Anyone who wants Morey to get fired is a *insert a more appropriate word*

The reason this argument falls short is because it doesn't compare an open 15 footer to a contested or step back 3. A pump fake, 1-2 dribble pull up to avoid a contested 3 is a much better shot and we were all taught that from 3rd grade on... It also depends on the player.

Analytics has always been a way to bring the numbers up to the level of the game, instead of the game up to the level of the numbers, as the proponents claim.

 

Except your choices aren't just limited to contested 3 pt shots and and step back 3s. If you are tightly guarded at the 3 pt line then you can pass to the open guy or drive inside the lane. A pump fake 1-2 dribble pull up J isn't something people can do on a regular basis, if you can do that then you should try to play in the NBA already. Notice how NBA style defenses now pack the paint and 3 pt line and leave the mid range space open, they WANT you to take that mid range shot because even when not contested players still suck at them. Guys like Rudy Gay, Melo and WB are almost always open when they take mid range shots because of their skill or athleticism but they just can't convert.

Aelliot already showed you the stats, even the best teams in the NBA can't hit mid range Js effectively. Why do you keep insisting that mid range shots are a viable option when our players can't even hit open 3 pters accurately? That's like saying if you suck at free style you should swim the butterfly instead.

 

Why don't you go to the biggest Bulls forum which resides in realgm, and see what they are saying. A LOT of them are already wishing they hadn't fire Thibs and are admitting that they wrongfully made him a scapegoat and put all the blame on his shoulders (as their managment wanted).

No. Because tanking and doing what Philly is doing is two different things.
Most teams in the league have tanked, not to say everyone. But getting tanking to such extremes doesn't only require a GM like Hinkie(or Morey) but also an abnormal owner. Maybe Les would have allowed tanking as a lot of owners have had for one two years, but he would have to be an extreme owner himself to allow such ubertanking. The Philly owner has agreed on a 7 YEAR TANKING PLAN.
He's as extreme as Hinkie.

Everyone knows it it's not just Morey's idea.

Well one of the positives of having a big enough part of your offence midrange shots, is not to be predictable. We are extremely predictable.
Another is that a lot of players esp younger players are much better from midrange than 3s.
Another part is that most of the modern NBA defences, take away the 3 but not the midrange. So the 3s are contested but the midrange not as much.
So there's are significant positives in shooting midrange jumpers TOO. (on top of your 3s and layups and FTs).

This is what happens always in the NBA. Someone does smth new, then everyone copies them, then the defences adjust, and then it's not anymore as efficient.

 

Sorry but what you saying is proving the other guys point. They leave the midrange open, so the midrange becomes more efficient shot than it would have been with a more old Nba defence.
Read this:
http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/10/29/defensive-adjustments-to-moreyball/

 

Actually the problem is not the 3 ball itself. The problem is having no variety in your game that teams know that you are either going to run itno the paint like a headless chicken or take a contested 3. So they can prepare accordingly, pack the paint and defend the 3 closely.

OTOH teams like Spurs and GSW use mid range as a variety and effectively. Teams really don't know how to stop them since their entire game is not predicated on just jacking up 3's

 

This argument would be valid if the majority of our 3 point shots were contested but they aren't. We lead the league in uncontested three point shots.

If you think we are taking a ton of contested 3s or other inefficient 3s, then why is our 3 point shooting equal or better than the mid range efficiency of the Spurs and Warriors? Do you also think they are taking a ton of inefficient shots too?

We are in the middle of a horrific shooting slump and we are still as efficient as the mid range games of the two teams that everyone wants to emulate. I would expect those teams to be shooting efficient midrange shots yet they aren't any better than our current shooting from behind the line.

 

We are also no.2 in contested.(at least we were 2 games ago or so).

 

Just because a team is predictable does mean that teams can stop them. The Kobe/Shaq Lakers were predictable but teams still couldn't stop them. Miami big 3 were also predictable but difficult to stop.

We are getting a ton of uncontested 3s, in fact as of last week we led the league. It was the same last season, just that we are missing a ton of uncontested 3s.

So who are these teams that are getting all of these unguarded 2 midrange shots and are hitting them at an efficient rate? Its certainly not the Spurs or Warriors.

What players on our roster are better from midrange than from behind the arc?

 

The problem is that GSW and SA aren't efficient from midrange. As bad as we've been this season from behind the arc, our 3s have been more efficient than the Spurs midrange and equal to the Warriors midrange. I realize that the perception is different but fact is neither of those teams are efficient from midrange.

 

SAS has one of the best (if not the best) midrange shooting PF in the league. I don't think even Morey would refrain from getting a mid-range shooting PF. I mean, he went after Melo hard.

Teams that don't have mid-range shooting PF or Cs tend to gravitate to 3s and layups. And by layups, we are including motion offenses. You don't have to only drive. But I agree, that's pretty much the only way we get layups, plus via transition.

 

Agree. I like to divide offensive system into two categories (and this applies to NFL too). You have attack offenses that go right at the defense and reaction offenses that rely on confusing the defenses.

Attack offenses like the Triangle come right at you and force the defense to choose their poison.

Motion offenses get the defense to move and react to their mistakes.

Yes, that is a simplistic definition, but I do believe that offenses are based in one of those two principles -- attack the defense straight up or confuse the defense.

And anyone who says that Triangle is motion, please know that Triangle was invented before Bobby Knight invented motion. Knight invented motion based upon a rules change regarding what is a legal screen. Previously, screen were too limiting for effective screens required by Motion offenses.

 

Except that we are also in the top in contested as well. From all the teams in the league we also decide to shoot bad inefficient 3s that are highly contested at the biggest rate while those shots could be used in a more efficient manner.
Secondly read the article I posted. The stats show that the more the 3s are used the more the defences adapt (plus the more the offences are eager to take bad shots, as it happens exactly with us) so the less efficient the 3pointer becomes in comparison to what it was before. And this is a trend that shows signs to continue as long as the 3s taken by teams become more and more.

And stop comparing us to Kobe and Shaq. We dont' have two hall of famers dominant players. And we don't have Lebron either. Predictabillity matters to a team with such a bad offensive efficiency. With so many turnovers. With so little player movement and large number of contested 3pointers.

And how do you know who of our young players isn't a good midrange jumper since they have been ordered NOT to take the mid but only 3s and layups?
Someone has to shoot it IN GAME and get even more reps to prove to you that he's a good midrange shooter and our rigid system will not even give him the chance. You talk about LMA but if LMA was here as a young player not yet established in the league he wouldn't be allowed to work on his midrange but go straight for the 3 with worse results.

 

Yet, ironically to your statement, one of the reasons coaches choose attack offenses vs react offenses (motion) is to limit turnovers. That fact is most evident in why nearly all coaches who have a player with excellent ISO skills use the 1 out-4 Flat play at the end of games. That's because it provides the best way to control the clock and get a quality shot without a busted play or, worse, a turnover...especially against playoff defenses.

Pops did that with Ginobody. But Budenholzer and Adelman didn't really have anyone to do that at ATL and SAC, which is why they had trouble late in games during the playoffs.

So, one of the most predictable plays in the entire sport -- the 1 out-4 Flat -- is embraced by many great coaches, because it is the best way to control your destiny by neutralizing defenses better than any other play.

bottomline: Despite popular opinion among fans, Motion Offenses are not a silver bullet. No offense is. You can't just get out a magical brush and paint your team in motion. If these Rockets started running motion vs using an attack offense, our amount of turnovers and busted plays would likely increase. We just don't have the personnel to run one effectively.

 

are you equating an end of game play to a whole offensive system to be used for the duration of whole games? Pop used it as you say for end of games not the whole game.
Btw Im not saying there's a panacea to all the offensive problems. BUT predictabillity makes over the course of the game, more difficult the offence. Esp when it has reached the level of predictabillity of the Rockets (and without multiple HOF players like Kobe and Shaq).

 

I'm illustrating the benefits of an attack offense by describing one of the most predictable plays in the game.

And btw: SAS never ran motion until relatively recently, as the big three aged. In their prime, they ran an attack offense. PnR is an attack offense. Ginobody ran heavy doses of ISO from the key when Parker/Duncan rested. Ginobody and Duncan running a two-man game from the Wing is an attack offense. Dumping it into Duncan is an attack offense.

Attack offenses are predictable, because the opposing coach can draw them as Xs and Os on a board, all the options, but you still can't stop it, often. Motion offense are not as predictable, don't really have Xs and Os, because they react to what the defense does as you get them moving. But they do allow the defense to dictate who shoots the ball. That is Motion's primary flaw.

Popovich is a prime example of a coach who knows the benefits of both styles and will apply what's best suited to his team.

 

 

Yeah Pop had THREE HOF players. Even less revelant than Shaq and Kobe. When teams have so many dominant HOF players then predictabillity becomes less of an issue. Now let's look at our current roster plz.

 

Ok, I'll ask yet again, who are these teams that are using the midrange shot so efficiently? If you're going to suggest that we should be using more midrange shots then I'm assuming that you are basing that on something? What is is? What teams? I'm not arguing that other teams don't take more midrange shots than Houston does, I'm asking who does it efficiently enough to make it worthwhile?

Regardless of if you like Harden or not, he's a dominant player. Our offense doesn't go from really good to bad overnight because the scheme is bad, that's silly. We're bad offensively because nobody on the team can shoot right now.

We all know the Rockets roster, if you're going to suggest that we start shooting midrange shots then that must mean that you think that somebody on or team would be good at it. Who is that? Any change in the offense would have to fit our players skills, so who is going to take these midrange shots that you want to add?

The Rockets philosophy is to take efficient shots, period. The fact is that the 3 pointer is more efficient than a midrange, that's not even debatable. That being said, that doesn't mean that players are forbidden from taking midrange shots or that Houston wouldn't acquire a player because they took midrange shots. Houston tried to sign Aldridge, Bosh and Carmelo and all three of them take more shots from midrange than anywhere else on the floor. Lawson has taken more midrange shots this year than anything else. I understand that this another common misconception, but the Rockets don't forbid midrange shots. 18.9% of Harden's shots are midrange. If we forbid midrange shots, do you really think that almost 1 out of every 5 shots Harden takes would be midrange?

Yes, we do take some contested 3 point shots as do almost every team that relies on the 3 point shot. We take a grand total of 2.4 more contested 3 pointer per game than Golden State does. I don't think those 2.4 attempts are the root of the difference between Houston and GS.

 

I'll save time for anyone that is looking through midrange stats.

The most efficient midrange team in the NBA this season is GS and they are shooting 45.96% from midrange. That percentage equates to a 3 point percentage of 30.6%, which coincidentally is exactly what Houston is shooting from behind the arc this season.

So we are predictable, take contested 3 pointers and we're in a huge shooting slump but there's not a single team in the entire league that can hit a midrange shot more efficiently than what we are currently doing from behind the arc.

I'm assuming that nobody will disagree that our 3 point shooting has been highly inefficient this year and has generally sucked. So why would we want to add a component where nobody in the league can do better than what we are already doing?

Is it just because the Spurs do it? The issue is that the Spurs aren't doing it well. They only shoot 41.6% from midrange which is equivalent to 27.7% from behind the arc. The Spurs aren't winning because of their midrange, they are winning despite it. Our current horrific 3 point shooting is already better than the Spurs current midrange shooting. Just because a team is successful, it doesn't mean that you need to copy everything they do. That would be like someone saying, "Hey the Rockets ended up the #2 seed and got all the way to the WCFs and they turned the ball over a lot, so let's start turning the ball over a lot". It's ok to emulate successful teams but you should emulate the things that work for them, not the things that they do inefficiently.

 

Yeah but since the Rockets are such an awesome shooting team, I'm sure they could do better than the Dubs if they would only shoot the midrange more.



/sarcasm in case it wasn't obvious.

 

I agree with everything you are saying, and despite the fact I don't like this stat that you used, it still makes your point well.

Forgive me for nitpicking, as I feel like my other posts in this thread allow me this transgression. Certainly there are more points scored behind that 45.96% shooting from midrange than mathematical equivalent of 3s, since shooting fouls don't show up on FG% and there are surely more FTs generated from midrange shot offense than 3ptrs. But I'd say that is offset by less TOs generated by 3s.