its time to play chuck more

LOL - if Chuck could just hit the broadside of a barn from 7 feet I would love him on the court....but late in a close game....if I was the other team....hack a chuck.

DD

 

Chuck's played late in a close games plenty of times before. How many times have opposing teams gone to "hack a chuck" when they were in the penalty?

 

I love Hayes' hustle and defense, but I don't think giving him the majority of the minutes at PF is the answer. In the long term, this team needs a PF who can contribute more offensively.

Scola has to learn to play better defense and prove he deserves the major minutes at PF. If the management believes this won't happen, then it has to think trade.

 

Not much but Stan showed the league, and I think others were probably paying attention.

The point is that you need more offensive options on the floor late in games because other teams shut down option A and B........

Chuck Hayes does not provide anything significantly better than Scola.....and Scola is an offensive threat.

And...for the record, it was not the PF position that was hurting the team last night, it was guard play.

DD

 

If you think that's true you are delusional. I agreed with you last night Dada (a first I think)... but this is something that you need to take a look at without bias.

Yes Scola can score, yes Scola hustles, but if you think there is no difference defensively, you are absolutely wrong.

 

Is it just me, or is Scola terrible at pick and roll defense?? He usually ends up guarding nobody and *two* opponents are free: the ball handler and Scola's man or the man who is left uncovered when helping on Scola's man.

Scola is also a terrible one on one defender.

I agree, Hayes is a much better defender. But I think long term, we will need Scola to learn how to play defence and become the starter; otherwise, we're going nowhere.

 

I concur with you that Hayes is not just a good defender but a GREAT defender, and Scola is just average.

But the benefits Hayes adds on the defensive end are more than lost with his horrendous offense.

I would take an above average offensive player who is average on Defense over a great defender who sucks at offense.

Thus Scola over Hayes.

Uh, Scola traps the ball and then recovers, if you notice they rarely get a good PnR when they use Scola's man as the screener, it is when they post Luis up that he has issues, his PnR defense is quite good especially when he steps out hard on the high side.


DD

 

I kept on wondering why Chuck wasn't in during the 4th when the team clearly needed a shot in the arms on defense. Sure, the Rockets gave up fast break points, but their halfcourt D was bad, too.

The guy's effect on the team is very clear to anyone who watches closely.

 

He is great on defense but he would have had ZERO effect last night.

It was Luther and Alston turning it over and a track meet to the rim at the other end.

And then it was Pick and pop by Miller and Ig.......using Yao's man.

Hayes would have made no difference...

DD

 

I only saw part of the third quarter and the fourth quarter last night, so I don't have the full picture, but I've got most of it. (I did watch the NO game in person.) I really think that in both of the last two games, Adelman chose to develop Scola over a single game win. Chuck was clearly doing a better job (albeit not great) of guarding David West, and was doing a much better job at help defense. Scola was on the floor, I guess for spacing, certainly not for his individual offense, but even that didn't work too well.

Last night, the Sixers were penetrating at will, and the Rockets bigs were helpless against it. All I can figure is that Adelman is compiling a tape of missed rotations by Scola so that he can do some teaching. He should have a pretty good bit of it. Scola's certainly the better individual talent, and if he can improve his help defense and spend some time in the weight room tor really develop lower body strength, the team will be better for it. Personally, I just don't think we should be sacrificing wins when just a few more minutes with Chuck in the game could be the difference.

 

Chuck is a better defender right now than our other options. He plays within himself, never taking bad shots, and rarely turning the ball over. As an undrafted player he has exceeded what anyone could possibly have expected coming in. That being said, I don't see him improving significantly over the rest of his career. With his jumpshot/free throw form THAT bad, his offense is always going to be extremely limited. His hustle, rebounding and defense are all pluses, but in the end he is both undersized and offensively unskilled, which is a pretty bad combination for a starter.

Chuck playing more will probably improve us in the short term, but in the long term if he is our best option at power forward we are unlikely to be contenders. Ideally Hayes is the back up that plays 10-15 minutes a game when your starter is in foul trouble or needs a rest. With Landry playing well in his extremly limited play time, even that may not be necessary eventually.

So it's hard to say, since I would say we have a better chance of winning now with Chuck and a better chance of advancing in the playoffs if we develope Scola and Landry. Of course if we don't start winning now or pretty soon we won't be in the play offs...

 

Uh, Scola was not missing the rotations last night, he was not involved in the plays at the end by the 76ers guards...Yao was.

This was the Utah series all over again, Williams and Boozer toasting Yao with the PnR.

DD

 

Help defense, Dada. Help defense.

 

Even if it is a 2-man game, the quality of other defenders still makes a difference. It is no accident Chuck's +/- was +9 last night.

 

I can accept the argument that Scola should play more, even start. That doesn't mean he's always the best option, and it doesn't mean that there aren't areas where Chuck is a significantly better player.

Last two games we lost in the fourth quarter because we couldn't stop the opposing team while also struggling to score ourselves. So, our "offensive lineup" didn't live up to their billing, and the defense sucked. To me, it makes sense that playing Chuck more in those periods would have helped. He wasn't going to make the offense any worse, because it was ineffective anyways, but at least he helps on the defensive end. Maybe he gets some deflections or he makes a defensive switch on the perimeter and forces a miss. These are things he's adept at, and we could have used it.

 

Playing mutombo more is a better idea...

 

What was Bonzi's?

Where do you get the +/- stats per game?

Thanks,

DD

 

http://www.nba.com/games/20080115/PHIHOU/boxscore.html

http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20080115&game=PHIHOU

Wells was a -3. Scola was a -13. Check out the popcorn machine link for player combination +/- and game flow, though. That's more informative.

 

Detailed Rockets +/- data:

http://basketballvalue.com/teamunits.php?year=2007-2008&team=HOU

Click on a particular player's name for a breakdown of his +/- with different combinations of players (and against different combinations of opponents). It's a great site.