I don't know if anyone noticed, but today's Sacramento game was our first win of the season where it was still close with 2 minutes left. Each of the other seven wins, we basically had it won by the final minutes. You can say that the other close games we lost were stolen from us or whatever but the fact is that this team had no experience at all in late game crunch time situations. We didn't know who to give the ball to, we didn't know how to execute when the other team clamped down. We couldn't get a bucket in the most important time of the game, and so we've lost a bunch of close games so far this year. But we've made progress. 0. In the Lakers game at home neither team really had a good sense of execution because it was still among the first few games of the year. We were lucky that LA played poorly enough to take us to an overtime loss. 1. In the Dallas game we were up 15 or so and got absolutely blown out in the second half. Lack of experience and consistent execution killed us, and we didn't have the composure to put a run of our own on the board once they erased our lead. 2. In the Phoenix game we were up 15 or so, and the same lapse in execution let Phoenix right back into it, but we fought back and kept it close until the final minutes when again our lack of experience playing without a go-to man led to the loss. 3. Cut to the game at Atlanta. We had some nice back-and-forths, but I honestly thought we should have put the game away when we were up 8 late in the 4th. Then Atlanta goes on a 17-2 run and we are down 10pts with about 3min to go. Same old story about our lack of a go-to scorer making us wilt in the crunch right? Carl Landry and Kyle Lowry proceeded to then take the short-lived MO of the Rockets and shove it down our throats. A 9pt comeback in less than two minutes showed us that this team has the heart to beat anyone. 4. Tonight's Sacramento game. It's about a two point game with 3 minutes to play, and, again, Lowry and Landry just make the plays you have to make to win the game. Late game execution, it turns out, isn't so much different than early- or middle-game execution. Now if we can get said execution in shape so that it never gets to the point where we have to put on the kind of comeback the Atlanta game mandated, we could really be special. We've shown so far that we are still improving as a team, and getting a feel for what to do at the end of games. Essentially, we need to just keep playing our game until the end without croaking under the "who are we going to throw the ball to iso for some much-needed points" offensive strategy that we had always succumbed to when we had go-to options like Yao and T-Mac in past Rockets incarnations. If we do it this way, we're going to be challenging a lot of hard-line NBA maxims that say you need to have a superstar to carry you at the end of a game to get those unstoppable points when the opponents' defenders really hunker down. (And they would have a point--superstars are much more likely to get favorable whistles headed their way even if they can't put the ball through the hoop. ) But that certainly won't be the first time this team has revolutionized the way people are starting to think about how to be a successful basketball team. Let's hope it keeps trending upward like it has so far.
Touche. Brooks turns the ball over hundred times than Lowry does in the critical moment,that's why we can't execute well at the end of the regulation.
This is my view as well. Lowry, although certainly not perfect, seems to have a steadier hand in terms of not playing out of control. Brooks has that unpredictability factor, the standard deviation on the results with him seems quite high -- he's just as likely to drain a 29-foot 3 pointer as he is to get blocked or just to let the ball get away during dribbling for a turnover. I don't really like this kind of volatility, and I think it's also why he hasn't been closing games recently.
While I agree Lowry has a huge impact, to say "Lowry instead of Brooks" is shortsided. Lowry gets his minutes every game, so does Brooks. One of four things happens: "neither are hot, one is hot, the other is hot, or both are hot". The differrence is sometimes they are effective, sometimes they arent. When Lowry gets going and gets favorable calls he is a game changer, but the same can be said of Brooks. The problem is when its not going right he can be reckless and a turnover machine. To say the solution is to just insert Lowry as a replacement for Brooks is ignorant. We saw tonight, both were mediocre early and Adelman stayed with his normal rotations. Lowry stepped it up and Adelman recalled Brooks off the check in table to stay with the hot hand in the final few minutes. Its a solid approach to coaching by Adelman.
Great analysis, Spacemoth. Lowery seems to be the steadier point guard, but AB's drive-stop & shoot really comes in handy at the end of a game. I like having both in in crunch time. It keeps the defense off balance.
First, it was the kings. True they overpowered the rockets last time and lets not forget evans didn't play. To be a closer, you need to be a pass,shoot,score type of threat. It also helps when other capable players are on the court. The problem with the rocket is they have a lot of guys that are either good offensive players or good defensive players. Landry should be on the court at the end, but he and scola together hurts the defense. Brooks and lowry probably should play together, but both are small. Ariza nor battier should never be left to create anything offensively in the 4th qt. They will lose a lot of close games mainly due to their personel especially against the good teams.
Carl Landry should be on the court at the close of any tight game. He has been dynamite at drawing fouls and draining the free throws. Sometimes our bench seems to be better than our starters, but as someone else has said, part of that might be due to them playing much of their time against the other team's bench.
These are the Sacramento Kings so let us not get all excited yet. This team is still a long way away from getting close to its potential so let us just enjoy their scrappy, no prisoners style of play. What I am really excited about is the opportunity to see them grow and thrive as a team in the next few years. The championship should come with their growth and some addition of talent. It would also be great if McGrady is shipped out soon so that the new Rockets can focus on developing their team instead of dealing with so much unnecessary distraction from a loser.
To me its looking a lot like Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith all over again. Kenny the shooter starts but Cassell finishes games due to his ability to create and penetrate, not that Brooks can't but Lowry seems way more in control most of the time. If this happens I'll be all for it and think it creates a nice little competition between the two.
Teams have figured out how to stop a Brooks solo act late, they trap him and no one else on the floor can create. They have not figured out how to beat Lowry yet, which is to lay off of him and let him shoot. Right now, the Rockets are a mystery....they need both players and both styles to win consistently. Nice analysis. DD
ariza should never try and dribble more than 3 times at the end of a game. he just tries to create his shot which turns into an off balance jumper. ariza needs to only touch the ball at the 3 point line to spot up shoot or slash to the rim. landry is probably our go to guy and i think he wants that role.
Lowry and Landry worked out together all summer and the chemistry they have developed is self evident. I remember Landry even going so far as to say that Brooks "better watch out" because of the work that L&L had been putting in over the summer.
There's a lot of people on this board who want to talk scoring ability when it comes to point guard. I'll take Lowry over Brooks every time and I've felt that way since last year. Lowry gets key rebounds, makes key defensive plays, makes far more hustle plays, and he draws fouls and finishes around the basket. He makes far more 'winning' plays. The more I watch Lowry, the more I love the guy. The more I watch Brooks, the more I realize he will never get it. There should never be a question about Landry being in late in games. He's been clutch in the 4th Quarter since he was a rookie.
You need to also consider that Dallas, Phoenix, and the Lakers have the 3 best records in the West, Atlanta has the best record in the East, and Sacramento is a sub-.500 ballclub (as of the time I'm typing this). If there's any indication of heart or hope in this team, it was the Atlanta game.
honestly I think you have to throw the Dallas game out the window. this team is going to have a hard time winning in Dallas all year long and it won't be because of the effort. Go back and watch that game, and tell me that there isn't an officiating bias. Right now I would say Dallas has the strongest home court advantage (moreso than even Utah).... similar to Utah, this team is going to have to learn to play through the bull to win in Little D with that said, throw out the Dallas game and every game was closely contested
I agree about the Brooks thing, and just because they have "figured him out" early season doesn't mean he can't adapt later on down the line to still be a viable option for us in late game situations. Really there is nothing better than being able to penetrate at will when the clock is running down; he just needs to do a better job of getting the ball into his teammates' hands when they do decide to double or trap him. Moving the ball is the key, the same way it's been for us in all four quarters.
At the end of the game, I'd like to see more Lowry and Landry. They both play physically enough to overcome any little fouls that the refs always seem to let slide late game. Also both take it to the hole, which I think is necessary in the closing moments. I don't mind a drive that results in a kick out for a wide open shot, but I hate watching my team loose on a dribble dribble and then a contested outside shot. Come to think of it, Budinger is also someone I'd love to see at the end of games. I could live with one of his threes to close out a game, or better yet some penetration and dunks. AB would be a great closer, but I think him and Ariza are subject to the common practice of the refs letting some contact that would normally be a foul go at the end of a game. Both seem to be at a disadvantage when the other team is allowed to shove a little more and hip check etc. Lowry and Landry on the other hand tend to get away with a little more at the end of the game, ripping the ball loose, creating contact, finishing strong, going right at them. I wonder what it would be like if Chuck Hayes finished some games. He is offensively not the best, but he has shown that if people don't play him he'll get a layup. I could see numerous Hayes layups to finish games, but then again, I'm an optomist when it comes to these Rockets.
That is spot on. I wonder if just dumping the ball down to Landry would work? The way he is playing of late, I think it would. Then AB could be the second option and hence avoid the traps.
