irrelevant huh?? obviously not too irrelevant, if VG had a problem with it, dont you think he would have changed it? It isnt like he doesnt have control over his team, remember? that was (supposedly) RT's problem.. now, if you re-read what I said, you would notice that I acknowledged that Yao should be the one gone to more often.. as long as he has the advantage...he absolutely needs to get the ball and take the shot. He needs to quit passing out of the post when he has the advantage...and he had a clear and present advantage tonight. anyway....the perimeter was hot in the second half, and that s where the Rockets made their money tonight. it wont work every night, but from the looks of it VG wasnt too displeased with the way the game went.
Would all you basketball come lately , Rockets come lately Yao-only bandwagon fans please start up your own seperate site for mindless drivel and just plain stupid post. Because quite frankly, most of us real Rox fans are experiencing increasingly sore wrists and hands from constantly having to add new members to our ignore lists. Biggest crop of losers ever. The Rockets are now 2-1 second in the Midwest carry on.
So, one should not complain about poor strategy when it results in a win? The problems are still there. The team is still relying on perimeter players being hot to win, rather than creating efficient scoring opportunities. As I said in another thread - it worked more often than not last year, too... but not enough to get in the playoffs. All I see is a blowout win reinforcing bad behavior. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the win. But I'd rather see th team play as it did in the Denver game.
Uhh, if we kicked their ass by 30 and the game was over by halftiime; necessarily then, for tonight, it was not a poor strategy On nights when your shooters are hot, they should shoot. This is the a version of the "All Chris Carter does is catch touchdowns" argument. So no, you should not complain. It was not a poor strategy, it was an effective strategy that led to a 30 point victory.
That's just incorrect - logically, and practically. For what you say to be true, poor strategies could never be successful. This is blatantly false. A successful strategy is one that gives one the best odds of succeeding. Sometime, the best laid strategy will fail. Sometimes, poor ones will succeed. To use a classic example, it's a good strategy for a priestess in a prehistoric civilization to offer herself for blood sacrifice provided the rains do not come tonight after a 7 year dry spell. Luck is on her side, and the rains come. Would you think it "sound strategy" for her to do so next time? By your standards, it was a "good strategy" for her to do so the first time, at least. So how bout that next time? In basketball terms, by your standards, absurdity results. So, allowing perimeter ball was best for this game. But not most games? What if it would result in losses 81 games of the season, but a 30 point win here? By your definition, it's still sound. Even if there were no logical reason to expect it to succeed. Even if it only did because the ball pinged 87 times around the rim every play, rimmed out, bounced off of Cato's head, caromed off an official, then found its way into the net. Obviously, that's hyperbole. But by your standard, that's necessarily (to use your word) - a good strategy. So, good strategy, essentially, if we use it the way you do - is a meaningless nothing. My standard is meaningful, at least.
I'll be sure to bump up this thread after the usual 5-10 pt loss. Don't think for a second the Rockets are going to be blowing away people on a consistent basis. Hello?? We just lost to the Grizzlies at HOME.
"perimeter games" belong in the East. There isnt any room for that crappy style of play in the West unless you want to waste a 7'6" center with actual skills who is leading the league in shooting percentage. Oh well, to each his own. Some people can't be reasoned with.
(not complaining but i'm a big advocate for winning the right way, blowing out a team is a great way to develop bad habits.) You can win and you can win the right way. Blowing out a team doesn't necessarily mean you played a great game all around. These are the games in which you can work within the framework of a gameplan and can actually afford to make mistakes in actual game situation. So what happens when the shooters aren't hot the next game and the Nets actually shoot over 27%?? What do you fall back on then? Habits are tough to break and most games, if the shooters are off, we won't have the luxury to wait for the them to shoot themselves out of a slump. Stuart
If I was the coach, I would probably also milk the hot hand. However, in one of my classes, I had to read a book which somehow explained that the whole theory of "milking the hot hand" is wrong and that there actually is no such thing as a "hot hand" as a good strategy. I haven't really understood that part of the book, but those guys seemed to be pretty smart... Anyway, I still think Yao should get/take/earn/demand more shots, win or not. If one of your players shoots well above 50 % AND you must have the impression that this guy could take more quality shots if the team and he really wanted that, then the coach should absolutely enforce that this happens. A win is a win as far as this one game only is concerned. But saying "we won, so everything is fine" is complacency and will not build lasting success.
I understand and agree with several posters talking about playing the right way. I would also like to point out that is is also good to rest Yao and let other players have a chance to contribute to the win. It helps team spirit, comaraderie and builds confidence for the future.
Three games don't establish a pattern. Not to mention that the Chicago Bulls game was the first game of a back-to-back with the New Jersey Nets. The Rockets had the game in hand early. The only reason Yao played as many minutes as he did tonight (29) was because Cato and Taylor got in early foul trouble. It takes Yao a lot of energy to establish proper position in the post. He needs to save that energy for tonight's game. But it's good to see that the Rockets were more effective punishing attempts to front Yao with better lead passes that led to quick dunks. Hope this continues.
So...as far as Yao getting the the right number of touches a game...are we looking for a "Randy Ratio" here? C'mon now, we won...that's the important thing. Everyone contributed...that's equaly important. And Francis played the pt effectively, he played within the offense...that's important as well. And Yao, he rattled off, what, 8 pts in the first quarter, he got our offense going, plus didn't play much of the 4th cause it was a blowout, but clearly the offense was going through him...that's important to note. What's not too important...after 3 games and a 2-1 record...is how many touches he's getting.
I don't post that much on this bbs anymore because of stupid threads like this. Why don't all of you whiners go down to walgreens and get some lotion for your pu@#ies! Francis and Mobley are main gogs on the wheel so when they are shooting well there is no reason not to give them the ball. Yao will always be there. Besides it is only 3 games into the season. WE WON BY 30....SO QUIT YOUR F!@#$%G WHINING!
I'm amazed at the number of people here that want to complain about everything and anything. What old habits are creeping up that you want to complain about? What I saw last night was not iso, iso and more iso. I saw a team that swung the ball around, making that extra pass to get it to the open man. To me, I was seeing an offense reminiscent of the 94 and 95 Championship teams. Hakeem was that much more effective because he had perimeter shooters who could hit the open jump shot. I too would like to see the ball go into Yao a little more, but I'm also aware that Yao's conditioning is nowhere near what Hakeem's was. If we're winning by making good decisions with the ball, playing stifling D, spreading the scoring around, playing a good inside-outside game, and preserving Yao so that he can dominate throughtout the playoffs, then why would anyone want to complain?
Shaq is averaging 17.7 shot attempts. Jermaine O'Neal 18.0, Ben Wallace 12.3, Carlos Boozer 11.0, Eric Dampier 11.3, Clifford Robinson 16.3, Brian Skinner 10.0, Brad Miller 10.7, Tim Duncan 12.5. Yao Ming only 9.3 shots per game in 2003. In 2002 Yao averaged 9.8 shots a game. So much for running the offense through Yao. If we won't feed the ball to Yao against 3 sub-500 teams when will we?
gosh, i would think that if yao could actually establish the post somewhere NEAR the basket, he might get more shots. the further out of the paint he is, the lower the shot percentage. jvg has said this over and over. but whatever, whine all you want. yao is good, but he is not dominant. so he will not get as many shots as shaq or hakeem did.
