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

OK

Nice try...not.

 

Lol

They have facets of the offense?

 

There is only one position. The winning position.

 

Because:

1. In today's style of play many 3-pointers are taken when wide open because players are taught to spot up there rather than 17 feet away, so players a higher percentage of open looks are 3-pointers, whereas more 2-pointers are forced shots. In other words, whenever there is an open shot, many players opt for the three, even when they might be better off taking a step or two in, especially if they are not warmed up. This drives up the points per shot for 3-pointers relative to 2-pointers.
2. Many 3-point specialists can't shoot 2-pointers well. If players willingly stepped in more when wide open, average 2-point points per shot would go up dramatically. Even Steve Kerr only had mediocre free throw percentages some years.

Here's the thing. You need to take a decent number of 2-pointers to set up the 3-pointer and you just cannot get clear looks at the 3-pointer all the time, especially in the clutch, during playoffs, and at the end of games. If you played the game you would know. Hey I favored the 3-point shot myself because I was a top 3-point shooter (for my level of play), but I knew that there were times that you get run off the 3-point line and you have to put up a tough 2-pointer, which would lower the overall stats for 2-pointers as well.

Look, you can still have Lin, Harden, and Parsons shooting the 3-pointer, but to mix it up with your PF taking 15-17 footers occasionally when the defense gives it to you is the right thing to do.

 

Power Forwards shouldn't be shooting 3's. Why? Simply put rebounds. Unless you're Kevin Love or Dirk(because he's awesome), y'all shouldn't be shooting 3's.

 

And another reason (#3)--because:

1. In today's style of play many 3-pointers are taken when wide open because players are taught to spot up there rather than 17 feet away, so players a higher percentage of open looks are 3-pointers, whereas more 2-pointers are forced shots. In other words, whenever there is an open shot, many players opt for the three, even when they might be better off taking a step or two in, especially if they are not warmed up. This drives up the points per shot for 3-pointers relative to 2-pointers.
2. Many 3-point specialists can't shoot 2-pointers well. If players willingly stepped in more when wide open, average 2-point points per shot would go up dramatically. Even Steve Kerr only had mediocre free throw percentages some years.
3. More of the top/good shooters shoot 3-pointers, whereas many of the 2-pointers are taken by the poorer shooters, which artificially depresses the points per shot of 2-pointers.

Here's the thing. You need to take a decent number of 2-pointers to set up the 3-pointer and you just cannot get clear looks at the 3-pointer all the time, especially in the clutch, during playoffs, and at the end of games. If you played the game you would know. Hey I favored the 3-point shot myself because I was a top 3-point shooter (for my level of play), but I knew that there were times that you get run off the 3-point line and you have to put up a tough 2-pointer, which would lower the overall stats for 2-pointers as well.

Look, you can still have Lin, Harden, and Parsons shooting the 3-pointer, but to mix it up with your PF taking 15-17 footers occasionally when the defense gives it to you is the right thing to do.

 

For excellent 3-point shooters like Harden, it is generally a better shot than a long 2-pointer. I agree with you. I'm not advocating a 21 footer. But you can not always get an open 3-pointer because of game situations that I have mentioned repeatedly (passing angles, set up time, time to receive lengthy passes, etc.). Also, an open 3-pointer is not necessarily better than an open 15-17 footer, especially when you are not warmed up.

Again, the point is not that I want Harden only shooting 2 pointers. The point is that with Harden, Lin, and Parsons already at the 3-point line, I'd rather have my PF shoot OPEN 15-17 footers (not contested ones) than shooting 3-pointers. Very few open 15-17 footers are taken in today's game, so that's why today's 2-point shot stats do not show that it is a good shot because they are based almost entirely on contested 2-pointers or end of shot clock chucks and shots by poor shooters.

You can't just look at stats. You've got to look at how those stats are generated and how game situations create certain shots.

I would rather have my PF shoot open 15-17 footers at a 60% rate than my PF spot up at the 3-point line at a 40% rate because he is in better offensive rebounding position and because it is easier to get the ball to him in different game situations from a passing angle perspective.

 

Fair enough, but LMA shoots many contested 2-pointers and is a key offensive threat for his team, which means that many of his shots are by necessity NOT particularly good shots. Just because he can make them doesn't mean they are good shots. I'd rather have my PF shoot less, only take open shots, and make them at a higher percentage. A great role would be someone like Patrick Patterson before he was traded. Patterson made open 2-pointers at a great clip but was rarely the focal point of the offense. When you have Harden and Howard, along with Lin and Parsons, the PF can easily be the fifth option. You just need him to drill open 2-pointers ala Haslem, Bosh, Patterson, etc. Of course Patterson had major holes in his game that cause me not to shed any tears at his loss, such as rebounding, toughness/intimidation, shotblocking, steals/loose balls/hustle play, all at which he is very poor, so Patterson is not an ideal PF, but his midrange 2-pointer is great for a team like the Rockets.

 

That's what Dwight and Asik are there for. If you aren't Dwight or Asik you should be running down the other end for an outlet pass. Rockets basketball baby.

 

-3.5%

Omer Asik's TS% (56%)
TS% of a 35% 3 pt shooter (52.5%).

Game set match.

 

Theres nothing complex about Asik being more efficient score then your 35% shooting stretch 4 from beyond the arc. You are doing what is called "over-complicating". Another word for "distortion".

 

This is because a far higher percentage of the 8-24 foot shots in today's game are contested shots, not open shots, whereas a large percentage of the 3-pointers are open shots. Whenever a player is open in today's game, he spots up and elects to take a 3-pointer over a 15-17 footer. If this were reversed, you would see the numbers drastically change. Moreoever, a vastly higher percentage of 3-pointers are taken by good shooters versus the 2-pointers, which have a higher percentage taken by poor shooters. So the points per shot by area are a factor of the strategy in today's game, not simply the inherent value of those shots. Today's statistics, while helpful and a great deal better than in years past, simply do not fully capture these factors, especially when looked at in a simplistic way.

Of course if you can get a wide open Harden or Parsons 3, especially if they are corner 3's, those are great, high percentage shots, but you've also got Lin out at the 3-point line, and you can create more open shots by having your PF intelligently drift to the open location and create the appropriate passing angle for the open 15-17 footer, which can be absolutely deadly and easier to master than the 3-pointer. Even Nowitzki has had his struggles from the 3-point line in stretches in his career, although I am generally fine with him a the 3-point line (at least more so than other PFs).

Bottom line is that you often create more and easier shots and more efficient passing angles by having your PF court position for open 15-17 footers and create better offensive rebounding opportunities and problems for the defense than by having him always and predictably join 3 other guys at the 3-point line. Remember that the PF is still your fifth option (since we don't have LMA), so you want him to drift to the open 15-17 foot location, and on the catch, still look to pump fake, repost, or rotate the ball for an open 3 by one of your better options before looking for his own shot unless that's what the defense gives you.

Look, there are times when you might want 4 guys at the 3-point line, but to do this possession after possession makes it easier to defend.

 

I just showed you how having Asik can create more opportunities not less off a PnR. The Lakers did not work because both players like to POST UP. Asik doesn't post up. There's no conflict there.

You don't post Howard up with Asik in the game, but Howard isn't some phenom post-up player. You run screens off of one or the other and let the other keep the D honest on the opposite baseline. When Asik sits, Howard can post up to his heart's content.

Geez, why is this so hard for you to get?

 

Some times people wont understand what you are trying to say. As someone who has played the power forward possession up to a collegiate level. I can promise you that I lived by the 15-17 foot rule religiously.

I'll drain open 15 footers all night long, however if you have me step out to that corner three, you are just asking for a missed shot. As well having me out at the 3 point line completely eliminates my great rebounding talent unless its a really long rebound from a really bad shot.

However, hovering around the elbow or baseline at 15-17 feet I was always within reach of boxing out or getting the rebound.

The money ball system was perfect for the talent we had last year, but if you add a stud power forward to this roster the 15-17 foot open jumper is just as if not more efficient than having him camp at the 3 point line.