In regards to the 2nd paragraph, from my studies of statistics and talking to statisticians, there is no evidence that a negative correlation exists between minutes played and efficiency. This have been proven through several studies. Now the reasons you listed might be good indicators of variance from this, but I don't see how Hayes would be any different. Also, I never suggested giving Chuck Hayes more minutes, I'm just against it being replaced with Haslem's, who I deem inferior. As to your 3rd paragraph, I contend that our offensive woes were due to coaching not because of our players and plugging in Haslem for Howard/Hayes only makes our offense marginally better while our defense drops significantly (you can choose not to believe this, most people would but it is just what I see in stats, I wish I was wrong so it'd be easier on me but it's just not). Also, you're absolutely right that Mike James for Alston improves our offense significantly which is another reason why I'm opposed to getting more "offensive players". A good offensive team has 3 high usage rate guys and two low but efficient guys. Last year, we had two high usage rate/efficient guys, one high usage rate/not so efficient (Alston), and the latter. We replace Alston with James, high usage rate/high efficiency, we're that much better on offense. If you plug in Haslem for Hayes, who is not as efficient but uses more posessions (hence "maginally better offense"), we're taking away efficient posessions away from James/T-Mac/Yao while losing rebounding and defense. So no, Haslem does not make our offense better.
Yeah, he could have said that about Sean Williams, Glen Davis, and Josh McRoberts. We need a vet at the PF slot. Rookies can get minutes off the bench.
Ummm, 6-8, 230 is pretty good for a PF, and we need a strong rebounder, we don't need anymore scorers. Sounds like a perfect fit for the Rockets.
I still have memories of Haslem's impressive playoff run from a few years ago, but I really would prefer to pick up Foster because he can also play the 5, is a great rebounder and his salary is lower. I also think that he will mesh better with Scola. It doesn't sound like the Pacers are that keen on what we have to offer, so they may have to go in another direction. If Brevin Knight signs with the Clippers then the Rockets chances of getting Haslem at a reasonable price will improve. I am not sure what the Sonics would want from us for Collison.
Dirt can be shut down just think back a few years ago what t-mac did to him on D. He did the same thing haslem did and thats put a hand in his face everytime he wen to take a shot. And Dirt is a great shooter so you have to think that when he is missing a lot of shots that who ever is on him is playing some nice D.
Folks have given you plenty of examples of how stats can be misleading in this thread, especially defensive stats. If you watched enough Heat games (and you have admitted that you don't watch many) then it would be fairly evident that Haslem is a better defender than Chuck Hayes. Hayes is a scrappy dude and he hustles, but he doesn't have the height or the strength to match up well with quality offensive PF's. He isn't very athletic either. How many teams have you heard of trying to sign Hayes now that he is a free agent? What contenders want him? Haslem is not a great defender but if you ever watched him play you would note that he is pretty lengthy for his 6'8 frame and he is not a plodder...i.e. he can chase some of the quicker PF's out there and stay in front of them. Statistics don't tell you things like that. If he were a free agent now teams would be throwing the MLE at him. At least other teams had interest when he was a free agent...and this was before the title. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/heat/2005-07-13-haslem-contract_x.htm And Dirk did not shut himself down in the Finals last year. Miami happened to have two bigs with length and enough speed to stay in front of Dirk (Posey and Haslem). Since Dirk doesn't have a post game these are the best type of defenders to put on him (see the matchup against us in 05 and the Warrior series this year).
What do you guys think of Foster's defense? How would he handle the power forwards in the west one on one? Is he a good help side defender? I'm not as worried about offense....we basically need a guy that comes in and rebounds and defends early so that Scola doesn't get into foul trouble. That will be his biggest adjustment--how to stay in the game without fouling out and defending NBA athletes.
I've seen most of the Heat play-off games the last two years. No one's seen enough Heat games to know for a fact that Haslem is better than Hayes on defense. Only statistics have "seen" every single game that Haslem has played. None of the "examples" that people provide have any objective argument, it's all speculation. People are so quick to dismiss statistics because 1. They don't understand it, 2. It doesn't agree with what they "see" and, 3. It's "boring". From now on, I'm only responding to people who argue with something objective.
yea stats are boring. You are not going to convince someone else over the internet because everyone has a preconceived notion. If you go by what you say, you'll be arguing by yourself soon since you are the only one who can judge who is objective and sir, that is the definition of being sbjective. FACT- STATs are boring FICTION- Purely objective arguing because everyone will be arguing for the same thing
kevC, I won't argue with you about stats. Plenty of people has already pointed out the fallacy of comparing stats of a 20 mpg player with a 30 mpg starter. You either choose to ignore it or you just don't get it. So it's no use arguing anymore. Even considering stats, Hayes is at best a SLIGHTLY better rebounder and defender, but Haslem is a MUCH better offensive player. That in itself is simple enough to comprehend why Haslem has played starter minutes for a championship team while Hayes has played backup minutes for a first round fodder. I think it was Desert Scar who mentioned that Haslem is Juwan and Chuck rolled together. That is a great point. You can say this player has offense and this player has defense, and if we get both we are set. That's one of the most common fallacies in basketball discussion. You can only play one player at a position at a time. So if all you have are "specialists" you are either offensively deficient or defensively deficient. A GOOD all-around player is always better than a one-dimensional player who is GREAT at doing just one thing. Scola is nice. But can he play defense? Hayes is nice. But can he shoot? I think a player like Haslem is very valuable for our team. And we can certainly have both Haslem AND Hayes. Hayes is not part of the package mentioned. Haslem/Scola/Hayes gives us fantastic PF depth. The question is, should we "overpay" to get him? Actually, I am not worried about the price for getting him. We have enough surplus in stock at the guard positions now. Giving up a little more to get what we need is fine. My question is Haslem's contract. He is not cheap. Much more expensive than Scola's. Are we projecting Scola to be our starting PF in the future? If so, should we pay that much for a backup in Haslem?
Good post. I'd say Haslem adds more toughness to the Rockets than Hayes could. His offense will keep defenders honest and off of Yao. I don't think the Rockets should trade James - that's a really crappy precedent to set and I think he's going to be useful. Alston and Hayes for Haslem is a good trade. They get their PG and a serviceable PF, we get an upgrade at PF and loosen up the logjam at pg. From a pure talent perspective we may be giving up more than the Heat but that's what you do, trade away from strengths to improve weaknesses. If somehow Morey Neutron (boy genius) can get a draft pick as well - damn.
Haha, yeah, do you see the guys in the background hustling to get back? They are involved in the game while Walker is doing his T-Rex/Frankenstein impression in the middle of the court. Please say no to Walker.
"Plenty of people" are wrong in that a player's efficiency decreases as mpg increases, there have been plenty of studies done to show that. I have yet to see someone disprove me by using facts and examples. Yes, comparing a 7 mpg player is not very smart as it's a very small sample size but comparing 20 to 30 mpg is very feasible. My favorite example is Zach Randolph. The year he won MIP, he did nothing better statistically except play more minutes while keeping the same efficiency.
Whoops, in regards to the last quote. You're looking at the wrong stats if that's the conclusion you come up with.
