You do a lot of complaining for someone who doesn't watch games: Seriously, the same old act with very little analysis.
Thank you for researching me. What analysis do you want? You want some stats. The proof is right in front of you. I've come to realized there's just a bunch of dumb fans on here or just incapable of thinking for themselves. The same old act is this team.
Hahaha, I didn't have to research, you've bragged multiple times about not watching the team in game threads. I just don't get people who are perpetually negative about the direction of the team, and seem to relish when the team does poorly so they can be proven right. Here's a start: what would you have done differently from Morey? And not BS answers like "find a new coach", be specific. Who was available and who would you hire? What players were available and how would you have attained them? We have a GM who has brought two top 15 players in for next to nothing, assembled a pretty good cast around them, and still has assets to continue building. Our shot distribution is VERY similar to the champion Spurs. People complained about our defense last year and now we're a top 5 defensive team this year. So what do you want? More midrange shots? I've come to realize there's just a bunch of dumb armchair GM's on here who are just incapable of keeping up with changing nature of basketball.
Cherry pick what I say for your convenience. I've said many times what this team should do. Don't worry, I'll be here come playoff time and say it again. I don't care what big names we got. I'm suppose to be content because of names.
It's funny how you want some deep analysis for your analytical mind like it's rocket science. What are fundamentals of basketball SC1414?
I'm happy with the status quo. Usually, when you complain about something, it is because there is a world you imagine that is preferable. You haven't presented that world. You just pop into threads to say "I told you so", to complain about Morey, or to tell everyone you're sure that the Rockets are going to lose in the playoffs. I think Morey has done an excellent job. You are condescending to those of us who do, implying that you think there were better moves to be made. My question is simple: What are they? The fact that you a) don't watch the Rockets often, and b) have rarely added anything constructive, leads me to believe you actually don't know that much about this team. I'm open to being proven wrong.
Appreciate it and thanks for answering my question when you just condescendingly ironically quoted me.
Everytime I run across a poster who thinks midrange shots have no place in the game, yes ALL the shots ranging from ~4 ft of the basket to the 3pt line, I can't help but sympathize with their stupidity of trying to rationalize a theoretical standpoint of efficiency, negating the dynamic and variable nature of the game. "If we just shoot 3s and make layups derp derp derp..." And please show me post season shot distribution of both the spurs and rockets to validate your point...because our offenses couldn't be more different. They have shot a lot more 3s and succeeded, but they do so with one of the most disciplined and versatile offenses in the league.
This is exactly right. It's one thing to be critical of the team and present what you think is wrong/why that is so and some realistic ways to change those things. It's another to go into every thread and say or allude to a combo of these few things: -"I told you so!" -"Morey sucks" -Use Morey quotes out of context -"We don't run any plays!!" (which we do) -"I've stated my points previously. Not going to do it again" (Um okay. Since no one here knows your points, just the one liners you regurgitate in every thread...this totally makes sense) I don't think the poster you replied to said that mid-range shots are bad. You kind of just established a strawman from nothing. Also, Harden's midrange game has become deadly! I wish he had it during last year's playoffs versus Portland. It'll help the team this year quite a bit to have his step-back jumper and one legged fade-away shots come playoff time.
I never said that the midrange has NO use. Guys who are good at shooting the midrange can do so (and Morey has said this VERBATIM multiple times.) The three point shot is more efficient because even the best midrange shooters don't hit a high percentage of them. Also it's SO funny that you justify needing the midrange to increase variance ("the dynamic and variable nature of the game"), yet when the article says that the three point shot INCREASES variance, you're ready to jump all over it so that you can continue being anti-Morey. I'm fine with the midrange when you have good midrange shooters (i.e. Harden taking them).
Are you saying the Spurs don't take quality shots? Because I can swear everyone thinks they do... and they suck at mid-range shots.
I think a 3s-centric offense is great if you have a good inside game and ball handlers who can get to the basket. In the end, whether we make the 3 pointer or not, the spacing is invaluable and opens up open shots, which in my mind, trump any sort of statistic (I'm still a fan of a long wide open 2 pointer on a good shooter)
How about we just need players who are consistent with whatever kind of shot? Last time I checked we're not even at the top ten of the rankings in terms of 3P% and FG% as a team.
well with the amount of 3's we take compared to other teams, you have to expect our FG% to be lower. In order to get a more accurate predictor, you must either use TS% or eFG%. In eFG% we are tied for 11th place at 50.6%, and for TS% we are 14th at 54%. Both of these are much more highly ranked than our outright FG% of 43.5% which is ranked 25th in the league, so our offense is honestly not as bad as it is made out to be, even though we have struggled on that end this season.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RprMPis226k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Again, I am not talking about the Spurs. I do not have any statistics on them, so cannot say anything definitively about them, as to whether they (or other good teams) have an optimal strategy. I'm simply saying that the "always 3" strategy can be justified if (and only if) the expectation value for 3s is always greater than the expectation value of 2s, irrespective of opposing team defense, offense pattern predictability, etc. If there is evidence to that effect, (and there may be in Morey's database), I would be convinced. Otherwise, its really one person's opinion against another's, and the debate could be endless.
