I agree with m ost of what you said but I think we should develop Tate and start him over House. I dont think House can be trusted long term.
I only caught the second half, but that was actually one of the more entertaining games i've seen from the rockets in a while. All the new faces obviously help but, in general, the ball dominant play of the past was just not aesthetically pleasing to me personally. Tate - love the tenacity. He really has a knack for attacking and scoring in the paint. Even though he's on the smaller side, i think he can create mismatches on the post. Passing is iffy at time though. Wood - more and more impressed and excited what he can become, but please, no more of him isolating and trying to create off the dribble. Brown - impressive showing and making the most of his opportunity.
I'm hoping they are able to build up Danuel's value and trade him during the trading deadline. I really don't want him here anymore.
Great post, even if we don't agree on exact possible starters. (I think we know House's ceiling, especially for his basketball smarts, and I wouldn't give him too much time.) I don't think I'm over-reacting to one game, but I'm honestly excited to watch more of this team, win and lose. I mean, I'm surprised by that excitement, and it's just reminding me how much of a devoted Rox fan I really am, from childhood. If a team tries, with some flashes of talent, with Houston on their jersey, I'll get into it. And I like that Silas plays a lot of roster and seems like someone who will reward even younger guys with more run if they play hard and smart. I made a lot of excuses for Dan Tony and Harden over the last couple of years, but the repetitiveness and joylessness of many of those games meant I rarely even watched highlights. And people shouldn't under-rate post game pressers, either. That's part of the fun for basketball fans as well, and good lord was that ever joyless with mumbly, so-over-it JH13.
In the past, not every game, but many of them went down in exactly opposite direction it would be something like this... with 3 minutes to go and up by 9 spurs would become aggressive and rockets offense, although playing pretty well up to that point, becomes stagnant iso happy and just chucking 3s over peoples hands not really making a meaningful play. Harden would make a few turnovers in a row with his nonchalant lazy passes, or trying to thread a needle, or being cornered he gives up the ball falling/flopping trying to get refs to call a foul (and you just know they wont call ticky tacky that late) or gordon would brick a wide open 3 early in the shotclock. And just like that spurs would hit a couple of lucky shots and easy transition baskets, come back and win
Remember how you missed to include that one parameter in your search? Well guess what, there are countless parameters to what constitutes a good or bad shot nowhere to be found even if you are a subscriber. Analytics is in its infancy. This is the Stone age of analytics and depicting midrange as inefficient will be laughed upon by the posterity as a remnant of a dark age past, it will be deemed as irrelevant as boxscore numbers are laughed at today. Heres a diamond, one key word, just to start a journey : PSYCHOLOGY Heres the other: Human nervous system.. you just cant strip shooting numbers of these 2 and claim to be scientific and analytic.
"I'm just arguing for the mid-ranges that go in" "I'm only against the the bad 3's" One of these days 2 > 3 if you repeat these things enough.....I JUST KNOW IT
actually 2 is greater than 3 on the day when you need just one shot to win, on the day you just need to keep scoreboard moving or if its an open layup or dunk psychology, always remember the way them human nervous system is built and functions Why teams have warmups before the games? perhaps they would do better and be more efficient if theyd just jump straight into the games? see how ridiculous it is... you need not be efficient all the time... and this is also a function that midrangers and other non 3 shots serve, they keep your aiming mechanism informed , give you feedback , keep you oriented and warmed up for shooting 3s....
are there clips of the Mason guy or it was Jones (do we even have such a player) hitting the few from the midrange area? that was beautiful and refreshing
This should be pretty quantifiable, every shot, range, game situation is logged these days - it just doesn't fly in 2020 to say "mid range shots are better because it just is and I say so!" - I mean, the tell here is this: Actually 2 is greater than 3 on the day when you need just one shot to win, on the day you just need to keep scoreboard moving This is the 'midranges that go in are better than 3's that miss" argument, which is and always will be the main argument of the midrange Creationists. But anyway, the first situation "one shot to win" is pretty quantifiable. The second "just need to keep the scoreboard moving" is obviously purposefully vague to cover any and all midranges which tells us all we need to know - it's an article of faith rather than anything else.
Rockets would be better off without high usage players making ball stick. If last night was a sneak peek of how Silas wants ball to move then trade Wall and Cousins when their value is high enough. Neither player is part of rebuild anyway.
You got it right, Mason Jones. That midrange game reminds me of Joe Johnson. Before he was a Rocket that is.