Although the Rockets' system keeps changing game-by-game, there's still a lot of criticism here at the BBS toward Rudy's offensive system ("they need to run more," "stagnant offense," etc). This is somewhat puzzling when you consider that the Rockets' so-called stagnant, dinosaur offense is currently ranked 10th (generating 100.3 points per game) --- which is pretty good when you compare it to Phil Jackson's Triangle (so far, the Lakers have managed to only generate 95.6 points per game). That's right, folks. That beautiful motion offense, the infamous triangle, is currently ranked 20th in the league. By posting these facts, I hope to end the old (and somewhat stale) debate over Houston's offense --- sure, it could use a little tweaking here and there, but otherwise, it's fine. They're obviously not losing because of their offensive system (try looking at their defensive lapses, or the fact that they're turning the ball over 19 times a game, or the fact that they're not hitting their free throws down the stretch -- that's what's really hurting them). The numbers simply do not support the argument that the Rockets' offense is that big a problem. If you look at all the other teams in the West, you'll find that Houston is behind only Sacramento (with an NBA best 106.3 ppg), Seattle (102.2 ppg), and Dallas (101.5 ppg) in offensive production. That's right, the ROCKETS HAVE THE 4TH BEST OFFENSE IN THE WESTERN CONFERENCE! What about Utah's pick-and-roll, moving-without-the-ball, "motion" offense? Well, it's way down near the bottom ranked 22nd (at 93.7 ppg) in the NBA. Here's another eye-opener: the three elite teams favored to have a shot at winning the West and consequently the NBA Championship (San Antonio, Portland, L.A. Lakers), are all in the bottom half of the NBA offensively (respectively ranked 18th, 19th, and 20th). Clearly, those teams are not winning with great offense. Maybe they're winning with good defense. Maybe they're not turning the ball over 19 to 20 times a game. .... Maybe the Lakers are winning because Shaq is finally rebounding, blocking shots, and playing defense like he's supposed to. Whatever it is, they're not winning because of the Triangle. .... And the Rockets aren't losing because of their offense. Pick something else to criticize....something that makes sense.
interesting point. my problem with it is that you can't really compare rudyball with the lakers tri right now. rudyball has been going on for years so far, the lakers tri has been implemented this season only. jackson has said that the lakers wouldn't get it for at LEAST a season, and jordan said it took HIM two seasons to get it. my point is, you can't compare rudy's system with jackson's system right now, wait until the end of the season, and look at the scoring averages then.
Sorry if the title of my post misled you. I wasn't trying to compare the two offensive systems (as in which one is better). I was merely pointing out that the offensive systems are not responsible for their respective teams' failures or successes this season ... which is just another way of saying that neither is better than the other, and that there are some other factors involved in winning and losing that are more worthy of attention.
theWIGMAN, Good points! While the Rockets manage to score 100.2 points a game, they also give up 102.3 points in return. While you can say it's the offense that's not good enough to offset the weakness of the defense, one can also say it's the defense that costs us games. Either way you like. theWIGMAN, the point is actually that our offense isn't the main reason why the Rockets have such a discouraging record right now. 1. FT % is one of the differences in our games. Rocekts' 71.2% vs. opponents' 78.4% tells you part of the story. Also, as we watch the games, we can tell that when the games were on the line, some of our players tended to miss clutch FT's. Yeah! It makes the game so much more interesting in the end, which is something we Rocket fans don't like to see. And our record when scoring 100+ points is 4-4. Does it tell you anything about this team? They have great offense, while they let their opponents have the same thing. 2. Rockets' 44.5% FG% vs. opponents' 44.2% FG% is virtually a tie. And it tells you why the Rockets tend to lose close ones. HIT THE FT's 3. 4th quarter collapse. Do you need me to recall any bad memories? It can partially explained by the fact that Rudy goes back to the post-up oriented offense when games are close in the 4th quarter. Everyone knows the post-up game was successful and won us 2 BIG champinships. But things changed. Hakeem and Charles are no Hakeem and Charles in their old glory time. That's one thing Rudy has to admit and realize. By going back to the post-up game, our team doesn't score big, and everyone is standing to wait for the ball to be kicked out from the post. We usually scored BIG in our 1st halves. The low-scoring 2nd halves were where we brought the post-up game on the court. Post-up game shifts the momentum of the game. And FT% again! I don't have the actual stst rught now, but I can tell by experience that the Rockets get most of their FT's in the 4th quarter. You know, missing FT's in crunch time isn't something WINNERS do. 4. Turnovers And no one needs me to elaborate here? Momentum shifts. BIG time. 5. Player rotation That's something causing us to scratch our heads. Leaving our starters on the bench for too long, letting one or two bench players playing the last moments of close games, ...... all could be reasons why we lost close games. Yes. It's not the offense that's solely responsible for the poor record.
Great points! Although I would add that this offense each game looks less like the post-up game of old. The players are picking up the running game. One difference between then and now is Cato's play--he has scored well the last several games, but look at the way he's gotten his points: off of cuts, movement and dunks. Very different from the style of play Olajuwon had gotten his points in the last few years. Lastly, many of the players on the current roster have had little or no experience with the post-up game. Bullard, Barkley and Hakeem are the only players with more than 1 year in that offense. The post up game is falling by the wayside, and hard to believe, we are seeing the future Rockets now. In the coming years, we'll remember this season as the year the new team had formed, and we'll enjoy watching them develop, beginning with this season, into a premiere team in the league. ------------------ Gene Peterson on the highpoint of the Rox' 14 victory season...
Sad but true, let's wait till Hakeem is back before we say we can form a new team this year. Dream now is the one who contradicts me the most: I'm wanting him to recover ASAP but wondering if he will ruin** our new offense when he returns. ** I don't wanna use this word, but what's a better word to use? Huh!
I really haven't watched the Lakers this year, but I do know that point totals don't necessarily indicate the effectiveness of an offense. Obviously it is improbable that you could score 80 points a game in this league and win much, but 95 vs. 100 could simply be a difference in pace. The Rockets could be getting more points than the Lakers simply because they take more shots and don't juice the shot clock as much this year. An offense might be considered better if it scores 95 points on 50% shooting than one that scores 100 points on 40% shooting. Right now I would rather be rooting for the 100 point team because they are probably more athletic and exciting. ] I just love dunks.
theW: Since your arguement is that higher point average equals better offensive system, so are you suggesting that Dallas is a better team than Lakers, Jazz, and Blazers? The most important thing is that at crucial time who and what will be the first options. That is complaint we have about Rudyball. Remeber what Shandon said about the offense a few days ago? ------------------ Rockets' biggest problem is not player talent levels, it is the coach's ineptitude.
Caveman, you've missed the point completely. Read the post again. Also, read my response to Mhan in this thread.
More interesting stats about the Triangle vs Rudyball: During MJ's last season (97-98}, the Bulls' Triangle generated 96.7 ppg. Rudyball in the same season (97-98) generated 98.8 ppg Once again, proof that the Triangle is highly over-rated. The Bulls won with defense by limiting their opponents to under 90 ppg in 97-98.
Actually, I watched the Lakers play the Blazers on NBA League Pass last night and there were a few things that I noticed about the Lakers. 1. They didn't run much at all. They slowed down the Blazers and forced them to play a half court game and it went right into their hands. Obviously, for that particular game they were more concerned with keeping the Blazers running game in check than generating a great deal of offense. 2. I don't know whether it's zen, the Triangle, Jackson, or new rap music, but Shaq looked like a more complete player. If you closed your eyes when he was at the line you would swear that Shaq was reborn. He was passing the ball, rebounding, playing defense, and even setting picks. Who would have thunk it? 3. Usually you associate the Lakers with underachieving, but I honestly have to say they have overachieved with Jackson. Basically when you get beyond Shaq and Kobe you have one offensive threat left in Rice and he looks lost in that offense. The rest of the team is filled with scrubs and defensive specialists and they are still one of the top four teams in the West. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
I still think the Lakers will win it all this season. The Blazers may have the most talent, but the Lakers have the best talent. If you put Glen Rice on the Blazers, he'd be their best player. If you put Kobe Bryant on the Blazers, he'd be their best player. If you put Shaquille O'neal on the Blazers, he'd be their best player.
Wigman, You may laugh, but the Rockets incorporated a lot of elements of the Triangle tonight with great success. There were several sequences in the first half where they ran a high and low post. Anderson or Barkley would be on the wing and they would cut back and forth to the basket. Barkley and Anderson had about four points a piece on baseline cuts alone. If that didn't work then the wing would run to the top of the post and then the post would pick. This either left the post (usually Thomas) open for a jumper, gave the point guard a split second to penetrate, or forced the defense to switch giving the point guard a mismatch. Personally, I would kind of like the see the Rockets run this with Hakeem or Charles on the wing and either Shandon, Walt, Mobley, or Bullard at the post. Then it would give you a shooter for the jumper instead of Thomas or Cato. It sounds complicated, but it took the Suns by surprise and there are so many options you can play off of it. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
BornRocketRed - really liked your post. Our defense looked pretty good tonight against the Suns in Compaq Center.
The defense was great.. SUns like to go in and pass and the rockets didnt let them do that tonight. That was great.
Barzilla, I am laughing . I doubt if Rudy intentionally borrowed anything from Phil's offense. Jackson's coaching genius isn't in the offense .... it's how he gets his players to play defense. Somehow, he's gotten Shaq to realize his potential defensively (Shaq is currently 3rd in the league in blocked shots and 2nd in rebounding). If Shaq had played like this last year, they wouldn't have needed to bother with Rodman. All in all, the Lakers look very dangerous this year --- even if Shaq still can't hit free throws.
Until the Lakers solve their problems at point guard, power forward and Shaq's free throw shooting, I don't believe they will get very far in the playoffs. The Lakers look great against bad teams because Shaq is so dominating. However, they had these same 3 players last year and got swept by San Antonio. SA may even have Sean Elliott back for the playoffs and I think would roll LA again. Portland can also beat them and I think even Houston at full strength will have a team that matches up very well with the Lakers. I also don't think Glen Rice is a complete player. He would be behind Wallace, Grant, Smith, Schremph, and maybe even Pippen in my book. Kobe has shown great one-on-one play and defense but I still put him behind Wallace and Grant this year. ------------------ Doesn't Rudy know that there are geniuses at clutchcity.net!!
Wigman, You say Jackson is not an offensive genius and I would agree because the Triangle has been around long before him. However, I think your attempts to pidgeon hole the Triangle as an ineffective offense because of the lower points per game average fails to misunderstand its goal. The Triangle is a half court offense. Anytime you commit to a half court offense your scoring average is going to be lower (versus a committment to running like Sacramento). The difference between the Triangle and Rudyball is that the Triangle does not rely solely on the post to beat his man one on one or for a perimeter player to drain an open three. It is a complex offense that relies on a series of picks and cuts to the basket. If it works you should always have a very high percentage shot. How often could you honestly say that the traditional Rudy system resulted in a high percentage shot? As far as Jackson being a defensive genius, I don't think you can seperate that from the Triangle. How often have you seen a Rockets' missed three result in a fast break for the opposition? Conversely, if you are taking high percentage shots (using all of the shot clock) then you will be much more likely to get back on defense and will limit the number of possessions your opponent will have. The Triangle is not about scoring 110 points a game. The Triangle is simply about scoring more points than your opponent. The Triangle is an offense that has to be bought into (failed twice in Dallas) but if your team does then it will work. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating using the Triangle. I'm just trying to help explain why scoring averages don't explain the whole story. What I liked from the last game is that we utilized more movement and picks to get easier shots (particularly Shandon and Charles). ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
