If you frequent this forum enough, you can't help but notice some constantly recurring themes about the Rockets. Some of these themes gradually become accepted facts. Others are hotly contested. I decided to dig out some numbers to check whether any of these "myths" have any truth. I know numbers don't tell the whole story. But they are the only cold hard stuff that are not subject to dispute (although the interpretaton of them are debatable). And they are often pretty good indicators of what is going on. What I discover is that all these "myths" have some degrees of truth in them. But they are at best partly true. I guess the old wisdom still applies: The truth is usually somewhere in between. Please don't get upset when I call your belief a "myth." I just use that word to distinguish it from undisputable facts. You are welcome to argue against my interpretations of the numbers. You are also welcome to add to my list of "myths." <hr> Myth #1: Yao Ming is too tired. He needs more rest. Facts: Since his break-out game against the Lakers (I disregard the games before that because those were more like preseason games for him, not good for charting his performance), Ming played 19 games with less than 2 days rest ("tired games") and 5 games with more rest ("rested games"). Tired games: fg 108-172 (63%), 8.26 rpg, 2.58 bpg, 15.74 ppg Rested games: fg 28-70 (40%), 13.00 rpg, 2.00 bpg, 15.80 ppg He took considerably more shots (scoring the same amount of points) and grabbed a lot more rebounds in the "rested games" but was way down in his shooting percentage. Interpretation: It seems to be true that after more rest, Ming is more active in shooting and rebounding. But he appears to have significantly better rhthym when he plays more frequently as indicated by his fg%. BTW, as I mentioned in another thread, the team won 2/3 of the "tired" games while LOST 2/3 of the "rested" games. It seems that the whole team, including Ming, tend to lose their rhythm after extended periods of rest. <hr> Myth #2: Eddie Griffin is jacking up too many 3s. That hurts his offense and his shooting percentage. Facts: Griffin shot 27-78 (35%) 3-pointers, and 68-170 (40%) 2-point shots. The combined percentage is about 39%. His 3-pt percentage is pretty good, but his 2-pt shooting is pretty bad. In other words, he is more efficient (1.05 pt per shot) from beyond the arch than from within (0.8 pt. per shot). Interpretation: About 30% of his shots are 3-pointers. Is he taking too many treys? Debatable. What is clear is that Griffin is a legitimate 3-point threat. And I think that should be used as a way to open up the interior. My take is that Griffin's problem is not taking too many 3s, but not having a better inside game. He needs to be able to either drive past his man or have a more consistent post up game. <hr> Myth #3: We are beating the good teams but losing to the bad teams. Facts: Against teams with .500 records or better, we are 7-9, a 44% winning percentage. These teams have a combined record of 228-135, a 63% winning percentage, or 37% LOSING percentage. Against teams with losing records, we are 10-5, a 67% winning percentage. These teams have a combined record of 136-257, a 35% winning record, or a 65% LOSING percentage. Interpretation: Against the good teams, we are beating the odds, i.e. our winning percentage is "better than the market," so to speak. Against the poor teams, we are merely covering the odds, i.e. our winning percentage matches their losing percentage. In other words, we play better than average ball (relative to the rest of the league) against winning teams and play average/mediocre (but not BAD) ball against losing teams. I actually feel pretty good about it. We are nowhere near to be among the elite teams. But we are an above average, not a bad, team. <hr> Myth #4: We are a young team. That's why we are not winning games consistently. Facts: According to a recent post, we are second in NBA experience, a 2.80 yrs average. Of the 8 most inexperienced teams, we are the only one with a winning record. Indiana, is #9, a 4.00 yrs average, and they are among the winningest teams at this point. Some people pointed out that the main contributors of our teams are the "veterans." Others mentioned that we actually have some old "rookies" i.e. new to the NBA but not young kids (e.g. Hawkins). So I did a comparison between the Rockets and the Pacers about their NBA experience and their age, in respect to their whole roster, their starting 5, and their top 9 players (core rotation). Experience Rockets: Roster 2.80, Starters 4.20, Rotation 4.22 Pacers: Roster 4.00, Starter 4.60, Rotation 4.56 Age Rockets: Roster 25.92, Starters 26.00, Rotation 26.33 Pacers: Roster 27.50, Starters 26.80, Rotation 25.78 Interpretation: Our total roster average is obviously much younger and less experienced than the Pacers. The starters and key rotation are also less experienced, but the gap is significantly smaller. So as some has pointed out, many of our young and inexperienced are bench warmers. We have younger starters and older key subs. Is that half a year average a big difference? Perhaps. The Pacers were 42-40 last year. We are on pace to do a little better than that this year. Are we that one year experience away from being among the elite teams? Let's hope so.
Awesome Post, there are few post that I wish were longer, and that was most certainly one of them, GREAT read!
Agree - very good post! Especially with Yao. I don't think he is tired. I think the reason he gets more shots with rested games is because we practice before those games and at practice Rudy tries to get the team to go to Yao more. Hopefully Yao can start making those extra shots!
But, but, but... We have Yao, he's the best and is an additional 10 wins! Moochie and Steve dribble too much, otherwise we'd have 5 more wins! Cuttino jacks up sooo many shots, if we would start Boki over him we'd have another 3 wins! Sorry, just had to summarize the incoming posts that will attempt to break down your logic. Wonderful post - if only more thought like this went into thread starting.
Great post! Loved it! I especially like your analysis on MYTH #1. I like the theory on the Rockets "losing their rhythm" with multiple days of rest. Very interesting. Especially in terms on Yao Ming's production during those times. I concur! Chris
This is a great post and I agree with most of it. The only thing wrong with it is with the last myth. Let's look just at the starters as they have the most impact on the games. Your numbers are wrong. The pacers' starting five (Tinsley, Reggie, Brad Miller, J.O., Artest) has on average of almost 6 years of NBA experience (5.8 to be exact) vs 4.2 for the Rockets. That's a big difference, imagine how much progress we can make in a year and a half. The difference gets even bigger if the Pacers keep the recent switch with Strickland at PG ( 6 years in the L) vs Tinsley (1 year). Then their starters experience becomes 6.8 vs 4.2 for the Rockets, or 2 and a half years. The avarage age per starter is also a bit off in your calculations. I have the Rockets at 25.8 vs 26.8 for the Pacers, or a full year difference. Moving to core guys off the bench, you are right that Rockets guys are older with less experience, mostly because of the high-schoolers Indiana has (Bender and Al) who are young but have been around for longer. So I would say that Myth #4 is not a myth. We are a young team and that's why we are not wining consistently. The Pacers DO have more experience in their starting 5, and yet they are not hugely consistent. Look at Rosen's column today that discusses exactly the same topic.
Kayman, You are right. I don't know how I got the starter's numbers wrong. Thanks for the correction. I also concur that "myth" #4 is closer to facts than to myth.
Nice post. I guess we are not that good against teams with winning records. But we have beat the good teams that were on top of their division like the Philadelphia 76ers, Indiana Pacers, and Sacramento Kings. We have also beat the San Antonio Spurs, who are always a good team. There have been quite a lot of games where we are very close to winning but we don't. We have beat the teams with losing records but it looks bad when we lose to the worst teams on the bottom of the division. I guess this you are correct. That is a big myth. Eddie Griffin needs to take at least 3 shots per game to even score. That should be his minimum. He should be allowed to shoot but not more than Steve Francis or Yao Ming or Glen Rice or Cuttino Mobley.
Excellent post indeed. Sadly, these posts are usually reactionary - i.e. people are stating all these things, let's see if they are true. I'd be interested in seeing some well thought out similar posts on, for example, comparing Mobley's play so far this year versus each of the past two or three seasons, or a look at how players fared relative to their pre-injury performance when coming back from an injury such as the one Taylor had. I know, I know, I should be doing this stuff, but alas, the day is shorter and the work is plenty.
Easy Duz It, Very insightful. Need one more for you. Fact or Myth, the Rox are horrible on close games. Rox record on games 3pts or less for the last three years and this year.
That was pretty good, but the core of the rockets have been together longer than the Pacers. O'Neal,Miller,Miller,Tinsley and Artest have been in Indy together for 2 yrs. Look at the ages of their starters. O'Neal is 23,Bender and harrington about 21 artest 24 and B.Miller 25 or 26. I still think youth is a excuse for this team. It all comes down to the Rockets sharing the ball like tonight and playing good defense.
Hmm... age is all fine and good, but how about the fact that the Pacers are just flat out a more talent-loaded team than the Rockets?
I don't have time to look it up. Maybe you can do it yourself. Losing close games is usually another sign of inexperience, or lack of poise.
leebigez, The core of the Rockets includes Taylor, Griffin, Yao, and Rice (and Posey, if you want to include him). 3 starters and a key sub. All of them have played less than 2 full season with the Rockets.
I only have this year and last in the DB for my website. A quick query gives the following results: Games decided by 3 points or less 2002-3: 1-4 2001-2: 10-15
More useless stats: 2001-2 Average winning margin: 6.7 Average losing margin: 11.0 2002-3 Average winning margin: 11.2 Average losing margin: 7.8 What to make of this: We're getting blown out less, and putting away teams better?
Excellent post, but there is a flaw in the logic for this one. What is the winning percentage for the good teams against bad teams only? What I'm saying is that our winning % against the good teams is 44 % versus a standard 37%. However, this 37% losing record for the good teams includes good teams playing each other. One of them has to lose. If you broke it down to good teams versus bad teams, the good teams would have a much better winning %, one I suspect would be higher than the Rockets. Conversely, the losing % of bad teams is skewed when they play other bad teams.
Nice job Easy. As you know, by comparing the Rockets with the Pacers, you picked the toughest comparison in the entire league. Compare the Rockets to any other decent team, and our inexperience would be stand out. While many disagree, I am in the camp that believes that inexperience and lack of playing time together are a major factor in the Rockets inconsistency. On the other side of the fence, however, I would have to say my biggest disappointment in the team is the relative lack of progress shown by Steve, Cuttino, and Mooch in their decision making over the last three years. The team's future depends upon that changing.
DoD, I don't know about that. If you compare the starting lineup of the two teams: We both have an over-the-hill shooter, Rice and Reggie. I'd say Reggie is a little better, but not much. We both have a young PG, Francis and Tinsley. No contest here talentwise. Of the 4-5 tandems, O'Neal and Miller might be more consistent, Griffin and Yao are arguably more talented. Artest and Mobley are totally different players. Mobley is a better scorer, while Artest is better on defense. Let's call it a draw. Their key subs (Harrington, Mercer, Bender, Strickland) are a bit better than ours (Cato, Taylor, Posey, Moochie) IMO, but not much. Another similarity between the Pacers and the Rockets is that last year, they were also struggling to find their identity. Isiah Thomas was criticized for not settling in a fixed rotation. He was experimenting a lot. Sounds very much the same with the Rockets now. That's why I am hopeful for the Rockets in light of the Pacers' success this year.
On Myth #4, it'd be interesting to see age and experience adjusted for minutes on the floor. There are guys on both sides that are in the rotation but don't see many minutes and other guys (Francis & Mobley, ahem) who play 40 minutes a game. Perhaps during my lunch I'll crunch the numbers. Besides that, Doc is right -- the Pacers are a great team and it'll be hard to stack up very well against them.
