Simple Explanation: Scola In Causes Pat/Hill Regression

Am i the only person who gave this thread 1 star for Turrible?

 

With a full offseason to work with Patterson more offensively and defensively, I agree with trading Scola. The Rockets will more than likely get a healthy Yao Ming next year and/or trade/sign a Center. That will allow Hayes to FINALLY play @ his natural position.

Hayes, Patterson, Hill, Scola = Too many PFs.

Trade Scola while his value is high.

 

Agree to disagree.

1. Kyle Lowry & Kevin Martin have consistently dominated their counterparts this year, giving us perhaps a top 5 offense in the NBA.
2. We need a huge upgrade at Small Forward.
3. Luis Scola/Patrick Patterson is a studly PF spot.
4. Anderson Varejao/Chuck Hayes is a studly C spot.

Put me in the boat that says Varejao combined with Scola, Patsquatch and Chuck (Along with an upgrade at the SF) would give us a top 10 defense to go with our top 5 offense. Which, in essence equals = contender.

 

I will continue to paint the same scenerio.

Kaman for scola and miller
Sign thaddeus young

Scola and miller cancels out kaman contract,but kaman only has next year on the books. The rockets opened up the 4 spot for Hill or patterson to play minutes and grow. Kaman replaces scola's post game offensively and is a better rebounder and defender.

Thad Young gives the rockets a long,athletic 3 man who can do it all without taking alot of shots. He's still a young player and still getting better. Both scenerios set the rockets up go go after williams and howard in both 2012 or through the season. The rockets would still be competing for the playoffs. Win-win for everyone.

 

Why don't you go away and post your crap on the ESPN boards, where other equally ludirous chumps find their way? Has the GARM sunk this low? What a crap thread. Someone posts a reasonable response to a stupid premise and gets this **** in reply.

(insert roll-eyes here, please)

 

Thad would be a freaking awesome addition...

 

I dont want Anderson Varejao, he flops to much

 

Man I'm glad people here aren't making GM decisions.

"Trade Scola for nothing."
"I don't want Anderson Varajao, he flops."
"I don't want Kaman, he's ugly."

Anyways, the point of the thread was about Scola causing a regression for Patrick Patterson and Jordan Hill. And this is because Scola is a good post player and poor defender. There's a hundred ways to look at it. Is Scola's lack of D contributing to the development of 2Pats help defense, or is 2Pat learning from Chuck Hayes great defense even if it means he never has to help him when they're on the court together. By the same token, is 2Pat learning to post up by working with Scola in practice or does he let his offense take a back seat when he's on the court with Scola?

I personally think our bigs are currently in the best situation of any young bigs in the league to improve.

You have 3 elite skill specific players to learn from.
Defensive positioning from Chuck Hayes.
Offensive footwork from Luis Scola.
High post passing and offensive awareness from Brad Miller.

(Not to mention CD, Jack Sikma, Yao Ming, and possibly Hakeem, who supposedly offered to work with Jordan Hill who supposedly didn't take him up on it.)

If 2Pat, Hill, and Thabeet can't improve here they will be GARBAGE anywhere else.

Morey gets a lot of credit for finding all these diamonds in the rough, but there's a lot to be said for the staff that are developing these players. I'm still amazed by the improvement of Lowry's shooting and decision making, Chuck Hayes' passing, ability to finish layups and floaters?? and Patrick Patterson's rapid development as a help defender.

 

They don't have to be as good as Yao but because we're better 1-4 than any of Yao's teams ever were that's not a requirement. It's all a balancing act.

 

Good point...except what about Martin's (virtually nonexistent) scoring in the last 6 or so minutes of the fourth quarter? You need a somebody - several somebodies - to step up in that case. Scola happens to be one of our somebodies that does that right now.

 

Better yet, YOU go do the math and post it here. It's your thread and your argument is pretty weak. The math might make it more convincing. But don't start a thread, then tell people to do the work that'll bolster your point.

 

When did we acquire Varejao?

Yeah I know you are assuming we do but if you think the Cavs are going to trade him away for little or nothing you are sadly mistaken. The Cav's will want Lowry or Patterson and a first.

As for Scola being a problem. It's not just Scola it's scol and with Scola and Hayes and Budinger along the frontline we have the most unproductive shot blocking trio across the front line by far. I think if you had Dwight Howard at center than Scola would be the perfect pf. Or if you had Iguodala at the SF than Scola would fit in. Scola and Bud are a bad mix and something has to give there.

Also I am on the Hill bandwagon I expect him to improve and with Patterson they both need more minute. Those Minutes have to come from somwhere. Scola is the logical choice to get reduced minutes. ANd if you believe Morey is a risk taker and I do, (e.g... Trading Battier to get more minutes for the other guys) than you hae to believe he will clean up the PF problem.

 

I've seen you advocate this..... but why would the Clippers trade Kaman for a PF? I mean, they have a fairly good one already, and Scola I don't think can really complement Griffin.

 

Totally agree with you, some dumb statements of Scola haters begin to get tiresome.

IF Scola would be so bad for the team, his +/- wouldn't be the best for Rockets' inside players. He's half injured now, and even then, Ppat scored less than the half than him last night, despite not commmanding double team. Besides, his+/- was worse also.

IF Scola's game would be so bad for Adelman style, don't you think he would have noticed?

 

What? It makes perfect sense for a team to take on $28 million for a backup instead of just keeping a $12 million expiring…

 

4 points below average seems pretty good when considering they were adjusting on the fly, suddenly having to play without their top low-post scorer. The sample size is far too small, but I could see that average to go up once they get used to the new rotation.

Plus, with the defense improves with Patterson starting, so the opposing team's points-per-100-possesion average probably goes down. The net effect could be that we're scoring more than the other team.

Having Scola out could have been a disaster last season, but now we have some offense from our other bigs. Hayes is actually scoring, and our other bigs like Patterson, Miller and even Hill put up enough points to keep the defense from crowding the perimeter players, where we get most of our points.

 

What I'd like to know is how Scola affects the +/- or points-per-possession average of other players. In other words does having Scola needing the ball take away some of the efficiency of our guards and wings?

I'm speculating that it does, but maybe not enough to compensate for the 18 points that Scola has been averaging. Not yet anyways.

 

With Martin and Granger both averaging 20 points a game and having a real post presence with Chandler and Hayes. Hell yeah I'd take that.

 

I love Scola and believe that he could be a major peice on a contender... after all I've seen players like Kurt Rambis and Udonis Haslem start for championship teams and neither could hold Scola's jock.

But the more important point that the OP makes is that it may take trading Scola in order for PPat to max out his talent. I think anyone that has been watching can see that PPat's ceiling is much higher than Scola's. The guy plays really good defense and he guards the rim. Plus he looks like he will be a very complete player on the offensive end.

I don't know if PPat will be able to realize his full potential playing behind Scola. I for one think the Rockets will be a better team with PPat getting 34+ minutes at the PF spot if he is allowed to fully develop.