Momentum is overrated. The game changes in the final moments of a game, when the trailing team is forced to foul and the leading team can apply more pressure at the 3-point line. And, again, you don't judge a decision by what happened. You judge a decision by what could have reasonably been predicted to have happen. Which is why the only relevant thing here is how statistically likely it was for the Rockets to lose the game after going up 17 with 4 minutes to go. You keep trying to argue that this is irrelevant because of what actually happened. I'm sorry, but you have it backwards. I don't have any issue with people having a different perspective, so long as they are respectful towards a different, well-reasoned perspective. You didn't simply express your preference. You stated, over and over, that McHale made a huge coaching blunder, and you have been extremely dismissive of any arguments to the contrary. I mean, actually arguing that statistics don't matter while simultaneously acting like its something that happens all the time indicates you're not looking for an productive discussion. You're just trying to hammer us with your opinion.
While I don't agree, neither have all of the Rockets players. BUT, we are 3-0!!!! So let's hope and pray that this trend continues, no matter how many mistakes the players and/or coaches make! :grin:
Momentum is overrated? REALLY? I don't even care to address that anymore than saying "REALLY?" That's exactly what I did, NOT JUDGE a decision by the results (a win), but judged it by what COULD have happened giving how close we came to losing. Your statistics are based on normal teams and lineups being normal under usual circumstances, and saying that many coaches do this. I don't recall many coaches subbing their entire starting unit with 5 cold players off the bench that don't even suit the required positions, no balance and no chemistry together; with only a 17 point lead and almost 4 minutes to go. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR STATISTICS to show otherwise, since you love statistics so much. And I still say it was a huge coaching mistake. My whole point of the thread was to point it out and say hopefully he doesn't do anything similar to it this season, so that we don't lose any unnecessary games because of it. If that is my position, what I believe, for you or anyone else to TRY TO FORCE ME TO CHANGE MY MIND, is utterly ridiculous and a waste of time. It is one thing to express your opinions, like I am doing, and give your reasons and debate why you are taking such position. But to get upset because someone else doesn't agree with your positions, or the majority position, no matter what your arguments are, to the point where you stoop to insults, name calling and bashing; shows a lack of character and the ability to tolerate different view points by those doing such things. No matter how I argued or supported my point, you don't see me calling other's names simply because they disagree with me or don't see my point of view. But yet those who disagree with me seem to have some sort of superiority complex.
Yes, and I like how you didn't even bother to read/comprehend the sentence following that. Again, indicative of the manner in which you've been arguing throughout this thread. You need to put more of an effort to understand the arguments made against your posts. Also: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WUJFuRoWyWc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> )) Give me a break. How is it that you don't see the problem with this? You are judging based on what happened after the decision. Not true. I also presented statistics based on one team shooting an exceptional percentage from 3-point range and the other shooting a poor percentage from 2-point range. The burden of proof is on you. I don't think the decision makes a significant difference, either way. You're the one up in arms about it. I've provided enough statistics here to show that the chances of them making a comeback was very slim, even if we started with the assumption that they would be hitting a high percentage of their 3s and we would struggle to score on just 2s. I don't think I should have to dig up anything else for you.
I read and comprehended exactly what you were saying. I didn't bother to address it because it didn't matter. Your "assertion" that "The game changes in the final moments of a game, when the trailing team is forced to foul and the leading team can apply more pressure at the 3-point line." still ignores the fact of HOW the team got to only a 5 point deficit when once leading by 17, or the fact that the game is still possible to lose. To say that momentum doesn't matter in that instant goes beyond statistics and just doesn't make sense. You don't have to have the statistical disadvantage in a situation like that, to not want to put your team in that position to begin with. EXACTLY. What is your problem with seeing this? If McHale would have waited to sub just two minutes later, or left in at least two of the players that were on the court at that time, or put in a MORE BALANCED lineup than Brooks, Brewer, DMo, Jones and Smith; the likelihood is that the lead never drops below 10 and no one gets worried about a comeback at all. So what happened AFTER the decision is EXACTLY what I am judging from. You obviously can't differentiate that from the fact that we still could have lost the game. Your so called "statistics" are not from actual games. They are simply a model of algebra that you made up to represent your point of view. They totally ignore and don't account for the fact that NBA teams go on actual runs where they score a given team by X to NOTHING! If you are such a statistical genius, I shouldn't have to point out this trival well known FACT to you! I'm not up in arms about anything. I simply want McHale to make better decisions in the future. I have no burden of proof to meet to desire this. No matter how "slim" of a chance for a come back you think "YOUR STATISTICS" provide, the fact that bad coaching decisions lose games for some teams is a proven fact in the NBA. Last years playoffs provided numerous examples. Your statistical model of 2s and 3s is lacking due to the nature of the game and runs that teams make on a regular basis in the NBA. You take into no account the actual team a coach puts on the floor, or how the coach sets up the defense to protect that lead...neither of which McHale did a good job of in that game. You don't need to dig up any more statistics, because the NON STATISTICS you provided, since they are not actual statistics, but rather a statistical model (not the same thing); actually prove nothing regarding this specific set of circumstances.
I'm not going to respond to everything you wrote, because it will almost certainly be a further waste of my time (and yours too). I'll just pick one thing, and leave it at that. I know, and that's what I consider the flaw in your argument. You shouldn't judge a coaching decision based on the outcome (i.e. what happens after the fact). You judge it based on what one could have been reasonably expected to happen (i.e. was statistically likely to have happened). If a coach draws up a play and the team gets a high-percentage look (say, a layup) which they miss, that doesn't mean the coach drew up a bad play. In the same way, if a coach decides to take out his regulars because there's a 99% chance or whatever of the game being won, it doesn't matter if by some off-chance the other team's 3rd stringers hit a bunch of 3s in a row to close the gap somewhat. I guess this is the crux of the disagreement. You're convinced that what transpired after the fact not only put us in real danger of losing the game, but also that what happened matters more than the expectation of what could likely happen. I think you're wrong on both counts, but I won't try any further to convince you. I've said all I can.
It's not that I don't understand your point of view, as I have already stated numerous times to you already. It's that I think that small % of chance that the game could be put in jeopardy is not worth waiting another two minutes to sub, or leaving in 2 of the starters, or making a better decision of what subs to put on the floor together. Nevertheless, it's obvious that I have hurt Clutch's feelings in another thread, so you may not even see this post. I will take a break on here other than reading because it's obvious that some of the "elite" around here don't have tolerance for opinionated opposing view points, even if they are not insulting to them.
I'm pretty sure OP previously identified himself as a McHale Only Hater, so this all continues to be rather unsurprising.
Make up your mind will ya. You mentioned statistics in your previous post then come back and say, you can't use that logic to counter YOUR argument. I will match you're example of ONE poster that mentioned he made a bonehead play and raise you ..... ALL the other posters who say you're wrong. Since there are are more of us here that say you're wrong that means I am correct right? I am sure it is not difficult to find people who still think that segregation of people is moral, but does that make it reasonable? See how unreasonable your argument is? What is this thing about YOU PEOPLE? Why am I being lumped in with a particular demographic when all I am discussing with you is THIS ONE decision he made. We are not even discussing if he is a good coach or not. I tried to reason with you in a mature way but that seems beyond your grasp as you have started resorting to labeling me. Good luck with your hate and criticism of our coach as I know now that the only way he can make you happy is if all his decisions are in line with yours.
Decision is the right one but execution was bad. They needed prioritize defending the 3 and at the basket and have a 2nd unit that can make free throws.
There was nothing wrong with the decision by Mchale, problem is Crowder went all tmacin35 on us, thats on the bench to have to realise it isnt scrub minutes.
Ultimate's points are completely logical, but observations in decision analysis essential claims that your efforts are pretty much just wasting oxygen. It can be very, very beneficial to hedge one's risk to the present by managing with complete knowns (230 seconds left, +17 differential) versus fatiguing starters in a game that can be won with a high probability and lowering the probablity of winning tomorrow. The answer's to complex problems aren't net straight-logical. They are comprised with a unique combination of simple yes/no's to simple questions, but the probelms wouldn't be complex if one did not have to figure out the 'unique' in the unique combination. You gotta spend money to make money, as they say.
I'm not sure I understand Ultimate6man's position. Maybe he can re-state again... So, since we won the game, McHale made a good decision to let the scrubs get some time?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9C6gDS9YGAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Houston knows firsthand that no lead is secure.
I think the disagreement between Ultimate6man and other people in this post is how much McHale's decision has decreased the probability of winning that game. One side believes that the effect is huge (maybe from 99% to 60%?) and the Rockets might have lost the game because of his decision. Another side believes the effect can be neglected (maybe from 99% to 95%?). After all, there is always a chance of losing the game despite McHale's decision, and the probability of winning against bench players remains very high when the Rockets took a 17-point lead with just 4 minutes left. Since neither side can provide the statistics, both sides still believe they are correct. As I've stated in my previous post, I think the decision should be based on not only the current game, but also other factors such as b2b game, 5 games in 7 nights, injury concerns, etc. Spurs, for example, didn't follow the greedy approach (maximizing the prob. of winning the current game) and they still had a very successful season. I know our players are much younger than theirs, but last season our players looked tired (probably because our playing style increases # possessions) and struggled in the second of b2b games. Since our players may have to play longer than what they normally do due to injuries and they are still not in game shape, I am fine with McHale's decision.
They should get rid of McHale because he's a bad coach. (Unless we get into the second round or better, in which case he's currently a good coach.)
