If the starting lineup is not . . . ill lose my mind

People make outrages comparisons to make there arguments look valid. i agree with you. comparing a europian League MVP and the best player not in the NBA to juwan howard is quiet outrages. they play similar styles of games, but one is 27 and is in he's prme and the other is a washed bum sent to minny.

 

Here's some quick stats I found on the idea of Hayes protecting Yao from foul trouble.

I scanned through to find all of the games where Yao played and Hayes played less than 20 minutes. I found a total of 11.

Here's how Yao performed in those games:

- Nov 1 vs Utah - Yao 22pts 4 fouls. Hayes - 8 minutes (LOSS)

- Nov 4 vs Dallas - Yao 36 pts 2 fouls. Hayes - 17 Minutes (WIN)

- Nov 12 vs Miami - Yao 34 pts 4 fouls. Hayes - 19 minutes (WIN)

- Nov 14 vs SA - Yao 20 pts 4 fouls. Hayes - 0 minutes (LOSS)

- Nov 16 vs Chi. - Yao 20 pts 4 fouls. Hayes - 0 minutes (WIN).

- Nov 18 vs Det. - Yao 33 pts 1 fouls. Hayes - 0 minutes (LOSS).

- Nov 22 vs Was. - Yao 25 pts 3 fouls. Hayes 17 Minutes (WIN).

- Nov 26 vs NYK - Yao 26 pts 4 fouls. Hayes 0 minutes (WIN).

- Dec 9 vs Was. - Yao 38 pts 2 fouls. Hayes 16 Minutes (WIN).

- Mar. 26 vs Bucks - Yao 22 pts 3 fouls. Hayes 8 Minutes (WIN).

- Apr. 16 vs Suns - Yao 34 pts 1 fould. Hayes 12 Minuts (WIN).

We went 8-3 in those games, Yao scored well and he didn't foul out a single time. In fact, he never even reached 5 fouls in any of those games. Additionally those games were against some pretty good teams (Spurs, Suns, Mavs, Heat, Detroit, Chicago and Utah).

Honestly, I'm not seeing where Yao was having many problems without Hayes there to protect him.

 

hayes is a perfect alongside yao...scola will be a huge force off the bench, so the posted lineup is ideal, i think francis is capable of being a pure point guard

 

In Adelman's offense which is based on big men with offensive skills and passing abilty, Hayes is perfect...except for his lack of offensive skills and passing ability.

 

I really doubt Kersey was as efficient in jumpshooting (particularly concerning 3s)--which I doubt was tracked, or scored as much per minute. In fact looking at http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/1992.html it is clear Ainge was a much more potent offensive player than Kersey. Further, Cliff Robinson was much more potent than Buck Williams or Kevin Duckworth. So two of the four most potent offensive players on that team didn't start.

Looking at that team, one of his best and 2nd in defense, 7th in offense, and starting Williams, Duckworth and Kersey over Ainge and Robinson--Adelman clearly considered defense and rebounding in his lineup as much as offensive potency.

But we do know one of the most strong trends last year was that when Yao was on the floor the team performed better with Hayes than Howard next to him. http://www.82games.com/0607/0607HOU2.HTM Further, the Alston-McGrady-Battier-Hayes-Yao line up was not only the leading single unit in minutes played (despite Hayes minutes overall a lot less than Head or Howard), it was by far the most effective. Now you are right I can't say for sure it is saving Yao fouls or adding major rebounding or just in general adding quickness and physicality, but Hayes had to be doing a lot of things Howard couldn't for that lineup, despite Howard being the better and higher minute player in most situations or on most teams. Now Scola has to be a lot better in areas of Howard's weaknesses OR Adelman systems are going to have to drammatically alter player roles, or it is hard for me to forsee that the best initial starting 5 wouldn't have Hayes over Scola.

Now I can easily buy, and am excited about the potential of having James or Francis improve the best unit over Alston. I don't see much defensive slippage for the gain of a lot of offense. But those guys are proven and used to NBA comp. Scola has never played an NBA schedule and nearly everyday against NBA athletic PFs.

I more see it more as an adjustment period. Manu went through it. Toni Kukok went through it. Oberto, Yao and Sabonis went through it. The NBA is just a different level of athleticism they are not used to playing against, even if they are great athletes near their primes themselves.

Also, I didn't say he does play ole defense, but we don't know he doesn't either. Howard was an NBA vet, used to NBA comp, and proven NBA player, yet Hayes was clearly better than him paired with Yao. Scola has a tougher test beating Hayes out of our most effective starting 5 than people realize. Scola proving to just being a better player than Hayes, as Howard is, is much easier.

Buck Williams last 3 years starting at Portland he scored 11.7 per 40, 11.8RB per 40 in about 30 minutes of play. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willibu01.html Chuck Hayes was 10.2 and 12.2 over 22MPG. Hayes and Williams were also very close in all measures of offensive efficiency, Hayes actually was ahead in FG, e-FG, TS, Williams ahead in FT (66% to 62%). As ludicrous as it sounds out load, Chuck Hayes is very much like a Buck Williams light for what Portland asked of him his later years--well at least their offensive potency and offensive efficiency were as close as you could possibly find, yet Adelman kept Williams in a starting spot.

Also, much like Buck, Duck was quite the black hole in terms of passing. So Adelman hasn't always had a passing requirement.

Also in Sac, Adelman had Christie start over the definetly more potent (much higher points per minute) and typically superior shooters in Jackson and Hedo. As for as Pollard, he just isn't in the same stratosphere as Webber and Valde. If Scola in that stratosphere, Hayes is going to start on the bench and play less than last year, no question. How the Kings used Pollard in Webber/Valde's absence may have more to do with keeping roles than anything. I think Adelman did the right thing with that team, got some bad luck and some choking (including by Christie) against the Lakers or he has a title by beating an opponent with the best two guys on the court.

Overall I am hoping Adelman brings a lot more balance to the focus on offense and defense than JVG. I think the bulk of his record is that he emphasizes both. But I don't want him to throw the baby (elite defense) out with the bath water (mediocre offense). And if Adelman isn't smart enough to consider how say Phil Jackson (e.g., usage of Kukok--a player universally known as the best European player at that time but always was much better on O than D), Riley (who started none other than Kurt Rambis, and I believe had Posey and Haslem start most of the Mia championship year over the more potent scorer and gifted passer Walker) and Popovich (e.g., usage of Manu) have coached, I would be dissappointed.

Now if Scola doesn't slip the defense much, as I am fairly confident James/Francis for Alston won't, I am all for starting him and playing him 35MPG. I personally am not confident of it and think skepticism is a healthy thing here, I'd love to be wrong. Until I see Scola hold his own on both ends against NBA PF comp for a couple of games or destroy all other PFs in training camp I won't be convinced he should start.

But I admit maybe I am wrong. If we drafted Al Horford I would be confident he would start (he is the only rookie I could say that with confidence from, yes, non-NBA observation, that he would beat out Hayes by season opening). Now maybe Scola is as NBA ready on the defensive side or more than Al Horford and our experts have seen enough of it to know--I honestly remember bits and pieces from Scola in international games (which produces odd successes and flame outs--consider Spanoulis or Jankivits (sp?). But then it is hard to fathum the Spurs sending him to us or choosing to recruit Oberto, Elson and even Butler over a full court press for Scola the last 1-3 years, my hunch is Scola will be much further along offensively and a weak link defensively and that wasn't what they wanted next to Duncan.

 

What I find outragous is assuming from day he steps foot on an NBA court Scola is significantly more effective than Howard (a very skilled power forward who has had a long productive career against NBA comp) or be better next to Yao than Hayes (who proved better as a PF next to Yao than Howard, or Shane Battier for that matter).

Equally outragous is that the Spurs would hand us a player so obviously better than either teams bigs not names Yao or Tim (by many previous comments this is supposed to be plainly obvious) and hand us the keys to a title they are trying to defend. That if they thought this move turned the tide in a championship it would be worth the 5 or so mil it will save. That they don't have a pretty good idea of Scola's strengths and weaknesses.

Hope is a good thing, so is healthy skepticism.

 

"You can't be so sure what he would command, but I think he would probably be a more than mid-level [exception] type player," said Morey. "He's comparable in quality of a player to an Andres Nocioni. He's someone that because we were bringing him over and it's sort of a deal that was pre-arranged, we're able to fit him in. We obviously have constraints with our two superstars commanding a lot of the resources."

http://www.clutchcity.net/news/1428/rockets_complete_steal_of_scola/

Morey thinks that Scola is on par with Andres Nocioni right now.

In his last season, Nocioni averaged 14 pts and 5.7 rebounds in 26 minutes.

Scola played as a pro for 11 years. He's not a typical raw rookie we are talking about.

 

I don't really care if he start of come of the bench, just look how well the Spurs did since Manu came from the bench for them.

I think Hayes will start and Scola will end, Its really important that Houston played Yao for a portion of the game along a PF that can score, we all know what happen vs the Jazz, they forgot about Houston PF and concentrate in Yao making him struggles in offense.

Why ppl think he is not a good defender or rebounder, 1st he played in Euro, but he is not Euro, and 2nd just look how his countrymen has done in the NBA, Manu, Nocioni, Oberto, Delfino, they all are really good defender and rebounder, not the type of defense like Artest using their strength, but smarter defenders as as battier.

Just wait and see this guy life he will bring tons of energy and he will be active all the time just like Nocioni the red bull does for Chicago or Manu and Oberto for the Spurs.

Both Hayes and Scola going to be a key part for Rox success. Who start who come from the bench doesn't meter.

 

for those who don't think that rafer is a good defensive pg, check out this article from 82games.com:

http://www.82games.com/nichols1.htm

It ranks every player based on 'defensive composite score.' I'll let you read about the details of the stat on their page, but Rafer scores a very good 92, tying with Deke for second place on the team behind only Shane. (Bonzi is actually the highest, but I'm not counting him due to low PT). By comparison, Steve scored a 46 for the knicks and MJ scored a 5 (a 5!!!) for the T-Wolves, good for dead last on the team.

 

You are correct Ainge probably was more efficient in jumpshooting than Kersey. As far as I know, he might also have been a better golfer and have had a bigger vocabulary, but none of those things make him a better offensive player. Maybe I'm just not understanding your definition of "potent". For instance, Eric Piatkowski is a much, much more efficient in jumpshooting than Shaquille O'Neil. Do you also consider Piatkowski to be a more "potent" offensive player than Shaq?

Let's keep it simple so I can follow: At that point in their careers Kersey scored more points and shot a better percentage. He was a better scorer than Ainge. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. He hit more of his shots and he scored more points. What's left to debate?

Just because one guys is primarily a stationary jumpshooter, that doesn't make him a better scorer than a guy that can also get to the rim. The deciding factor is results. You can go by percentages or you can go by raw points, but either way Kersey outperformed Ainge.

Ok, so what we're saying here is that a unit that played together approximately 5 times more than another performed better together? Do you really find that surprising? Wouldn't you expect a 5 man unit to learn, adapt and improve their interaction over time? Of course you would. Fifteen games into the NBA season, can you correctly predict how the playoffs will unfold? Nope, because teams/units will change and adapt over time. Whichever team does the best job will be the team that is the best team at the end of the season.

If you want to totally discount all experience and evaluations simply because they didn't come against NBA competion, then fine but NBA front office personel do that every day. They project how college and international players will perform in the NBA. Seattle just traded Ray Allen for a guy that has much less experience and demonstrated performance than Scola.

Oh, I completely agree that Scola will have an adjustment period. That's not really a problem. We're not looking for him to come in and be the goto guy or to carry a team. All we need him to do is to contribute and be better than Chuck Hayes. So, while he most likely won't be at his best initially, he can still contribute and provide the things that Hayes simply can't.

You can't take a guys performance in limited minutes and project them out of 40 minutes and expect that info to be useful. It simply doesn't work that way.

Buck Williams was a very good post up player. He's the guy that invented the jump hook, which he shot with either hand. He didn't get many shots in Portland, we've already established that, but he had offensive skills. Teams couldn't leave Williams unguarded like they do Hayes. Hayes is basically going unguarded for most the game and he still doesn't score.

That's great, but again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. My original point was that Adelman has never started a guy with no offensive
skills. Did I say that Adelman has never brought a higher scorer off the bench? Nope, I never said that. Who was or wasn't on the bench is irrelevant to my point. Adleman could have had The Iceman, Dominique and Kareem on the bench, but that still doesn't change the fact that he always started 5 guys that could score.

To get back to the question, has Adelman ever started a guy with no offensive skills? If not, why should we assume that he's going to change now?

With Jordan and Pippen at the 2 and 3, do you think bringing Kukoc off the bench was a tough decision? I'm going to guess that Phil didn't lose too much sleep over that one. Can you think of a coach anywhere who would have started Kukoc over either Jordan or Pippen?

As far as Posey and Haslem, you're arguing the wrong point again. It's not about whether the bench player was a better scorer than the starter, it's all about whether or not the starter could score (which Posey and Haslem can). You need to realize that different coaches have different tendencies which they tend to repeat. The fact that Riley, who values defense over offense, makes a particular decision isn't going to cause Adelman to change what he does. Each guy has a different philosophy and they'll do what is best for their philosophy. If Adelman was trying to play grind it out half court basketball, then he'd pay alot more attention to what Pat Riley was doing. The fact though, is that Adelman wants to play a completely different style, so he's going to make different moves. To me, Adelman's history is much more relevant to what Adelman is going to do in the future than what Phil Jackson or Pat Riley have done.

Why does Scola have to destroy all other PFs in training camp? All he has to do is be better than Chuck Hayes and you don't need to destroy the competion to do that.

There's your problem, you've got your history wrong regarding Scola. Scola was drafted in '02 (I think). He had no buyout in his contract until '05. So, up
until '05 it was impossible for the Spurs to sign him no matter what they did. In '05, Scola had a buyout option but it was for $15M. The Spurs were only
allowed to pay a few hundred thousand of the buyout, so Scola would have had to pay the rest. Obviously, there's no way for Scola to pay off $14.5M over three years, so he couldn't sign with the Spurs. Financially, it was impossible. The Spurs needed big guys and even though they would have loved to have Scola, there was no way to sign him. They ended up going with their next options which was to sign Oberto and Horry. The following offseason, Scola's buyout was finally managable, but SA was hurting for Centers at that time. They choose to bring in Elson and Butler to fill the center position. SA wasn't going to go over the LT threshold, so it came down to Scola to play behind Duncan or Elson/Butler to fill the hole at center. They choose to go with the centers. That didn't go over too well with the Scola camp and that's when his agent uttered the infamous slave remark. The Spurs decision not to sign Scola in '06 pretty much guarenteed that he'd never agree to sign with them in the future. This offseaon, things changed and Scola had all of the leverage. He had a long term deal on the table in Spain, so effectively the Spurs were unable to trade him for much. The Spurs got caught in a bad situation and time was running out.

Nobody was going to trade anything for Scola unless they thought he would sign with them. SA had 3 days left to do something or Scola is locked up for
another 5 years and pretty much loses all trade value to the Spurs. Since they couldn't get much for Scola, the Spurs did the next best thing and they saved themselves $7M dollars by trading Butler/Scola to Houston. They would have prefered to trade him to Cleveland, but that 3 way deal fell through, so there wasn't any other real options available and time was running out.

Howard is no longer a good NBA PF. In his day, he had some value, but at his current age, he's below average.

I also believe that you're confused about the reason that Hayes was starting with Yao. I don't think it was because Hayes was so compatible with Yao, instead I think it had more to do with the fact that Hayes and Mutumbo were completely incompatible. As I showed in my earlier post, Yao's performance was as good or better in the games where Hayes played less than 20 minutes. There was no demonstatable decline in Yao's game due to Hayes playing fewer minutes. Hayes was paired with Yao because you simply couldn't put both Hayes and Mutumbo on the floor together due to their total lack of offense. It was as more about having Howard's offense to make up for Mutumbo's lack of offense.

Did it ever occur to you that the Spurs might realize that they improved the Rockets, but they also might think that they are still better than the Rockets?

We'd like to think that we have the pieces to challenge for a title, but I'm betting that no matter what personel moves any team made, the Spurs still
consider themselves the best team. So, if you're still the best team, is it so stupid to make a move that saves you $7M? I'm guessing the Spurs are still
more worried about the Mavs and Suns than they are the Rockets.

 

DS, considering your history in CF, I'm going to tell you as much as I can without violating a confidence. I won't discuss this further.

It is very likely (actually obvious) the Spurs would have preferred sending Scola anywhere than a Western Conference team, especially to a division rival. However, the friendship factor and "happiness" of certain players was taken into very, very serious consideration.

 

I was using "potent" to reflect scoring per minute. A player who scores 12 PPG in 20 minutes is more potent than one that scores 14 PPG in 40 minutes. I also included efficiency as another dimension. Point per shot, efg, and ts% are good indicators. Ainge both scored more per minute of play (a lot more) and was more efficient (factors in 3s, Fts, etc) during that Blazer's team peak period.

And you would have thought the same thing about Howard, but Hayes was better next to Yao over a couple different line-ups. Pretty conclusive statistical arguments actually. Further, Hayes isn't as bad as you make him out. Yes is potency is weak, but at least his offensive efficiency ratings are not bad--only trailing Yao, Battier, Head, and Deke. He is not as bad for the offense as trotting out a Cato next to Yao or something (or as others have suggested, putting an Etan Thomas of Jeff Foster there).

Adelman has had to use the players available to him. He has never had a Kareem, Magic, Jordon, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe to build a team around. He has had to beat other teams with superior superstars, and came real close. I don't think Adelman was had a Yao-Tmac either (two potential 1st team all NBA, MVP candidates). So yes his past history is important, but this is a different situation. And if he didn't consider how Riley, Jackson and Popovich built there teams around their MVP type players and often 1-2 punch, than he isn't the student of the game I think he is.

He used a converted 2/3 to start at the point, Ron Harper, with Pippen doing much of the PG duties. He basically started Harper over Kukoc.

(more later)

 

Exactly. Scola can't be worse than Hayes.

 

And you would think Howard would have been better as well. In fact in general Howard is generally the better player and better PF, that is why he got more total minutes and has a long career. But he wasn't better sandwiched between Yao and Battier, clearly JVG/staff didn't think so, and the statistical evidence backs him up big time.

So it isn't enough that Scola is just the better player, just like it wasn't enough that Howard was better than Hayes. What matters is he a better complement to Yao (slow for a big despite his strengths) and Battier (really poor rebounder). I think it is dangerous to just assume Scola starting from day 1 is the best for the team, particularly the superstars in which the teams fate most rides.

Thumbs [b/], no offense taken hear. I don't mind healthy debates at all.

Comments like these are irritating because one has to be completely not paying attention or using any thought. I have no problem if people are confident Scola from day 1 will be the starter and will be better regardless of the unit put forth, but no need to diss Hayes. Hayes has been a solid player and outstanding value and we would have been a lot worse without him. And I still hold Yao-Hayes-Battier may be the right group to start over Yao-Scola-Battier even if Scola from day 1 is the superior individual player. And there are good, defended arguments for this.

 

There you go again taking numbers and trying to extrapolate them out over longer periods of time. That doesn't work. Just because a player performs at a certain level in limited minutes, it doesn't mean that he'd do the same in extended minutes. I'll give you an example:

Ike Diogu scores .540 pts/minute and 1.46 pts/shot.

Elton Brand scores .528 pts/minute and 1.35 pts/shot.

Now do you really think that Ike Diagu is a comparable scorer to Elton Brand? Hopefully not. If Diogu played more his rates would decrease as his minutes increased.

Actually, no. I'm with the majority of folks that think that Howard was pretty awful and near the end of his career. Being more effective than Juwon Howard means that you have more lateral quickness than say...lawn furniture.

As far as efficiency, the just means that Hayes didn't shoot the ball unless he was wide open under the hoop. I will say that Hayes doesn't take bad shots, but he also can't force other teams to even guard him. If I'm the opposing coach, I'm ok with Chuck Hayes going 2 for 2 from the floor if it means that I can take his defender and use him to front Yao before he gets the ball.

There's not a single way to do anything. Coaches have been succesful with multiple approaches. Adelman is going to play his style because that's what he does and that's what he knows best. Believe it or not, but Adelman knows what works best in his system and that's what he's going to go with.

Think of it this way, Adelman has a long track record which spans several NBA trends. From a fairly high scoring period, through the mid-90's defensive focused ugly ball days and up to today's faced paced style. Did Adleman radically change his approach throught those different trends? Nope, he pretty much played the same way. You didn't see Adelman trying to play slow down grind it out style because the Knicks and Rockets were having success with it.
[/QUOTE]

Kukoc primarily played the SF spot. Occasionally he played PF if the Bulls wanted to go small. He rarely played SG and he never played PG. When Chicago had injuries to their PGs, they's swing Jordan or Pippen over to PG, but never Kukoc.

 

Diogu only played 760 total minutes last year, and I imagine he was mostly playing against reserves. Per-minute numbers are only reliable for players who who play regularly with and against comparable teammates/opponents.

Anyways, Diogu is a very promising offensive talent, but he has too many other deficiencies in his game. As a scorer, he's very good -- but he's doesn't pass well and he's a poor defender. If all Brand gave you was his scoring ability, and he was mediocre or terrible in every other area, he may not be worth much more than a Diogu. What makes Brand a special player is his overall game.

 

what were nocioni's numbers his first year in the league? and nocioni is a 3/4 while scola is a 4/5

 

No extrapolation is needed I am not arguing for extending Hayes minutes. I said he was effective in a starting role--and as Durvasa said Hayes usually played against 1st rate bigs, and particularly effective with Yao. Bottom line is Hayes was effective for those minutes, he teamed with our best statistical units (including over playing Howard or Battier at the PF) and was efficient.

Well I don't think Howard was/is that bad. Howard was a big part of keeping us afloat during parts of the season. I just think Howard's weaknesses compound Yao's chief weakness--basically speed, quickness, explosiveness in traffic.

Now if Hayes really holds back the offense after a PG change, maybe I'd see it like you do. I saw the inefficient shooting/scoring of the PG position and even bigger problem--and much of the doubling and overplay coming from there, which seems somewhat handled. Hayes is good enough to convert around the rim if left wide open. That is what Elson and Oberto do for SA and they have their utlity. In fact SA gets away with 3 guys, 2 starters, (Bowen & Elson--yes, look at their scoring average and efficiency) with scoring potency along the lines of Chuck Hayes, we can live with one such player.

Adelman never had a two headed monster of MVP caliber players. he never had the two best guys on the court. He did happen to have usually 7-8 really good players around just under MVP type stars. He had to coach differently. Although discussed before the Blazers were actually a better defensive team than offensive, they were not all that similar to the Kings teams, though the results were similar (very close to titles, but not there).

Also, Phil J did some things different with Shaq than Jordan. Riley had Showtime, the exact opposite in last years plodding but half court efficient (on both ends) title team, and a Thuggish Knick team. Popovish has been constent, because, well Tim Duncan has been constent. The history of Adelman indicates some major trends--I hope he vastly improves the offense, but the pieces are vastly different.

As I see no way we can build the current Rockets like the Kings or Blazers. We are not going to have 3 or 4 borderline all-stars and 3 or 4 above average players. He can improve on some things of JVG offense, but if he doesn't largely follow approach of other inside-outside star tandems rounded out by role players, I don't like our chances much.
[/QUOTE]

Adelman never had a two headed monster of MVP caliber players. he never had the two best guys on the court. He did happen to have usually 7-8 really good players around just under MVP type stars. He had to coach differently. Although discussed before the Blazers were actually a better defensive team than offensive, they were not all that similar to the Kings teams, though the results were similar (very close to titles, but not there).

Also, Phil J did some things different with Shaq than Jordan. Riley had Showtime, the exact opposite in last years title team, and a Thuggish Knick team. Popovish has been constent, because, well Tim Duncan has been constent. The history of Adelman indicates some major trends--I hope he vastly improves the offense, but the pieces are vastly different.

As I see no way we can build the current Rockets like the Kings or Blazers. We are not going to have 3 or 4 borderline all-stars and 3 or 4 above average players. He can improve on some things of JVG offense, but if he doesn't largely follow approach of other inside-outside star tandems rounded out by role players, I don't like our chances much.


Kukoc prim

That was my point. PJ could have easily played Jordan-Pippen-Kukoc over Harper-Jordan-Kukoc. Pippen was more of a PG than Ron Harper. Of course Jordan and Pippen start, the choice was starting Ron Harper over starting Kukoc.

 

JVG was stuborn and unimaginative. That said, he was smart enough to keep Hayes and Deke out of the lineup at the same time due to both of their tremendous offensive liabilities. howard was always the better fit next to yao. Problem was, when the second unit came in there was no low post presence and 2 players on the court, in the post for that matter, that you don't have to gaurd. God forbid Rafer get on the floor with these two because the other two players on the floor would be playing 2 on 5. That is why when Yao went down, Howard came in with Deke. If not, Tracy would be playing 2 on 5 with only battier as a real kick out option. At least with Howard, there was a low post presence to create some shots and space on the floor. With no Howard on the floor, Tracy would have had to play the post to try and create space on the floor. You guys can argue all you want about who's stats are better but it will always come back to basic basketball principles: 1. You must have a low post presence on the floor to have a chance to score consistently, 2. You cannot win with too many offensive liabilities on the floor in the NBA as they will be exposed and 3. you must create spacing on the floor. If you have any of these problems, you will have a team incapable of holding leads late in games that shoots a very low shooting percentage due to dependence on outside shooting to create its space. When the shooters are hot, champagne will flow from the rafters and when they are not, you will see what you saw from the 07 Rockets. A team capable of running over most of the NBA also-rans but struggling with better teams as they were able to expose our weaknesses.

 

Actually part of this is not true. JVG had no intention of making Juwan part of the regular rotation at the beginning of the season. Don't you remember what Juwan said when he began starting, that before the season JVG had basically told him he would be at the end of the rotation if at all?

Which is why Chuck got the starting position after game one last season.

If Howard was always the better fit, then he would have been there from the beginning.

Howard earned his spot in the lineup when he realized he was going to have to battle Chuck for playing time, so he had to step it up. He got the opportunity to prove he could still play when Chuck collided with Shaq and was out for four games. Juwan was/is a JVG favorite and once he proved that he could still play affectively JVG figured out the best way to use him, splitting time with Chuck and playing opposite Deke.

Let's not change history to support our theories