saying was off the charts in the wrongness department.

My bad I probably shouldve directed the post at him.

 

* I meant Mr Awe not LCII.

All this failing at stats has me confused.

 

It was inevitable that it will become a statistical discussion because the OP used probabilities to determine that drafting is the best way to build teams. Basically his point is that the Rox win no matter what, for every win we...well win and for every loss we also win as well because we are one step closer to the lottery and that elusive "franchise player".

Unfortunately the way he did was wrong, so there's no way he can prove what he's saying is correct.

 

Great effort but a couple of details:

1. Larry Bird did come out early. He was drafted by the Celtics after his junior season but didn't sign until after his senior year was complete.

2. Somehow (almost impossible) the importance of ordinal numbers needs to be "adjusted" because A) some drafts are deeper and B) some picks are "reaches" (i.e. Kobe Bryant, coming out of high school, takes some time to become a great player; if he had played at Duke a couple of years he would have had a much more immediate impact)

All-in-all, the conclusion seems to be that "luck" is too much a factor in all of this. Who does or does not come out the year your favorite team has a high selection: think about the Celtics. They pick Len Bias #2 overall in 1986 and he dies before even signing. The Celtics lose the advantage in the lottery drawing and miss out on Tim Duncan in 1997 and instead gets Chauncy Billups who takes five years and six teams to establish himself as an NBA player.

The NBA is too star-oriented which makes in too much entertainment and not enough competition. Why can't the competition be entertainment enough?

 

The NBA is not star oriented because of entertainment, its because you only have 5 people playing on the court, and if the coach wishes it each player can play 100% of the time. A TD or a Kobe or an LBJ can give you an overwhelming advantage, which is why stars do and will continue to matter, at least until they increase the amount of people playing on the court.

 

I think you are giving a little too much credit to the Lakers. A lot of their success has to do with them being the Lakers. I do have a lot of respect for the Lakers but it's hard to ignore that they have somehow ended up with three of the most dominant big men to ever play basketball all of which they didn't draft. They got their first championship after getting Wilt through a trade. Then a few years later they get Kareem through a trade. And in the 1990s they end up luring Shaq away from the Magic. I'm not sure how much truth their is to the Kobe demanding to be traded to them story so i won't really use that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true. The Lakers still have to make other good management decisions but their name usually gives them an unfair starting point.

As far as your examples go the Magic and Kobe deals were good basketball decisions and i can't argue those.

Freeing up cap to get Shaq doesn't really impress me because I'm sure a lot of teams in the league could've and would've done the same thing if Shaq would have agreed to come play there. If i remember right that Laker team was just decent and got Shaq mostly on name. The Magic team he left was for sure better than the Lakers at that point in time.

Getting Pau was pretty much a present from the Grizzlies who conveniently had just been run by The Logo.

 

elvis, you have made many excellent points. Just two things:

First, you forget that the franchise player still needs to be surrounded by a good nucleus. How many years did Kobe's Lakers not win a championship after Shaq left, and began winning again after Gasol joined them? Why did Lebron's Cavaliers lost to the Orlando Magic last year? etc. So many of those almost-franchise players, if their team had been constituted a little differently, could have made it all the way.

Second, it's easy to say by hindsight that Houston should have intentionally lost that Timerwolves game. Really? At that time, we knew we would just be a game ahead of Minnesota at the end of the season? Intentionally losing contradicts your observation that franchise players are so competitive they want to win all the time.

Miami Heat tanked the 2007-2008 season but ended up with the #2 pick. Dwayne Wade is still searching for a good-enough team to carry deep into the playoffs.

No, I think the Houston way this year is good. Rebuild the team by choosing talented undervalued players and seeking out the opportunity to add just one or two seasoned/proven clutch players. The fans just love the team; the NBA experts have grudgingly acknowledged us. We can zoom up or we can still crash and burn. Exciting ...

 

I don't want to be a b*stard about this but like, how can Brandon Roy make your franchise list, but Melo doesn't when one has been to the conference finals and one has barely made it to the second round

 

So Mr. Morey, will you be posting on how you plan to identify potential franchise players, collegiately and abroad?

Is it a function of college years played, play style, coach style, teammate support, level of competition, and background?

 

Now that I've read your post (three times) I also have some questions.

1. Obviously in your research the great outlier of all of this is the Detroit Pistons of 2005. Would you class the Pistons for the 4 seasons after that has mediocre? (Conference Finals but never close to winning a championship).

2.Secondly what is your view on teams that were clearly robbed of a championship. Some that come to mind are:

Sacremento Kings vs La Lakers (no excuse for the game 7 but the games before that)

And the Phoenix Suns vs San Antonio Spurs (when Amare and Diaw got suspended)

In particular the Suns I was wondering how you thought about them. I have no doubt if Amare was not suspended the Spurs would have been dead in the water that year. The Suns would have steam rolled the Cavs in the finals. I have no doubt the NBA robbed them fair and square that series. What your telling me is basically teams like that are just mediocre cause there is no chance they can win the championship?

3. Franchise players, as stated above(rudely I apologise) you rate players like Durant, Roy but not ones like Carmelo(who arguably is the most complete offensive player in the game). Is this soley based on height, characteristics and defence? AI for example is a scoring leader, and made NBA finals but came up against TWO franchise players you listed. Wouldn't he just clearly be a case of bad luck vs good luck. Same with Jason Kidd came up against the same two players that would easily make the top 20 players to ever walk this earth. Would this not be just a statistical outlier and as pointed out by other people Stockton/Malone against Jordan/Pippen. I suppose in a way I can see your point that their in ability to over these players make them mediocre>??

 

Yao a franchise player?

A franchise player is a guy that can dominate both ends of the floor.

A franchise player is a guy that can show up during the crunch time

Yao isn't a franchise player because he has too many weaknesses to his game. He cannot will his team to a win. He cannot dominate both ends of the floor. He can put up 20 points and 8-10 rebounds but that is just stats.

Yao can put up decent numbers but any one can. Yao would score well the first 3 quarters of the game. But when it comes down to crunch time, Yao struggles greatly.

Sad thing about Yao is that the Rockets treated him like a franchise player but the reality is, he is just an average all star player. A player who just put up decent numbers which most big men can also put up in the NBA.

Notice why the Rockets has never been successful simply because Yao was our best player? How we never even got close to the WCF ever since we drafted Yao. Its simple because Yao just does not have what it takes for him to lead a team to the championship. Sure it was fun to watch Yao play but its never going to lead us nowhere.

Since Yao first enter the league, his style of play, his passion and his will power already showed everyone across the league that Yao does not have what it takes. His physical abilities is limited. He has a hard time keeping up with faster and stronger more athletic players in the league. He has a hard time staying on the court due to foul troubles or fatigue. Even if he wasn't injury prone and he's always healthy, he still couldn't lead the Rockets to the Finals.

If you watch the way Yao plays compared him to Duncan, young Shaq, or Hakeem, you know he wasn't fit to be a franchise players like those guys. Duncan, Shaq and Hakeem all are considered one of the greatest big men in the history of the NBA. Yao is no where near that. People would remember those guys for their performance, dominance, greatness, and championships.

What would people remember of Yao years after he retired? How he was just the best player from China to come to the Nba or he was a good center standing at 7'5. Yao doesn't have the will power like those guys. He doesn't have the high basketball IQ like Duncan, he doesn't have the strength and great touch along with dominance like Shaq or the mobility along with finesse, talent, skills, great foot work, athleticism like Hakeem.

Like I said a few years ago and I will say it again. The Rockets will never have a shot at the championship as long as Yao is the best player/franchise player on this team. Until the day when the Rockets realized this and ready to go draft and built around a new and young franchise player....The Rockets will never even see the light of the trophy with Yao as the franchise player.

 

It wasn't my comparison. I thought it was a rather poor example statistically, so I copy/pasted their year 3. The different backgrounds make the choice to compare those two in year 3 even worse.

career stats (the slower start of Howard compensated by Brand's several injury plagued seasons recently)


0.502fg% 0.738ft% 3.8or 6.2dr 10.0r 2.5a 0.9s 2.0b 2.48to 3.11pf 19.7pts
0.571fg% 0.600ft% 3.6or 9.0dr 12.6r 1.4a 0.9s 2.0b 3.00to 3.24pf 17.2pts

Obviously a statline doesn't mean everything (see z. randolph), but I'm not willing to put Howard on the tier 1 franchise player list just yet.

 

Can't disagree with that but it is more complex; what about the phenomena of certain players "getting calls" or on the other hand "not getting calls?" Why should better players be given more liberty with the rules?

 

First, teams that win championships dont always have a 'franchise player'. Sure, it's nice to have a Kobe or Lebron, but it isn't necessary. Obviously the Rockets organization knew that Yao couldn't do it alone, which is why they signed Tracy, a once scoring leader. Your statement doesnt really make much sense, since they obviously attemped it with another great player other than Yao.

 

ESPN rumors.

Wonder what dumb trade offer is NY gonna come up with.

 

Here are the issues I have with this logic:

1. Would you consider someone a franchise player if opposing teams double/triple teamed a guy BEFORE a he caught the ball?
2. Would you consider someone a franchise player if opposing teams double/triple teamed a guy AFTER a he caught the ball?
3. Would you consider someone a franchise player if the 90% of the defensive scheme of the opposing team was to deny a certain player from ever catching the ball?
4. Would Duncan scoring 15 and 10 in a playoff game be considered dominating, if he only scored during pivotal situations of games?

I would like your take on Yao's effect on the playoffs last year.

1. Did Yao play like a franchise player in the Portland series?
2. Could we have beaten LA with Yao?
3. Could we have beaten Denver with Yao?
4. Could we have beaten Magic with Yao?
5. Does changing shots count as part of dominating defensively?
6. Would teams have double or triple teamed Yao in crunch time?
7. Would Yao average 30PPG, if opposing teams used the same defensive scheme they used on Shawn Bradley or Erica--basically treating Yao as a non-factor?


IMO, if you put this to a poll in the BBS or to all NBA coaches in the league, the answers would be overwhelmingly YES to each question.

 

Great post. I think that to be a winning franchise player also, you almost always have to be able to play well at two-three positions (not nec. shooting guard-small foward).

 

I think he did mention that you build around a true franchise player. That would include the assumption that you would build around him with a solid nucleus.

 

I'd say the following as being honest without the intention of offending you or anyone.

In the world outside of US, soccer is the no.1 sport and most people treat the all time greats in basketball as nobody(except Michael Jordan). For basketball fans though, they consider Olympics and world championship almost as important as NBA champion(especially in the past decade team USA lost more than often there). While US fans claim NBA champ as 'world championship', it's almost laughable to the international basketball fans(considering team USA didn't win the real world champ until last Olympics).

This maybe hard to understand but that's EXACTLY why yao is willing to sacrifice and participate in team China every summer. Because to the fans in China or other international countries, that's the real playoff and real championship while NBA is just a partially commercial entertainment.

That's anther reason why yao consider Sabonis as his No.1 center idol(Sabonis in his peak single handedly beat team USA in Olympics).