I can't seem to google an exact article that talks about it in detail, but please lock if it has been posted before. So I was listening to the post-draft BS Report with Henry Abbot, as I've always respected his opinions. One thing he said that jumped out at me, and I paraphrase here, The top clutch teams are New Orleans and Dallas. NO actually is #1 by far. Whereas Kobe's Lakers aren't actually all that clutch. It seems a team's clutchness tend to come from having good passing so that you get the best shot, rather than having a superstar who just shoot it. A lot has been talked about regarding the Rockets need for a closer. And I have thought the same thing. I felt that getting someone like Melo who can score in isolation would definitely help this team. I also loved it back in the T-Mac days when we could just defer to him in crunch time. But Abbot's comment really turned this view upside down. It seems that rather than trying to get Kobe, it's better to get a Kidd or CP3 type. An elite passer. Since the Rockets have not had an elite passer nor an elite iso-scorer since T-Mac's demise, I can't exactly say which theory is more correct in explaining the Rockets bad clutch performance. But if this theory is true, then getting a gifted passer could potentially replace the traditional "superstar-closer" player we've all been clamoring for. Perhaps a younger Jason Kidd type. such as Rubio if all the raves about his passing skills are true. Or going extra hard after CP3 in the next offseason. Regardless, I'm actually happy that the Rockets clutch problem could be solved without desperately hoping for the next Kobe or Lebron.
Lowry is a pretty good passer, but late in games he took the shot himself instead of creating. I remember a couple of games where he did this. Drove me nuts.
As has been noted (by durvasa and others), the Mavs are very much more focused on "clutch performance" than the Rockets have been. Morey has said many times that great times don't win a bunch of close games, but rather have a bunch of blowouts. He'd rather spend his resources improving the team to do well over the course of all 48 minutes than just in the clutch. Cuban, on the other hand, have spend a lot of time looking at clutchness. So, it's not surprising that the Mavs have done well in the clutch. The Rockets, on the other hand, have not done well in the Clutch relative to overall team performance. This is not to say the Rockets are wrong. The Mavs have their superstar, Dirk, a 50+ win contending team every year, and never any cap room to realistically get another superstar. So, when you are already at a high level, the little things-- clutchness in the last 5 minuts, etc.-- could well be your ticket to the title. The Rockets, on the other hand, have a 43-win team. Getting more clutch might give them 4-5 more wins, which is nice, but isn't going to make them title contenders. So, the Rockets are better off focusing on overall talent level, and leave the "clutchness" and other such things to worry about later. BTW, my memory is that the Rockets were poor in the clutch to start the season, but was much better down the stretch. Part of it is that the right guys were playing-- i.e. NOT AARON BROOKS.
I don't agree with this viewpoint because history proves otherwise. With the exception of Kidd this year (who is not at his prime anyway) there has been no championship teams with elite PG's since Isiah and Magic. That is more than 2 decades. Kidd is the only elite passer on a title team in 2 decades and he isn't even in his prime. What have other champions had in the passed? Perimeter closers like Jordan, Kobe, Manu, Wade, Pierce, Billups (yes he's a PG but more a closer than an elite passer).. and/or elite post men like Hakeem, Duncan, and Shaq (Add in Big Ben ad he was a massive force, even if not on offense). All a title team needs is a strong supporting PG like Lowry. Previous examples who have won titles are Cassell, Ron Harper, Fisher, Parker, etc (Parker wasn't so elite as now when he won titles. He was still a strong role player back then).
@Carl Herrera. Even when we had Yao, Morey seemed to focus on gathering talent, to "blow people away" as you put it, rather than little details. To be fair, that was early in his tenure while Cuban has been using metrics for likely years by then. So overall I wouldn't hold it against him. This post is really more about how to build the team in the future, and how to be a contender without praying for the lottery ball to drop your way. My own thinking is that you really need flawless half-court execution. So this is as much about philosophy IMO as it is about players. The Rockets just haven't been a great half-court team. This extends back to T-Mac/Yao era, which really was more about being incredible on defense and "passable" on offense due to 2 star players. And I believe this draft shows we're definitely headed in that direction. Monte can be a great post scorer, one with more success than Scola with his height advantage. Morris looks like he's a versatile enough on the offense to give opposing defenses more things to worry about. I think Lowry's a good passer, but not a transcendent one. If you go by the logic of Abbot, players like Kidd, CP3, DWill, Stockton, Nash types are the ones who get it done. At least these players are a bit more obtainable than true superstars. Stockton was taken at 14. CP3 fell to #3. Nash was signed as a FA. Kidd through trade when his stardom faded. And so on.
Parker did win a Finals MVP. He was the main reason the Suns kept losing to the Spurs because Nash was hopeless against Tony Parker. But I agree. Most championship winners have had a player who can close. I think the Celtics and Mavs are interesting as they always maximize their options. Most plays are for Pierce/Nowitzki but there are players like Allen/Garnett/Terry/Kidd who can take the big shot as well.
Ummm... This thread isn't about contending. It's about improving in the clutch. For example, there's a difference between the Lakers won because they had Kobe playing for 40+ mpg, and won because Kobe is their go-to clutch player.
The article talks about passing teams, not great passing pgs. The Lakers, Boston, Dallas and Spurs were all great passing teams. Gasol and Kobe are savvy passers, so are Rondo/KG/Pierce and TD/Parker/Gino. Rather than saying you need clutch scorers, what you need IMHO are a cadre of dedicated 3 pt shooters. D gets really ugly in the playoffs, and when the offense breaks down you need guys who can hit 3s and bust that zone up which is what these 4 teams have.
I'm not sure you need ONE transcendent passer, rather than just a group of solid decision makers. With the Rockets, Lowry might not be an elite passer, but I believe he is an elite(or at least extremely good) decision maker. When you put 5 guys who are close to that level on the court together, you will get a good shot. The problem for us is that for some odd reason, we decided to bank on Brooks in the clutch these past 2 years. Even when he was at his best a year ago, decision making was a weakness. For all the supposed big shots he has made, we forget the forced ones and bad passes and drives into the teeth of the defense that cost us games. Not to mention the minus on defense. I guess I wouldn't call it an "odd" reason. His ability to create was the best on the team. That isn't saying much, since it was a little above average at best. Couple that with the negatives of bad decision making, and you get why we have struggled in the clutch. We've done much better with Lowry running the show and him off the team in that regard.
I think Abbot's idea goes along with what all Lakers fans keep talking about, that the Lakers are at their best when Kobe is the playmaker and not the scorer. Yet in clutch situations, Kobe never passes. He always take that big shot. So in this regards, the Lakers might've been even better if Kobe stayed in his role rather than forcing shots down the stretch. Of course, every time Lebron passes to a teammate for an open jumper in the clutch, the media talks about his lack of killer instinct. So I do believe there's a stigma attached to superstars passing at the end of games. But since this doesn't apply to CP3 for whatever reason, he tend to always make the best decisions. Yeah, Brooks in the clutch seems like a horrible decision based on Abbot's philosophy. So I guess Adelman's not always correct even about offense. As for Lowry, I mentioned that as a response to that particular post. Yes, I think Lowry + Webber or T-Mac or a some other great passing non-PG can work. I just can't see him as the commander of the offense, expecting him to always make the right reads. If our other 4 positions stay intact and our young guys develop: Patterson/Donatas/Morris/Martin/??? PG, I don't believe Lowry can make it work. But perhaps a better passer can.
I think with Lowry as our primary PG for the first time last season, our team has produced one of the top offensive efficiencies in team history. Especially after getting rid of Brooks, where we led the league. So I believe he is fine as the commander. Of course your question is in the clutch. I believe if you coupled Lowry with Morris- a plus passer for wing, and very good decision maker Montiejunas- if he pans out, which is a big if- an elite passer for a bigman, and good decision maker Biedrins- if we get him which is a big if, and if he gets his act together, another big if- is an very good passer for C, and good decision maker That is a lot of ifs and assumptions, but if they all pan out, which IMO isn't totally out of the question, you pair them with Lowry, and a below average passer like Kevin Martin would never have to give up the ball again. Just wait for it and shoot. I think as far as decision making goes, that team will be fine in the clutch. And overall efficiency we have already proven to be elite.
Lowry is above average, but not elite.....if we could get CP3 etc, then the team would be that much better. Any upgrade at any position would be grand. DD
CXbby, we seem to just differ on our evaluation of Lowry. I'm just not as sold on him as you are. From a style perspective, I think a Ty Lawson would be a better fit. Kind of like how Denver played really well with him running the show. Here's hoping you're right though. On a side note: Kahn drafted Flynn at 6, Rubio at 5, and traded away Lawson at something like 15... Seriously, how does he still have his job?
I don't want to simplify things or this topic, but clutch is about decision making and shot making. The thing is, the hornets were one of the best clutch teams because paul was the guy pulling the trigger on the shots. He wasn't setting someone else up to do it, it was him. Throughout the game he would dime guys up, but when the game was in thebalance, paul played like he did in the plaoffs vs lakers. In terms of dallas, it was the terry and dirk show. We saw that in the playoffs and that's how it is with them. Terry and dirk in high pnr, dirk, at ft line extended, or terry of flare cuts. There were games, just like in the playoffs when kidd wasn't even in the game. The tracy and yao era were good in games decided by 3pts or less despite the flawed roster. The last 2 yrs rockets weren't that good because the had 1 guy,brooks, who could get a good look by himself. In late game, situational basketball, you need a guy who can get a good look under pressure. That's why I said they can't score when they need to.
Innovative thinking, that's how. For instance, this year where he has declared "win now", he went off the beaten path and drafted veteran leadership.
But the key here is that those teams all have a clear guy who starts with the ball in his hands. Dallas has Nowitzki, NO has CP3. Those guys are going to have the ball and be in attack mode in the final possessions, whether that means pass or shoot. We have the unselfishness, but we don't have that #1 weapon that keeps defenses scared in the final minutes.
