I remember reading this after game 1 and had a bad feeling it would continue.. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579515883764199014 Taking a Midrange Jump Shot Is Stupid. Or Is It? well, it wasn't just that "one" time.
But do we have LMA or something similar???? NO! If LMA was in Houston or Millsap or someone who's bread and butter is midrange they would shoot it. If you think otherwise then youre dumb. period.
LMA is a power forward, and there's a specific function that comes from bigs using the mid range, they can make passes that smaller players can't because of the advantage in angles and sight they gain from height and reach. LaMarcus Aldridge? yeah awesome thanks for finding a star mid range player, and how we need one of those, come up with that all by yourself?
We look gassed at halftime. We need another blow out to give James a breather. He was dead tired in the 3rd and didnt get out in the 4th.
Good offense just like good defense means effort. You can't expect to score against a good defensive team without lots of ball and player movement... especially when many of your best players are out. During those 2nd half stretches where the Warriors kicked our butts, we mostly stood around and played drive and kick. When the other team has figured this out and is defending the perimeter, you need more picks, basket cuts, better spacing, ball movement and patience.
like bullard says, ' live by the three die by the three.' if anyone had a mid range game, we'd use it. it's not like morley was throwing ipads everytime luifa,landry, and big yao were shooting 11ft wicked jumpers.
When you're undermanned, increasing the variance gives you a decent chance to pull off an upset. Morey has referenced this before and that's exactly what we tried tonight. And dammit, it could've worked if Harden, Ariza, and Papa didn't combine to go 1-22 from three. McHale should've given Troy Daniels more time in a game like this.
It's really interesting how Morey never stopped McGrady from shooting midrange jumpers. Or Yao. Or Carl Landry. Or Scola. Or Patterson. Or Kevin Martin. Some posters are so short sighted it's amazing. LosPollosHermanos and cheke will keep on fighting the good fight though. Talk about watermelon size brains.
Missing 3 starters with no depth at 4 or 5... Our only chance was to make a bunch of 3's and play great D! We had no business winning that game with all the injuries we have... The fact that we kept it close for the most part is a very good sign!
Hmm, might as well go back to the 70's. Calvin Murphy was one of the best midrange shooters in history. Anyway, I don't know why people are still arguing about the midrange game. It is like the running game in football. It's inefficient. But you have to run it every now and then to keep the defense honest.
LOL ok, so we the Rockets just lost to the current best team in the NBA because we are missing 3 starters, and somehow the conclusion is shoot more mid range? Never mind that the GS team that beat the Rox actually took 42 3 pt attempts, just shoot more mid-range shots. Never mind that logically speaking, a mid-range shot is closer to the paint and therefore will be more contested if the opponent is packing the paint, just shoot more mid range shots. Never mind that nobody on the current squad apart from Harden is good enough to shoot mid-range jumpers, take more mid range shots. Never mind that almost every basketball analyst agrees that all things equal, mid range shot is the worst shot in b-ball, take more mid range shots. I don't even understand how mid range "keeps the defense honest" more than 3 pts when 3 pts provide more spacing, just keep taking more mid range shots. We don't have LMA, Kobe, MJ on the squad, but wtf just take more mid range shots? The NBA as a whole is decreasing the amounts of mid range shots taken, but let's take more mid range? The Lakers have the worst record in the league in part because the coach doesn't like 3 pters and wants more mid range, let's copy them and take more mid range shots? Popovich is on record saying he hates the 3, but it is necessary to win but let's ignore him and take more mid-range shots? I don't really understand the fascination of taking mid range shots, why do people assume if we can't hit the 3 the players would automatically convert mid range shots? I can understand if we had the personnel for it but nobody on the squad has shown they can hit the mid range consistently.
Rockets lost against POR because of coaching, Harden sucking, and Lillard's 3's. McHale knew from the regular season Jones couldn't guard LMA, yet he waits until Game 3 after he'd already scored 40 points twice to start Asik. POR was a perfect matchup for the Twin Towers and McHale dropped the ball. Harden sucked for the second postseason in a row shooting in the 30s(%) and playing porous defense. Lillard shot 50%+ 3PT. Beverley's health didn't help. Jordan was never great from range. He mostly went to midrange later in his career when he couldn't get to basket like his earlier days.
You'r really just failing at the basic task of constructing a workable syllogism. You know what the Rockets don't do aside from take low % 2's? Take 2-handed set shots like Dolph Schayes. Dolph Schayes played on a championship team in 1955. Therefore, the Rockets must take 2 handed set shots to win a title. What am I missing above? Well, aside from tremendously awful argument by anecdote over a tiny sample size, pretty much any attempt whatsoever to establish causation. The basic problem that the mental midget midrange brigade (I love that phrase btw- thx for that) faces is that no matter how much brilliant LMA related evidence they provide, the basic issue of 3 >2 is one they can't solve. So I agree, it would be great if the Rockets made a low % 2 instead of missing a three. But you know what would be 50% better? Making a 3. Do the math.
If you are able to shoot 3 or long 2's well and you are taking those inefficient long 2's then you are an idiot. It is maybe the worst shot to take. The Rockets are able to get shooters open 3 point looks and they should do so. The problem was no Howard playing. Bogut snagging all them rebounds killed us. Bogut won this game for GS.
GSW focused on guarding the 3 to an extreme level. If any team goes to that extreme length to take away the 3 it'll change the data, make the 3 less effective... Like in college football. The offenses change but over time the defense catches up and the offense needs to find its next major innovation. Defense is going to catch up to you. Got to be able to adapt when the 3 is gone... but no Dwight. No Jones. Not worried. Yet.
Fisher, at this point I feel that you are too stupid to understand the premise. I even repeated it MULTIPLE times in my posts--emphasizing that when the 3 is gone, yes I'll repeat it again for you in a run-on fashion, when teams run you off of the 3 point line and clog the paint---meaning that you are defended and can't bully your way inside---or take that open 3---you shouldn't force up that 3 with a fadeaway. You fail to incorporate that heavily contested 3s, fadeaway 3s, unless you're Lebron etc..are extremely low % shots. In these instances, you need force the ball to the middle and take the shots where they are open (the spurs do this ALL the time). If you disagree with me on this, you need to crown yourself as a moron and realize that you are basically advocating throwing heavily contested shots from 30 feet away, or running into players just standing around in the paint with no end in sight---all while there is open uncontested space from anywhere between 5 feet from the rim all the way to 24 feet. You could pin the paint part on Dwight's absence..but this is still a problem even when he's there because unless you're a blind homer, Dwight has a poor post up game. The individual saying that we don't have players that can hit shots from 10 feet away from the rim...how dumb are you? Have you every played the game before? Apart from the bigs, almost every player can hit that shot if they are open. The excuse lies in the inability to execute a decent game-plan (if our HC plans one to begin with...) to put our players in the best position to succeed. This wasn't the reason we lost yesterday, but was a glaring deficiency nonetheless that the team needs to address if they have any hopes of developing a versatile offense that can hold it's own against good defensive teams or post season style basketball.
