We're closer to the top than the bottom

Our offense suffered in the half-court? I have to strongly disagree with you here. Our half-court offense was a thing of beauty in the last quarter of the season. The quick curling, read-and-react, quick passing team that ran our offense in that last quarter of the season was amazing.

Big parts of it were Lee, Martin, Budinger, Scola and believe it or not, Chuck Hayes. That offense was the cleanest, most precisely ran offense I saw all season for any team (particularly teams we played against throughout the season). And much of it was done in the half-court set.

I'm sorry you didn't see it. You really missed out.

 

i seen it. that's why we gave up leads in the 2nd half all season. because the pace slowed down and we couldn't get off quality shots. we forced bad jumpers because opposing defense defended us well when their half-court defense got set.

most of our offense was full court as backed by our 8th fastest pace in the leauge (just a hair slower than the phoenix suns).

 

It's an observation, not a teaching tool.

I can also say you have to have top draft picks to win championships, as all champions of the past 25 years have a top lotto pick, so do whatever you can to get one. Equally valid observation, but also with holes.

And again, the inherent problem with all of it is the dynastic nature of the NBA (for whatever reasons...) and therefor the problem of equating success only with winniing championships (even though that is the ultimate success). And equating tanking with only a top 4 pick (it's perfectly possible to tank by being indifferent to winning but still getting outtanked by another team); I'm not sure where the cut-off should be, but top 4 seems random.

What you're after is a professional statistical review of the benefits of tanking in the NBA... which probably exists, but a quick google search I couldn't find it.

 

W/L = 15/30
Diff = 11/30


after starting the season 3-10 we finished 40-29.

40/69 = 47.5/82 ~ 6th or 7th seed

thats with lowry starting the year hurt. yao going down early. brooks then going down. brooks coming back in total meltdown. trades at the deadline and a couple untimely injuries by chuck and scola thrown in just to make things even tougher.

stable roles combined with 1 big guy who can clog the paint and I think we can easily maintain and most likely surpass the 40-29 pace we ended the season on.

I also think after spending all this time on the current "trade for superstar" route, I can't see us giving up now when there are a few more left to be had. Why not just try one last time before you give up? And to me it makes more sense to be floating around 4-6 range so your assets seem more attractive as "winning pieces" and your destination will be viewed as more attractive to the star who could feel all we need to win is them to want to come here.

Then even if you don't land the superstar at the deadline you still have a chance. The 1 seed doesn't always win. I'm not completely against tanking for lotto picks, I just don't think were in that desperate position yet.

we are closer to the top than the bottom.

 

I don't understand those that say all we need is a superstar wing and/or a solid to dominant big man to become contenders. And they assume we will get these players while retaining our core of role players.

EVERY team in the league would become a contender if they could add a superstar wing and solid to dominant big man without breaking up their core.

 

The playoffs are a whole different animal compared to the regular season. How do you go acquire this special center and SF that will help this team become contenders without giving up a main cog in this core? You go on ahead and keep drinking the koolaid that we're "close" to contending.

 

Pace has as much to do with defense as it does offense. Oh and a team could lead the league in pace with 0 fast break points too, ignoring defense. Please learn more about advanced stats before saying such things.

Anyway, the Rockets were 4th in the league in 4th quarter scoring.

 

Probably the same way we acquired ALL of our current core, lmao. Or did you really value TMac's corpse, VSpan, Rafer, Ariza, a couple of 10 day contracts worth of cash, and a mid first rounder that much?

 

I am not saying we didn't have a fast paced team. We did. With lots of possessions and were fun to watch.

I disagree with you regarding why we gave up leads in the last quarter of the season, generally speaking. If I recall, we lost one or two games during that span in which we went through terrible cold spells reminiscent of the beginning of the season. However, it was our defense at the end of the season that caused us to lose those games, again generally speaking.

We had an amazing offense to end the season. And what I am describing is the half-court offense, not the full-court (though that was nice, too).

Maybe at this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree. And again, I'm sorry you didn't see what I saw. It was beautiful.

 

wrong.

the 01-02 kings had the fastest pace in the leauge and the 6th best defensive rating so pace is not directly contributed to defense. its contributed to early shots in the clock.

and why bring up pointless 0 fast break stat when it doesn't associate itself to the rockets who got a lot of transition buckets this year

and team scoring the 3rd most ppg would have a high 4th point scoring total. maybe you should learn about advanced stats.

 

And yet we're in the same position, mediocre.

 

Bingo!

 

It's attributed to defense and offense equally. The more terrible you are defensively, the faster your pace. The faster you play offense, the faster your pace. They're both equal. Or do terrible defensive teams like Minnesota, NY, Indiana, Sacramento just happen to run a lot lol? NY and Minnesota are in the bottom third of the league in fast break points, which at least in NY's case means they probably run less than any team in the league since they score so much. (everyone knows NY doesn't run I'm just backing it up with stats)

And I don't need to learn anything about advanced stats, I was simply stating the Rockets were #3 (not 4 as I said earlier) in PPG in the 4th, that's a simple stat. When a team is the same rank in overall PPG and PPG in 4th quarter, that means that they PROBABLY don't stall on offense in the 4th. You just seem to think that since we were the #1 offense in the 1st quarter that we somehow suck in the 4th which is factually untrue.

Anyway, you clearly don't even watch the Rockets if you think they struggle in the half court, so why comment on it? Even the inane John Madden would point out that the Rox are a very good half court team.

 

Rockets are a good half court offense when shots fall (especially early) and puts pressure on the D to play tight, since this will then open read and react motion offense for cuts and slashes. Rockets are a great full court transition team, because we have Lowry to push the rock up court at mach speed and players like Lee and Martin who can run with him. However, where we do fail is when our shots stop falling after opposing D tightens their grip (usually in the 4th) and we lack a clear cut go-to option as THE SCORER. This is where a superstar is invaluable.

Those who thinks the Rockets are just a couple of impact players away from contending are delusional at best. Sure we can become serious contenders with a rim protecting big and impact wing, but we will have to gut our current team to get said players. Like any team will trade any of those players for the chump change we have outside of Scola, Lowry, Martin, and Lee.

 

bad defensive teams like Minnesota, NY, Indiana, and Sacramento run because if you can't defend you might was well try to run the other team out of the gym. it's the easiest way of coaching.

but for those teams you have bad defensive teams who still play at a slower pace like the pistons and the nets.

those "4th quarter ppg" stats are misleading because the rockets run teams of lesser talent out the gym but against over .500 teams the rockets offense struggles down the stretch and why we were 16-28 vs teams over .500.

anybody who seen the rockets vs. top talent could see that the rockets offense struggled vs. good teams down the stretch because they let their half-court defense set. it was a running occurrence in game threads in which people always jokingly posted "here comes the 2nd half collapse"

don't let those stats vs. below .500 teams fool you.

 

I don't understand, are you actually saying that the NY Knicks are a running team as their top 5 pace suggests? You're the only one in the world who thinks that.

And wow a .500 team struggles against good competition, whoda thunk it? So i guess every team outside the top 5-6 teams in the league is a choking team since their record against good teams is bad? You still have presented no evidence confirming what you're saying about the offense but anyway here's something to think about even if by some miracle you are proven to be correct:

Do you know which team has had the largest offensive efficiency discrepancy (meaning they got much worse) between the first three quarters and the 4th quarter over the last decade? I'll give you a hint, they've won half the titles in that span.

 

Eh, I'd probably wait to see the new CBA before I'd say anything about this. But Superstars come in at least pairs these days and we'll probably have to find our first from the draft. Someone will rather join Wall in DC or Griffin in L.A. before they'd choose Houston.

However, with the team we have now and coaching in flux, I think we should go hard for Michael Beasley. Absolutely nothing to lose. Kevin Love got all the love this season, but quietly, even Before he turned 22 this season, 23 PPG on 48% FG 41% 3P (1 make), 75% FT (5 attempts), 6 rebounds. I don't know what happened to him after turning 22, but obviously he worked his ass off in the summer. Probably has nothing to do with the fact he and Durant grew up together and are best friends...I say get him while he's a "head case".

 

are you telling me the knicks don't run?

isn't this thread about trying to become a contender? why use stats vs. below average competition to evauate who take this team to the next level. we won't play the timber wolves and cavaliers in the playoffs.

they played defense too so stop bringing up meaningless comparisons that don't compare to this team