if the team is going through one of their 3pt slumps and cant get any layups, they should keep shooting threes but mix in some twos. its worth a try. whats not worth a try is after going 2-15 from threes as a team, they should take 15 more and hope they make half. mid range game - dont abandon it, esp when your threes are falling.
This team showed that hustle and help defense can win games just as much as knocking down a bevy of threes. Glad to see the side of Rockets we knew was there. I would like them to cut out some of the mistakes that still plague us though. Diamond in the rough game.
See, I only sorta agree with that mindset. I definitely agree that assuming they are hitting 33% from downtown, mathematically that is a better shot than even some of the best midrange shooter, but that shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum. First of all, that 33% is not accumulative, but a figure needed each individual game from each player. This is where elite shooters come in. They will generally consistently shoot higher than 33% each game and are less prone to falling into slumps from game to game. Also, if they fail to hit 33% in the game, then they are better off trying to get into rhythm by shooting closer to the rim. This has happened multiple times from multiple players this season. In a perfect world, where meh shooters shooting at an absolute figure of 33%, the system can work. However average or non-elite shooters have too much variance for this to work in real life.
You're ignoring the fact that no team in the league is efficient from midrange. Even when we were shooting so horribly to start the season our 3 pt shooting was still better than every team in the league's midrange efficiency. The idea that if we're having trouble shooting 3's then we should switch midrange so that if we shoot as well as any team in the league, we'll still be inefficient, makes no sense. You can argue that you might hit a higher % from midrange (not sure that's true) but it's not a great enough difference to overcome the loss of the extra point on the 3. In order for it to make up for giving up the extra point on the shot, you'd have to shoot 150% of whatever you are shooting from behind the arc. The problem is that if you're shot is off that badly from 3 it's likely just as off from midrange.
I think that you're missing my point. I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't acquire elite 3 point shooting if you can. What I'm saying is that the offensive philosophy doesn't require it as so many posters seem to believe. By all means, a team of 40% shooters will out perform a team of 33% shooters. As I mentioned, those guys aren't that easy to acquire or to fit in to your rotation. If you can't get those guys the system still works fine even with average shooters. We won a lot of games and went to the WCF with the shooters we have now. When they are shooting their normal averages then they are good enough. Our problem is that almost nobody has shot up to their normal averages.
This team sometimes forgets that the 3's only work if the opponent at least somewhat respects the damage we can do in the middle. If the 3's stop working again, go back inside again. Simple formula. We have Dwight and D-Mo dominating inside, Harden dominating from the outside to the inside, and 3pt shooters around them. It's not rocket science. The organization puts a huge amount of faith in the players to make those decisions in the flow of the game. When they forget the coach needs to kick their ass a little bit but I still think we are running overall a great strategy and the players should be making a lot of these decisions. Come playoff time, the playbooks are almost useless these days. You're trying to run plays against a team which knows exactly how it's going to go. The level of execution necessary is unsustainable. Teams that make good on-the-fly decisions tend to do well so it's good to get the team used to that mindset.
There are certain things to point out here. First, it's not just a coincidence that ALL our players are shooting bad. It must be they're not getting the shots they got last year, meaning the ball movement (or Harden being aggressive and then dishing it back out) is not there. Second, a mid range contested shot has a higher % to go in than a contested 3. I for one see the Rockets shooting a very high margin of contested 3s. I'd rather have guys take a dribble in take an 18 footer than a contested brick. Third, it's just not wise to turn players into 3 point shooters. Brewer and Lawson are perfect examples. I bet if Brew goes to another team, he goes back to a 14 PPG scorer immediately. Lawson may have other issues, but everyone should agree that he's not been implemented properly. Point is, I get that elite shooters are hard to find. But Brew is not even an avg 3 point shooter, never has been. Even last year in the run he was not. His game is transition and mid range. Either you tweak your system to get him the mid range, or he's going to keep on being a bust. I get the whole 3 point thing, I do. The championship Rockets lived and died by the 3. But they knew when to shoot it and when to break the opponent down, drive, or put up a mid range. That part of their game was NOT eliminated. They weren't just chucking up 3s for the hell of it, and that's what we've been primarily doing.
We are leading the league in uncontested 3s. We are getting great looks but missing them. We don't take that many contested 3 and about half of those are Harden's stepback 3s and he's good at them. Brewer wasn't brought here to shoot 3s. He's here to up the pace and get us transition points. It's also not like we only shoot 3s. We get lots of free throws and drive a lot.
This "we need to take more mid-range shots" argument never makes sense to me, regardless of any math arguments that rely upon league averages...not when we are talking about perimeter players who historically have never shown much ability to get off midrange shots efficiently. You can't magically transfer league averages onto a player who it doesn't really apply to. Those mid-range averages are dominated by elite scorers, mid-range shooting PGs with great handles and passing, and then primarily bigs. We have no bigs that are good at midrange jumpers like Hakeem, Yao, Scola, Howard, Brad Miller, MoT and PPatt were, and PGs like Francis. And that's just Rockets examples. Around the league, especially nowadays, (discarding elite scorers, and some guards with handles) most mid-range shots come from bigs... and many of them are not Stretch 4s shooting 3s. They work on their game, which requires keeping defenders honest at mid-range distance, so they can make moves to the basket. Some will say the teams with motion get a lot of mid-range, sure that's right. But I contend those teams can't be built without requisite bigs who can shoot them...I'm looking at you Princeton Offense, Bobby Knight and UCLA. So, for the sake of this thread, I'm discarding any argument for motion from the discussion since we can't run motion. Back to the discussion of league averages... Bigs shoot mid-range because it is required to open up their low post game. They get separation that non-elite perimeter players just won't get. They effect the league averages more than any other positions, and many don't really have the option to move out further. bottomline: Rockets do not have the requisite bigs and PGs to get many quality mid-range. I'm on the side of anyone who says that the Rockets aren't built for it. And I'm on the side of the argument that says any math that says mid-range is comparable to 3s is projecting league averages onto a team who doesn't fit that shoe.
These players are shooters , saying that they can knock down a 3ptr but won't be able to knock down a shot 10 ft away from the basket, perhaps while set and open with picks/ proper play (the spurs do it all the time) is absolutely ridiculous. There is a reason players that are able to shoot further from the basket can shoot better or just as good closer to the basket--when put in the proper position to do so. Its never the other way around. You will make a layup at a higher clip than a midrange shot and a midrange shot at a higher clip than a 3pt shot. Why? You recruit more motor units when you need more force for shots further away, but this also comes with a loss of accuracy. The reason the players miss the shots is because the area can be clogged and the spacing is often terrible. The defense can converge on the offensive player a lot easier inside the arc than outside the arc. When picks are set and you mix the offense up a bit to make it less predictable however, you can get these shots and knock them down at a high clip. For christ's sake, we saw Scola open at the top of the key knocking that shot down all the time. The stats you post need to be put into context and interpreted in the appropriate way. Saying he was a "good midrange shooter" is absolutely absurd and a copout for the bad offense we run.
No it's not. They first have to get open closer to the basket. You make it sound like that's a given. Or say the pump fake is always there. It isn't. What I'm saying is it's a myth to think that magically a coach to say to his players, "hey, were not making them today, move in closer" and viola, we have uncontested 2s to shoot. No please reread my post with the idea that open 2s are harder for our players to get than open 3s. And don't just comment on this post as if I never said anything in my previous. I'm really not wanting to repeat myself.
You can run plays that gives you plenty of midrange / close 2s. Just go watch some mid 90s Rockets basketball. Sure we had Hakeem but even without him, we had the pick and roll with Thorpe and even though we had crazy good 3pt shooters, we rarely shot more than 25 and almost never made more than 10 as a team. It's not rocket science, just needs a lot of changes in playing style and sets. With D-Mo & Howard it shouldn't be that hard. Even Harden is strong enough to post up and we can run the pick and roll to death like Kenny & OT used to do!!
Yeah, in theory. Yeah, for Harden and Thornton. But we already do that. We don't have the players to get much more open 2s worth talking about. We can't run motion; we don't have bigs who are designed to get open in midrange; we don't really PGs or Wings who really have show the ability to get off an open 2. We don't have the players and system. If you think our PGs and Wings can just get open 2s, they would, since Thornton damn sure does.
1. The game has changed significantly from when Dream played. Teams just shoot more threes now. 12 teams average more than 25 threes a game currently. 2. Thorpe is way better than any big we have currently. I will say that D-Mo is a better passer, but Thorpe set better picks and roll harder than everyone of our bigs save maybe Capela. Midrange offensive sets are way harder to execute than perimeter plays due to faster defensive response times and much less spacing. At this point, the Rockets need to have a couple of simple screen curls to Harden to try and get his jump shot going. I don't want Brewer on the court at all this season.
This comment is gold and I'd like to further expand on it's premise. The 3 pointers attempted for this team versus a team say the Spurs or the Warriors are of a worse quality. What I mean is, when you watch the above 2 teams they are consistently getting open looks from 3 and a high number of corner 3s. They run plays and a system that prioritizes shooting the corner 3 after ball and player movement. We do not have a system that gets us corner 3s. I'm not sure of the statistics but from the eye test it seems Ariza, Jones, Brewer, Lawson, Terry are shooting a lot from the 45 degree line. That is a statistically harder 3 than any other location on the floor. This could be due to the fact that we run a lot of Harden iso at the top of the break and making a pass to the diagonal 3 is easier from that set. It could also be due to the fact that a lot of our offensive set is this weird 3 man guard weave that asks each handler to drive and if nothings there kick out. There's not really any elevator screen, pin downs, flares, player movement. This could be design or the fact that our players don't like running that type of offense because of its energy requirement. I also think Harden, while playing amazing offense, can help fix the offensive issues with doing one simple thing. Start the play earlier. When he gets into iso modes he waits far too long and eats up too much clock that results in turnovers or 3's from worse spots. He needs to go faster and earlier to the rim, if it's not there begin moving the ball. The D doesn't need to work as hard to guard a guy holding the ball for 15 seconds until he makes a decision. The D will work harder if he goes earlier swings it and scrambles the D. This includes getting Dwight the ball earlier. Get him one post touch early in the clock, get him engaged, have the D shift because they're aware of the post play, kick out, and start scrambling the D. The Rockets play at a high pace but their half court sets take too long to initiate. Another problem with over reliance on 3s that hasn't been discussed, is the effect of it on transition defense. Long shots lead to long rebounds and run outs. I'm curious about the statistics of it all, adjusted for pace, to see how many transition points come from those shots because the eye test seems to suggest a lot. I recall Harden's 1-12 shooting numbers in the beginning being compounded with his inability to stop transition offense happening quite a bit. The midrange shot seems to allow teams to get back to D quicker and set a defense quicker. And if the bigs are taking assisted uncontested midrange jumpers they are closer to being back on defense.
**** your stats - HE SAW SCOLA DO IT ALL THE TIME. Seriously, these posts are parodies of themselves. Never change, MidRangers.
Harden seems to be a better midrange shooter than long range - just get the first OPEN shot, 2pter, or 3pter, or layup, doesn't matter, just be efficient. DD
