Did you listen to him? He said more in this interview than I've heard him say before. He used the phrase "having to be horrible" like Top 3 horrible. Not just "bad."
hey why did Marcus Morris have to pay Chandler Parsons rent? spending big i guess, he should watch out
But wasn't there a study by the geeks that a normal play at the end had a significantly higher percentage of scoring than an ISO play? It also makes sense because the defense can focus on just one or two players. And just by observation, most of end game iso play end up with a difficult shot by the star player.
Was the study about just ISO versus every other play, because I don't think that is what Morey is talking about. To me, he was explaining why coaches don't run their normal offense at the end -- especially motion. Coaches prefer ball control and choreographed plays, with well-practiced timing. I agree that that is the more common way to run plays at the end of games. Seems the onus is on you to say why most coaches are wrong, than to have others explain why they do it. Define "a normal play."
Morris probably lost the bet the other night when Kansas was beaten by Kentucky. I heard that he'll also pay for Patrick's family vacation. Wow he must have gambled big and confident that the Jayhawks will win it all.:grin:
I thought this was because he would be fine with "tanking" and rebuilding as is norm, but Les wants to rebuild without bottoming out. In essence, he'd be speaking out against the owner's wishes. I could be wrong, though.
Good post. I'd add that all this talk about ISO vs. running a 'normal' play is also very much dependent on time and score. I think Morey is pretty much exclusively talking about end-game situations here, where I, too, believe that isolating is the safest way to go. That, again, is if you have enough time. If there's less than ~6-7 seconds to go and you're tied I think you might be better of running some type of action. If you're down, you usually want to score as quickly as possible, so going ISO probably isn't the way to go here either. If it's not an end game situation pretty much everything changes. Depending on time and score you may want to run a certain play you know you can run in X amount of time, so you can go 2 for 1. If that's not the case, I'm of the belief that pretty much everthing goes. You run what you do best. Whether that's an ISO, pick&roll, misdirection or post play, a two-man game or some guy coming of a pin-down or a few screens. It really doesn't matter. If you have a balanced team and there's no matchup for you to attack, then I don't see the downside in running some type of read-and-react set either. It's just all dependent on time and score. In fact, clock-management, to me, seems to be a bigger issue for some coaches than the type of plays they run.
A "normal play" is a play your offense is good at scoring. Of course, for some team, their best offense is an isolation play. What I am trying to say is, why do teams go away from their best offense and just let their star player create a shot at the end when every defender knows who is going to shoot? Does that really increase their chances of winning? I am not saying that the coaches are "wrong" in the sense that they are doing something unreasonable. But could it be that it is a "safe" play for coaches? If it doesn't work, you can't blame the coach because it's designed to manage the clock, which is what the coach is supposed to do. And you can't blame the star either because it is supposed to be a very difficult shot. I pointed out the extreme case of Guy Lewis' team at the NCAA Final. They were fantastic running and gunning, building a 10+ point lead. Then for the sake of clock management, they went away from their normal offense and they couldn't score, letting the opponent come back to beat them. Hypothetical case: The ball is in the hands of a good shooter (but not a star or known "clutch" guy) having a wide open look with 15 seconds on the clock at the end with the score tied. Do you want him to shoot or do you want him to pull back so you can run the clock down? Shooting the ball would be a "normal" play because that's good offense in normal time.
I know Jason works for the Rockets, but he does a good job of getting bits and bobs of info out of Morey. Nice read, and it just seems like two friends talking ball, thanks for posting. DD
He cannot voice his opinion on how the league structures things like the CBA and the draft or else he might get fined. He already got fined last year for saying that he would prefer a hard salary cap with no other rules.
I don't think it's so much about Morey wanting to tank than the league rewarding losing which Morey probably isn't too fond of. There's a thread on the whole Q&A (which I'd recommend, if you've missed it) http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=217877
All we can do is speculate, doubt anybody here talks to both Daryl and Les on a regular basis (or if anybody here does, doubt they will share). I think he does want to tank but Les wants to win. He understands the value of a high draft pick especially with our obvious need for a star. Honestly, we are near the bottom in attendance and TV ratings, so we can afford to tank so not sure why Les doesn't view tanking as a positive for the team.
Clutch posted info that Fox are fudging the numbers because the Rockets are leaving the network. News Corp being unethical? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118044335?refCatId=13
Yeah. His Morey interviews are nice. He doesn't lead with long questions that the interviewee just answers with yes or no. Maybe it's because Jason knows how much smarter the guy he's talking to is.
Since the vast majority of coaches do not run their normal offense in last possessions at end of game, or end of quarters (for that matter), you actually have limited stats to back up your claim, nor do any "Geek Study." If you compare success of regular games situations, to success at the end when the defense locks down, you would be comparing apples to oranges. What you are good at scoring with on a regular basis, doesn't mean it succeeds at same rate in specific situations? Besides, all motion offenses (all of them) have ISO plays or set go-to action plays once the clock gets under 10 seconds. If the motion didn't succeed, Ball Control plays are still part of their "normal plays." All they are doing at the end game is eliminating the 10 seconds of motion and burning time to go to their late shot-clock "normal plays."
