I agree with you in a 162 game baseball season...though statisticians suggest that you really should play closer to 180 games to know for sure. But there are absolutely years where a team isn't as good as their record indicates for various reasons. This happens quite frequently in the NFL where each division's schedule is so entirely unique from year to year from the rest of the league.
Huffort team. I don't think this is new either. I think it also goes back to the Adelman days. You heard the Rockets described as a team of hard working guys!, overachievers! and hustle and effort!
It's nothing that complicated, guys. The Rockets have the same flaw they've always had post-Yao; there's very little in the way of go-to options around the basket. Camby and Dalembert have helped on the defensive end, but offensively, there's no one you can reliably get the ball into to stop opposing runs. Everything comes back to the perimeter, which leads to streaks. Against the Bulls and Lakers, the Rockets were a combined 14-of-30 on 3s - nearly 50%. Against the Jazz and Suns, they shot 8-for-38 - barely over 20%. That's the difference. And I wouldn't say the opposing team having "playoff intensity" defense had much to do with it, because the Rockets had plenty of looks. That Lee three in the last two minutes Friday night was as much as you could hope for. It just didn't go in. I think the narrative some of you are trying to create - that the Rockets are an effort team that doesn't have enough skill to compete in the playoffs - is flawed. There's plenty of talent and speed on this roster, and if they get hot, they can put a scare into one of the top three teams. It just comes down to that disclaimer. And it'll continue to until the Rockets can acquire that low-post anchor.
I disagree. I don't know how I would convince you...I just don't see effort in the NBA over the course of the regular season the way you see it in the playoffs....but the Rockets collectively have a group that plays harder than most teams in the regular season. That provides for them a lot of regular season success that is fool's gold if you think it's going to translate to the playoffs where more talented teams aren't taking it easy anymore. I think back to the Rockets/Lakers series...that Lakers team lulled you into crap. They played hard one night...not so hard the next...but when they would wake up, they'd throttle us. I think that's a pretty accurate microcosm.
So you think the Lakers lost three games in a 7-game series on purpose, or didn't care? Weird theory.
I think that team absolutely flipped a switch...their inconsistency with respect to effort has been in question for quite a while now. That team was no different. but when the played with intensity, we couldn't match...our talent wouldn't allow it relative to their talent. There's nothing weird about it....it's extremely human. Do you honestly believe these teams are giving their all night in and night out...every guy on every team? really? Ever watch Robert Horry play in the regular season?
They were slightly more talented...the more talented team usually wins in a playoff series, I agree with that. I understand your point, but the fact that it was a 7-game series shows that the gap in talent was not huge. I think it's a mix of talent, mental toughness, and having a superstar that gets the Joey Crawford calls. That mix was not in our favor.
I still don't think the Lakers played all that great in Game 7 of that series. The Rockets just couldn't buy a shot to save their lives. And it wasn't as if the Rockets skated by - they crushed the Lakers in Games 4 and 6. That said, I agree that there's some small element of truth in your theory. But I don't think it's widespread. I think it only occurs within the very top tier, and even there, only among teams that are loaded with veterans (Lakers). I definitely don't think it's true in the cases of teams like Utah and Phoenix.
I think when they needed to, they throttled us. they had a 40 point win and a 20 point win mixed amongst their 4 wins. watching those games, i never felt like the lakers were really in the game...until they wanted to be. and then they were dominant. but that's not really the point...that was just an example of what i'm talking about. even if you disagree with it being a good example, i still come back to the fact that in the NBA, talent wins. you need a 1st team/2nd team all NBA type player on your squad somewhere. you can get away with winning a bunch of games in the regular season with hustle and effort, because the rest of the league isn't consistently giving that....but in the playoffs, you can't get away with that because even the talented teams eventually turn it on.
That Game 6 in particular was such a classic Laker lull game in my opinion. Just watching them play...very little effort...very little urgency. I'm not really saying anything new about that Lakers group...it's not like that hasn't been said pretty consistently about them, specifically. Small element of truth that teams play harder, generally, in the playoffs than they do in the regular season? Really? I don't think there's anything small about that truth...it's just human nature. I had season tickets during the 90's, and part of why we gave them up is because we said it just wasn't worth watching the guys walk up and down the court in the regular season over the course of 41 home games. The urgency just isn't there from night to night in a league where there's not much of a premium on playoff spots. Where so many teams make the playoffs and so few stay home.
I know it's been said before. I disagree, though, and think it's fairly disrespectful to the Rockets. Fans and journalists hate to accept the randomness and luck that comes with sports, particularly baseball and basketball. Folks want things to be tied up in a neat little bow, with the better team winning. Doesn't always work that way. I thought the Lakers had effort in Game 6. The Rockets just outexecuted them and made more shots. There are very few teams like the '95 Rockets that just magically turn it on come the postseason. The vast majority of champions are 1 or 2 seeds, just like that LA team, and their record reflects that they do take the regular season seriously. Unfortunately, even if you take it seriously, you aren't going to go unbeaten. There are going to be nights where things don't go your way, such as when the Rockets went 10-of-17 from three in LA a week ago. I think that has less to do with intensity and more to do with the nature of the sport. The difference come playoff time is that you have a best-of-seven series, and over the course of that time, there's a better chance for luck to even out. Let's bring it back to this thread, though. Even if we accept your philosophy as truth, Utah and Phoenix were never teams that at any point this year felt secure about a playoff position. That's what this thread is about - folks trying to find some complex answer to what's happened the last two games. Seems silly to me that Utah and Phoenix could have this mythical "higher gear" and rarely use it, even when they're on the outside looking in. Seems a lot more likely that the Rockets are just a streaky, perimeter-oriented team and the shots just haven't fallen of late.
This was a problem with JVG teams too. They put out max effort all season long, which is great for seeding. But when playoff time rolls around and every other team ups their effort, the JVG teams couldn't - because they were already at that higher level. So they end up looking like they choke in the playoffs, when it's more likely that they just overperformed in the regular season.
I don't see it as disrespectful. It's just the impression watching the game. I didn't need a sportswriter to make me feel that way...I felt that way when I was watching. Like there was a sleeping dragon laying there the whole time...and if you woke him up, you were screwed. Your hope was that he never really woke up. And I think luck is of far more importance in baseball than the NBA. I won't deny that at all for MLB. There are so few examples of anything in the NBA like we've seen in baseball with the success of wild card teams over just the last 10 years or so. I can't imagine the equivalent of the 2006 Cardinals ever winning a championship in the NBA. I don't disagree with that. I don't think that's mutually exclusive with the relative success of the Rockets in the regular season the last couple of years...and when I say relative success I mean it relative to their own talent. I'm not suggesting this based on the last 2 games. I've been saying this all year. And I don't think the idea that the Rockets are a perimeter-oriented team and my argument are mutually exclusive either. I don't disagree with your premise that this teams performs better when it shoots better...because I'd say that of every team in the league....just maybe moreso about the Rockets than others simply because they don't have great frontcourt players.
exactly. i agree completely. i'm not complaining about the effort in the regular season from the players. i love that they give us that. i think it creates a bit of a smokescreen for the decision makers though, because it gives them fodder for suggesting the team is better than it really is if "better" means closer to a championship.
No, we are a better team than Phoenix, Utah and Denver. And we have a similar /better record than they do. I think we are were we deserve to be.
Live by the jumps hot die by it, that is the Rox. When the jumpers are splashing we can beat anyone when the opponents amps up the defense and contests our shots and we miss, we have little chance to win, especially if our 3 balls are not falling. DD
I'm starting to believe we play better tired. Every time I think there should be no way we should win because of a back to back against someone like Oklahoma, that's when the Rockets surprise me and win. Seems like every time we have a few days off and we should be ready to go we disappoint. Which is why I think we'll lose the first Denver game then win the second.
I do believe a team can be slightly weaker or stronger than their record indicates, but that's not true for the Rockets. Realistically, talent-wise and performance wise, we're about the 12th to 14 best team in the league. We're only 5 games over .500 that's not much better than the last two seasons we've ended and that's what the predictions were for most part finishing around 6th-9th in the Western Conference. It shows that we are a very competitive team. It's not any kind of magical accomplishment, given our performances last season and our current roster. Again, we have a good roster with capable players, but I think alot of posters and fans worry about being championship caliber. That's why you hear so many talking about tanking or making an impactful trade to get a really good player. H We're that slightly better than the middle of the road team, sort of like the modern day (late 80s-now) Dodgers The Rockets have always sort of had a team that could reach the playoffs over the last 20. There's always that push and pull with injuries, performances, and etc. There was the championship seasons and the droughts. Our team is better talent wise/performance wise to Phoenix and Utah. Though, I'm not sure about Denver, they've had alot of injuries and were a front running team until Gallanari got injured, along with Nene (who was traded) and no Wilson Chandler. It's sort of push with performance, but I think Denver might be slightly more talented than Rockets over all. Slightly equating mere inches. Overachieving historical teams: 2008 Tennessee Titans: (The Titans as they were then would never beat a team, like the Steelers, Colts, Ravens, or Patriots in the playoffs, definitely not in concession). They might have been the least scariest 12-0 team in history. 1969 New York Mets: (No sort of thunder in their batting order, below the National league average in runs scored, home runs, batting averages, RBIs, OBP, and next to last in Slugging and OPS%. Though, they were first in WHIP, second in ERA, and below average in home runs allowed. 2003 Florida Marlins: (I've always though they were a questionable pick as one of the worst teams to win a World Series. Consider their pitching staff wasn't awful and did often rise to occasion over their careers, while Beckett, Willis, and Penny had an abundant amount of potential. Also, consider the team that they were going to be up against in the playoffs the Braves, the Cubs, and the Giants. Serious playoff choking power ahead. Honestly, none of those 3 teams were scary, through very good teams, very beatable. 1987 Minnesota Twins: Won their division, but only the 5th best record in the American League and 9th best in MLB. Only won their division by 2 games over the Royals. You have to argue, though, were the teams in front of them really that much better, especially St. Louis and San Francisco. I almost do not want to put them on this list, because the teams they played against weren't exactly all-time great or an overwhelming powerhouse. 1998 Atlanta Falcons: They won the same amount of games as the Broncos, and had one more lost than Vikings. Outplaced the perennial powerhouses and annual Super Bowl favorites -- The Packers, the 49ers, and the Cowboys. Even if healthy in 1999, I doubt that team would've did as well. The Falcons may have even had trouble making the playoffs. There should be rule that you cannot be considered the worst team ever to win a title, if you beat pretty much every or most good teams in your conference or the league. (Ex. 1993-95 Houston Rockets, name one team that didn't play who would've beaten them in the series. Oh please @ Chicago, though if someone said Seattle, they might have an argument.) You should also be given some leeway, if the league/year you played in during a season featured alot of weak teams (2001-04, 05-07 NBA Eastern Conference) http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ycn-10195013
