There was a thread back in November "It the schedule. The Rockets are just fine " when the Rockets were struggling with a 3-8 record. I don't want to resurrect the old thread. So I am starting this thread as a follow up. After almost two months, after a "I told you so" month of December, we are back to the state of despair again. This season's schedule is the weirdest I remember ever seeing. An incredibly soft December is followed by a ridiculously tough January. Let's break down the opponents to "good teams" and "bad teams" for simplicity's sake, "good teams" are teams having a .500 record or better, and "bad teams" are sub-.500 teams. We are 3-15 against good teams and 13-6 against bad teams. There were also the Hollinger buzz about point differentials. Despite a record of 5 games under .500, our non-adjusted point differential is still a positive +0.2. That is slightly above league average. According to this, we are supposed to be a slightly better than .500 team. Why is our point differential so much better than our record shows? Of the 15 losses against good teams, we lost by double digits only 6 times, and the average loss margin was -8 points. Of the 13 wins against bad teams, we won by double digits 7 times, and the average win margin was 12. So the trend is, we tend to beat up the bad teams pretty bad and hang close (but lose) to the good teams. That's fine except that there are good teams (24) than bad teams (21) in our remaining schedule. Barring a major trade, what we can expect from this team is to end the season at around 0 point differential but with a record that looks something like 36-46. The good news is, a 36-win record will probably give us a mid to mid-low lottery pick.
I think we will finish at least 41-41.. I believe they will finish 43-39 unless a blockbuster trade takes place.
"We" are back in a state of despair because the Rockets have lost 5 in a row. The Rockets have lost 5 in a row because after losing our starting center after 5 games, we have lost his backup as well. No, Chuck Hayes is not the difference between us and contenders. However he is the ONLY player on the team right now that can give us.. what he gives us. Which is the difference between a playoff lock and probably a lottery team. That does not say so much about how good Chuck Hayes is, but rather how fragile a balance we were hanging on to. Our margin of error is so thin that any disruption means.. what you see now. The last 5 losses, we would have won 3/5 with Hayes. The Denver game that went down to the wire as Nene abused us. The Portland game that we lost by 3 despite Lamarcus going Yao Ming on us. And the Utah game where we were up 16. With all that said, does it really matter? All that has changed, at the start of the season, in December, and again now, is the perception from fans. It really has no effect on the reality of the team, which I am sure the team knows much better than the fans. Even with Chuck we were not contenders or anything close, just hanging in there and waiting for a trade. We are still in the same boat. The point differentials didn't lie.
I remember that thread, and I said that the January schedule will tell where this team really is. I remember someone saying that we will be ok, but I felt differently. This team hasn't shown me the consistency that we need to make the playoffs. Our best hope is for Portland or Denver to fall apart.<p>And on the point of everyone saying we are close in our loses against the good teams don't mean a thing. A loss is a loss. Heck how many games did the Nets lose that were close and they went 12-70. I wish, but 1-5 point loses doesn't count for anything.
At the beginning of the season, we are supposed to be a VERY deep team. An injury here and there should not affect a deep team too much. The fact is, even with Chuck Hayes, we lost lots of close games to good teams, just like what we did in 3 of the last 5 losses. That seems to be the trend, with or without Chuck.
Very deep team when healthy.....not with Yao out for year, Brooks out another 6 + weeks, and Hayes out for an extended period as well....This is what a team with no superstar, and serious injuries to other key players looks like....The fact that we are still, somehow, only 3.5 games back of the 8th seed in the loaded West is a testament to RA.
We've sucked all season, if it wasn't for December's easy ass schedule (we played like two teams above .500 that whole month), we would have one of the very worst records in the NBA.... I mean even in December against weak teams we weren't exactly blowing these teams out... This is a lottery team, no matter which way you cut it.... might as well aim for a high pick, by developing the young guys.. PS. During this time last year we were 21-16 and we still fell short off the playoffs... Its time for people to face the truth..
Like I said, the margin of error for this team is razor thin. Earlier in the year we were without a healthy Lowry, arguably our most important player so far this year, IMO. Either way he is our starting PG and a huge part of the team. Funny how we all of a sudden started closing out games once he was back to normal. We ARE a very deep team. Even now we are running 10-11 deep. However my long standing view is depth in the NBA is hugely overrated. Overwhelming talent is much more important than depth, since players can easily play 35-40 minutes a game. You don't need a super backup in those 10-13 minutes if your starter is good enough. The problem for us right now, besides the lack of talent(that's the bigger problem), is our injuries all happened at one position. Sure we have depth, but we only have so many defense-anchoring centers. We lost the one real one we had, and one pretend one that was filling in. Jordan Hill pretending to anchor a defense is like watching a slow train-wreck. You can see where its heading, but that still doesn't take away from that painful thud of a conclusion.
IZ WROTE WORDZ TOO. U UNDERSTAN? EDIT: Okay, so obviously you didn't. Here's the cliffnotes version for the ADD kids who skip to the last paragraph right away- Point differential said- we are slightly above average Before Chuck Hayes injury- we were exactly .500(hey, average!) and won 8 out of 10, losing close games to Miami and on the road to OKC(looking slightly above!). After Chuck Hayes injury- we rooose 5 in row sad face Conclusion- discrediting the point differential that was produced when we had a relatively full squad(minus Yao and Brooks) with the play of our recently NOT full squad is wrong. Very berry wong. It does not take an Einstein to understand this. This obsession with trying to disprove MATH(LOL) because some people don't understand MATH(LOL) needs to stop. CONTEXT- USE IT.
you said the differential didn't lie...but you didn't address why. the number is just a number...but if you're relying on it to tell you that your team is good when they're 3-15 against teams with .500 or above records, then you're missing the boatzzzzzz. on board, cap'n????
I think what the point differential tells us is that we are farther ahead of the bad teams than we are behind the good teams. The problem is, there are 8 good teams and 6 bad teams (not counting the Rockets) in the West. I used to be optimistic about our chances of making the playoffs, even without Yao. Now I don't think we can make it, unless we get a big talent upgrade soon.
ultimately the math i care about is number of wins vs. number of losses. i think it's more than telling that we're 3-15 against teams with .500 or greater records.
It was such a bogus argument to begin with. In order to be a contender, you need to beat the good teams. What happens if they make the Playoffs? Every team is good. No more excuses. This team is mediocre at best.
