Hoping to get an actual discussion of what the Rockets try to do, and how well/badly they're doing it. So I'll start with how I see it. My take on the Rockets Philosophy 1. Transition. Transition. Transition. The Rockets push the pace more than any other team in the NBA. IMO, for two reasons. One, we lack the chemistry, experience, and talent to compete in a half-court setting. And as a young team we're generally faster and more athletic than our opponent. 2. Simple half-court offense, as many complains here, "they don't have set plays." IMO, they're doing it because of the late acquisition of Harden, as well as integrating many new young players who've never played together. This is something I'm following closely as the season goes on. Whether or not they'd add plays as the season goes on. 3. Taking percentage shots to an extreme level: They've attacked the basket and draw fouls more than I've ever seen from a Rockets team. They choose 3s, even sub-optimal ones, over long 2s. And specific stuff like always try for 2-for-1 situations at end of quarters(concept of 2 bad shots > 1 good shot). They really avoid sending opponents to the line. Very moneyball-ish. 4. Clear hierarchy. Transition #1. Harden #2. Parsons, Lin, Delfino, Douglas, etc. combined #3. All bigs are support players. None of that ball sharing stuff of Adelman. More like the JVG days. 5. On defense, play the passing lanes, lots of gambling, play to give up the jumpshot, and prefer not to foul. They also don't switch much on defense. Overall, hard to gauge their defensive potential, because I can't separate youngster mistakes or lack of talent/effort. Results Offense breakdown: Highest pace in the NBA. Top 10 in offensive efficiency. high 3pt attempts and made. High amount of foul shots. High transition points. Mediocre half-court production. High TO rate. Defense breakdown: Bottom 10 in defensive efficiency. Give up lots of open shots. High opposing FG%/3ptFG%. High transition points given up(due to high TO rate). Low opponent FT attempts. Average opponent TO rate. Conclusion: The Rockets, despite being absolutely average overall, do somethings very well and other things very badly. Hence, room for improvement. For example, if the Rockets have 1 less TO a game, and rotate better to give up 1 less PPG to opponent, their point differential would have them #5 in the west. That's not a lot to ask. Just slightly better defensive rotation, and slightly better at taking care of the ball. And we'd be a solid playoff team.
the hierarchy thing, if true, proves mchale is an idiot. JVG already proved it is not working here do we need another proof this season?
You can't play good defense when you chuck as many threes as the Rockets do, unless you shoot a very high percentage. Long rebounds lead to chaos at the other end, not getting set, not having your bigs under the basket for rebounds, etc. Greg Popovich will be the first to say that playing good defense is much easier when you play smarter offense, work the shot clock and actually make your opponent use energy on defense rather than chuck up the first three you see. The Rockets failures on defense has more to do with how bad they are on offense, in terms of efficiency and shot selection. Sure, when those shots are going in they look like a solid team, but unless they can shoot 40% as a team from three they will never be above .500 in the standings because they take too many.
The Hierarchy thing isn't true. If it was Parsons would get most of his FGAs unassisted but most of his buckets come from kickouts from penetration from Harden/Lin. The main thing I can say about their offense is that it's (mostly) team centered. Sharing the ball, make the right pass, etc. The coaches say it a lot and they do actually mean it... The one exception to this rule of course is that they rely on Harden as the playmaker and expect him to ISO at times. Otherwise though, all of the 4 Starting Rockets have almost the same amount of FGAs per game. (Rare) This is also one of the "problems" with Jeremy Lin. "He doesn't shoot enough." Well, there aren't enough shots for him to be a 2nd option if the entire 4 starters are a 2nd option.
Also like the above post said, the problem with their transition defense (which if I remember correctly is almost dead-last) has to do with the amount of 3's they take (and miss). They're not a very good 3 point shooting team and I wish they would take less of them.
We have unselfish players, we have a good half court center in Asik who can clean up the boards, we move the ball around well when we try to play in the half court offense, the problem is that we never stick with it. The other problem is that some of our players become too passive and pass up too many open shots in the half court. This is a confidence issue and the coaching staff is responsible for solving that, imo. Players on this team need to understand who they are and what role they play and they need to understand why that role is important. Right now, the Rockets are a helter skelter team with no discipline and I blame that 100% on the coaching.
They already have added a bunch of things since the beginning of the season and anybody that says "they don't have set plays." has no idea what they are talking about. I do hope they'll tweak a few things (adding more player movement) or incorporate a few wrinkles to some of their more simplistic sets. Feels like at times they (have to) go into scramble mode to quickly. For now, the focus should be on fully getting the execution down on their existing sets, however.
The Moneyball theory with layups or 3s or FTs being the most efficient shots sounds correct, in theory. But it nelegects the fact that shooting a 3 as opposed to a mid range 2 would lead to a longer rebound and maybe a fastbreak opportunity and hence worse looking D. Opponents can also game plan against you more easily as they know where you take most of your shots from. Also a lot of better defensive teams usually dare their opponents to take those mid range 2s. And you can't convince me that an open mid range 2 has less chance of going in than a contested layup or 3. Basketball is a fluid game and players should not be so strictly limited by design or they will look tentative. Morey's stats are nice and all but the coaching staff needs to mix it up and don't need to stick to a specific theory so much and be so rigid. And the coaches need to encourage the players to mix it up as well when the situation sees fit. Jordan, Kobe, Wade don't become great players without their great mid range game. And you can't tell me their mid range jumpers are bad shots.
That's ridiculous. If you take a lot of 3s and take quick shots you won't need a high percentage. 40% on 3s is a ridiculously good percentage and not neccesary at all. Plus if you're a young team, there aren't going to be many teams that can transition faster than you, and that takes the most energy.
We are the most inexperienced team in the league, so coaches are keeping the sets very simple, and are banking on repetition and execution. McHale's mantra is: Basketball is very simple; it's not rocket science (true, I recall an interview where he said that. I think it's the one he was asked if he believes in the analytics stuff). He did say though on offense, create space so defenders are spread out. Ball movement should be inside out, and strong side-weak side. Chris Finch should know Adelman's read-and-react offense, since he coached the Vipers with it during Adelman's last year. But that is very difficult to learn and requires elite passing big men. Last year, with Lowry and Dragic, McHale used PnRs one after the after on a single play. He kept telling Dragic turn the corner faster so you can lose your defender. Cut harder. Etc. I think he really is old-school and keeps it simple. Of course, he favors low post players who can score. On defense, shrink the space. Highest priority on defense is the paint. He likes small ball a lot (esp. with PPat) because he feels we are quicker on our defensive rotations. Last season it caused us a lot of grief because he would take out Dalembert and play Scola and PPat together. Well, at least we have Asik and Smith now. He doesn't play rookies who are not ready a lot, because he doesn't want them to pick up bad habits. He benched Budinger for many games last season until he picked up his defense. He'll play the rookies when they prove during practice that they're ready.
^ McHale is obviously a big man coach. His natural instinct is playing through 3, 4, 5, inside out. But unfortuately he is getting struck on a team whose current strength is in the backcourt. That probably explained why he could not come up more creative stuff beyond his keep it as simple as possible simple plays.
Pretty sure every NBA coach is familiar with Adelman's "system". The good ones certainly are. It's pretty simple and lots of teams use parts of it. I highly doubt Finch is on this team because he's familiar with Adelman's offense -- not that you were implying that, I just always thought that was a misnomer. Every half-decent coach could pick up Adelman's offense after watching a certain amount of film.
Yeah, they do have some good sets. But it seems a lot of times they simply don't run them. Not sure if players are tired complacent, and this sort of stuff happens with all teams. So it's kind of hard to tell from my amateur eyes.
This is simply wrong. The Knicks shoot just as much 3s and don't give up a ton of fast break points(unless they play the Rockets). Old JVG Rockets teams, old Rudy T teams, all shot a ton of 3s and their transition defense were fine. The Rockets simply commit way too many turnovers.
A great thread. I have read through it twice, and I have learned a lot. Great job people! Now I need to think through my view of the team.
I still would like to see more Rox players mix up their game with a little more mid range jumpers. It would make their game more unpredictable and more difficult to defend.
It's not a question of the percentage of going in, it's the expected value of that shot. Let's take some basic statistics. According to Hoopsdata NBA League average shooting FG% 10-15 Feet - 40.6% 16-23 Feet - 37.8% 3 point range - 35.6% So, statistically you are correct. It is a HIGHER percentage CHANCE of sinking a mid-range jumper over a 3 point shot. HOWEVER, a 3 point shot is worth... guess what, THREE POINTS. So, you give up 2.2% chance of making a 3 point shot, or 5.0% chance of making a 10-15 foot jumper by taking a 3 point arc shot. What does that mean statistically? If you shoot... 10 x 10-15 foot jumpers, you'll make 40.6% for a total of 8.12 points. 10 x 16-23 foot jumpers, you'll make 37.8% for a total of 7.56 points 10 x 3 point shots, you'll make 35.6% for a total of 10.68 points IF you shoot 35.6% behind the arc, you would need to shoot 53.4% from jumper range to earn the SAME number of points over time. What does this mean? It means that unless your Jump shooting is significantly higher (45%+) than your 3 point shooting you are nearly always better off taking an open 3 than open mid range shot. Now, what about your contested vs uncontested theory? According to Competitive Analytics Consulting, the difference between a contested and uncontested shot is approximately 12%. http://www.d3coder.com/thecity/2012...tical-detail-for-more-effective-shot-defense/ Let's take your worst case scenario using some rough calculations... open jumpers vs contested 3 point shot. 10 x 10-15 foot jumpers (uncontested), 40.6% for a total of 8.12 points. 10 x 16-23 foot jumpers (uncontested), 37.8% for a total of 7.56 points 10 x 3 point shots (contested), 23.6% for a total of 7.08 points So, in this case you are correct. The hand in the face 3 pointer is less efficient than a wide open 10-15 foot shot, and *slightly* less efficient than a wide open 16-23 foot shot. However, the study also notes that this ONLY applies if there is a hand in their face. If the defender does NOT raise their hand there is only a minor measurable difference in shooting accuracy. So just because the person is standing close, even at a distance as close as 2 feet away, there is NO reason to NOT shoot the ball. So, what does this tell us? It tells us that they are better off taking a 3 point shot vs jump shot under EVERY scenario EXCEPT when there is a hand in the face of the shooter behind the 3 point line AND the jump shot is WIDE open. Now what about the Rockets as a Team? 10-15 feet - 39.8% 16-23 feet - 33.2% 3 point range - 35.6% (eFG% - 53.4%) Expected 3 point range (contested) - 22.6% (eFG% - 33.9%) Given the team's poor mid-range shooting, shooting from the 3 point line makes sense EVEN IF CONTESTED unless they are shooting from 10-15 feet and UNCONTESTED. Are the INDIVIDUAL players that shoot the Mid-range well enough to justifying shooting it? Not many. Delfino, Patterson, Parsons and Harden are the only players shooting above 35% from 16-23 feet. Add Asik from the list if you're talking 10-15 feet. And this only applies if they are looking at shooting the 3 with a hand in their face and they can get a completely uncontested mid-range jumper. So, taking a lot of 3's is the best offensive choice for this team the VAST majority of the time if they can generate open looks UNLESS they can get a drive to the basket. Is there a time when they should cut down on 3's? Yes. There is an argument to be made that you should cut down on 3's LATE in the game IF you have built a substantial lead. Since 3's go in LESS than other shots, there is a higher volatility per possession. IE, they are more streaky. As such, you want to reduce the number of 3's to stabilize your rate of scoring. In other words, you should take more high percentage shots (birds in the hand) so that you don't end up with empty possessions and give the opposing team a chance to get back into the game. The 2nd reason you would do it late in the game is to reduce quick scoring opportunities (transition points) for a team that is trying to get back into the game. As for the general transition scoring argument this would only be a serious issue IF you are playing against a team that has competitive rebounding (positive rebounding differential) AND has a good transition offense. IE, they are fast on the break. Just for reference, how good are the Rockets in transition? According to Teamrankings... http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/team-stat/scoring-defense The Rockets score the 4th most points per game in transition (17.6) and are the 8th most efficient team scoring in transition (1.981 ppp). On the defensive end, the Rockets are the 6th worst team in defending transition (1.864 ppp allowed) and allow the 28th most points in transition (16.0 ppg). http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-fastbreak-points-per-game The Rockets are also the 10th best in the NBA in rebounding match ups on the opponent's end. http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-defensive-rebounding-pct So yes, transition CAN hurt the Rockets, but the number of teams that can do so enough to offset the value of shooting from the 3 point line is not as large as you would think. Just some thoughts...
I wish Lin and Harden would do more stop and pop. It's usually all the way to the hole or dish off, for them. Parsons is only inside the 3 when he's following a shot for a putback, or cutting for a quick dish. Pat is the only starter attempting midrange, which is kind of weird. It probably also has to do with the lack of off-the-ball player movement. Our perimeter spacing is really good, but we pay for that in poor player positioning. They're all so far out at the 3 that it takes a lot of distance traveled (time) to draw players in for a screen and/or midrange shot.
