Don't get me wrong - I enjoy watching this team for the most part throughout the regular season. But I LOVED watching Lowry, Scola, Landry battle it out every game because you could count on them leaving everything out there on the floor.
If I may add to that then... Part of why I think the Spurs are such an excellent team is Popavich's (sp?) adaptability in both personnel (Robinson -> Duncan -> Kawhi) and also changing with the times. To your point about mid-range shots - if the Rox were to go that direction, wouldn't that effectively be compromising the very identity (high percentage 3s and by the basket ) type offense that MDA/Morey subscribe too? Asked a different way, can the existing system of 3s and layups/dunks and FTs be "modified" as you say it in terms of efficiency. Or is the superior team/gameplan simply being the more adaptable team that can go big, small, 3 pt land, or mid range? That imho is the million dollar question for Morey & Co this offseason which is further complicated by the regular season success they had this year. re: Modifications - What do you think? theSAGE
Conspiracy theory here...could Harden given up on this game because it was rigged? I have no basis, just grasping at WHY this happened.
Why the **** would I care what the fans think? I just know that 2 great teams playing each other in the Finals repeatedly is not necessarily a bad thing.
Neither... Its gonna take next mid- May for me to get this hyped about this organization again... meaning WCF.. otherwise I'll support but be more realistic about our chances...
Ceiling? Year one of Mike and James and you are already calling it as the ceiling? Get a better defensive big and a couple 3nD players or a better wing man to complement Harden, and Rockets are title contenders.
Oh ****, really? The guy is a multi-hundred-millionaire. Why would he do that, short of pictures of him with dead strippers?
Harden's first year as a PG with new coach doing this much damage in the NBA with one star? I think that's a step forward. Sure game 6 sucked, this team isn't perfect and neither is Harden but I think we have something to build on here. Much more to build on than the Dwight/James era.
I'm concerned from an organizational/ philosophical viewpoint . Mike talked about being able to stretch his scheme to the full extent he wanted to . We truly doubled down on the 3's or layups dogma. Our roster was tailored for it , our engine one of the top players in the league . How do we reconcile the results with the potential of the scheme ? Because given what dantoni did in PHX maybe you assign a ceiling on it . Can we expect to do better playing the same way next year , how can we optimize our roster further ? Sure , upgrades in overall talent are an option ( though I don't know the feasibility of it) but from a fit standpoint this is pretty much it . You aren't going to be able to get a better group of shooters than : Anderson, Ariza, Williams, Gordon, and Beverley. For their cost , you aren't going to be able to find a better group of centers than Clint nene and Harrell .... So where do we go ? Why should we expect to perform any better next season ? We're allowing the philosophy to be enacted to its full extent and we've optimized the roster . GS and CLE won playing a similar style but their overall talent is better . Frankly even if they used a theoretically/empirically worse system they STILL would have enough talent to be among the top teams . The NBA is a copycat league but talent still reigns supreme ( holding everything else constant ). Instead of trying to develop and accuire players to fit a system we should get our hands on the most talent and then fit a system around those strengths . SA just showed us if the coaching and execution is good enough, any style can win. I'm worried we will double down on "moreyball" and the dantoni experiment and focus solely on attributes that fit into that system. Things like not playing Harrell at the 4 because he can't shoot, or not playing Dekker because he can't shoot. We have to let those guys grow as all around basketball players and tailor what you do on the floor to the strengths of your talent . Now we did that this year because we accuired our talent with fit in mind. It's not a bad idea , we wanted a punchers chance . It didn't work . How do we go forward ? I think the most prominent example of playing to system vs natural strengths is the disappearance of James' midrange game . By taking that option out of his hands ( i.e. Strongly discouraging it ) James lost a huge advantage over defenses because it's one less event they have to account for. SA did this masterfully from time to time . They made James a scorer , but took away his drive . So James , as the system dictates took the open 3 . Tired legs , and the lower percentage of the shot in general shut him and our offense down . Because on average a 3 is more valuable , James and our entire team has been taught to take that shot. However , in the instance of a defense specifically hampering that option we looked helpless. Not one player on our team responded consistently well to being run off the line and the rim protected as well . Instead of taking a wide-open 15 footer , players were confused , forced up a contested layup or turned the ball over trying to drive and kick . We are going to have to account much better for those instances .
I'm worried too. I'm not sure how you triple down on this system unless you get like a stretch 5(?) DeMarcus Cousins type who can rebound AND shoot 3s??? But that's where it dovetails to your talent point, snowcone. Stretch 4s or 5s who can rebound and defend cost $$$. What's bizarre about how we came to today is how it all started with acquiring "talent" as you said - i.e. James Harden. And now we've brought in a coach, supporting players, and even punted other "talent" along the way. (e.g. hindsight being 20/20 easy to critique, but at the time letting a young Parsons go to Dallas was arguably and proactively letting some talent go.) The system is now "bigger" than even Harden thanks to the roster we built. And so I'm not sure we can retrofit it backwards and bring in talent to work in this system. Probably more the other way around as you noted. But again, unless its a 3 pt shooting big, I'm not sure how any new talent would easily jive with this system. Case in point - Blake Griffin? Talent? Yes. But good fit for this system? Not so obvious. Philosophically, there is a buy-in (which is good) but a rigidity (which is bad imho) about this how MDA/Morey-ball that I think still keeps us a 500+ team, but may not be the best way to double down. As you noted, why wouldn't an open mid-range shot that is in Harden's comfort zone and repertoire be better than say, a circumstantially contested 3 point shot when he is tired? And that you compound that across a team that is frozen to death by discipline (or stubbornness) to not shoot a 2? Alas - the "answer" one might argue is simply penetration. Driving. But here too, how the roster not optimized already with people who allegedly can "create" their shot? I dunno. It's a conundrum - and probably more so, after losing not the series, but the way in which we lost this series. theSAGE
Ok let's hypothetically pretend the series is rigged, and that it was predetermined by people high up that San Antonio is supposed to come out the winner due to higher ratings and higher profit margins. And they told the Rockets you guys need to throw this game...hence it would explain why Harden gave a sh*itty performance. And at the end of the day Harden still gets paid millions, so why does he care.
I just saw a MVP caliber player in the highest level of basketball association who gets paid millions of dollars, give one of if not the worst performance ever....am I the crazy one?
