You're kidding, right? Have you noticed that lower scoring teams are the growing trend in the NBA? Indiana won 61 games last year averging just 1.6ppg more than us. Detroit went to the Finals averaging 0.8ppg more than us. San Antonio won 57 games scoring 1.7ppg more than us. It's not like JVG coming to town was the only reason the offense was so bad last year. In 03-04, here are some of the teams that scored less than the year before: San Antonio: -4.3ppg Indiana: -5.4ppg Minnesota: -3.6ppg New Jersey: -5.1ppg We scored 3.9ppg less last year than the year before. Big deal. We also won two more games. We can win 50+ games averaging around 90ppg. There's no reason the offense shouldn't be better this year than last.
Well here's to hoping that T-mac's decline in numbers is due only to that back....and that Tmac is healthy for the whole season....and that he doesn't force a trade on us!
Sorry to interrupt, I haven't been reading up in this little discussion but i can't help myself from commenting on this little tibit. I think its a pretty widely accepted view that JVG can't coach offense. He plays ugly ball. etc. etc. I'm here to set the record straight. Lay down the law, so to speak. These guys who say this(which is the majority of people, with a few exceptional exceptions) are r****ded. I take that back, thats insulting for the autistic to put you people in their class(I'm looking straight in your eyes Tom Tolbert). Houston's offense last year, which was still under the metamorphisis into Gundy Ball, was far from bad. It was pretty good. And considering a core piece of the offense, Francis, didn't even fit in the offense, our offense was very good given the circumstances. Houston didn't score much, 89.8 points per game, which was 25th in the league. And from this is were the rumblings of the likes of Tom Tolbert are begotten. However, this is a misconception. We don't score much because we use up most of the clock. We slow the game down. That doesn't mean our offense sucks, just that the pace of the game is slow. We need to ignore PPG and focus on what really determines whether an offense is good or bad: FG%. The percentage of times you score with your oppurtunities. This is what determines the efficiency of an offense. I don't care if my team uses 23 seconds of the shotclock every possesion, if they score 70% of the time, and end up averaging 50 points per game, they will still be winning. Rockets FG%: .442 13th in the league Now thats nothing spectacular, like the Sactown, Dallas, Twolves offenses, but its certainly not awful. Also, like i mentioned, we were still transitioning from the Rudy offense to the Gundy Offense for most of the year, so we didn't start off pistols blasting. Some other noteable offenses: San Antonio: .442 14th Utah: .436 17th Indiana: .435 18th DETROIT: .435 19th So how is it that the World Champion Detroit Pistons coached by the great Larry Brown have a worse offense than us, yet, win more games?? Detroit is very similar to us, they also play a slowed down, low possesion game. So how is it that they score 0.3 more than us even though their offense isn't as efficient? And how is it that their opponents score almost a staggering 4 points less than ours, even though our Opponent FG% is slightly better than theirs? I mean, thats what separated us from the champs. We had a 1.7 point DIF while Detroit had a 5.8 point DIF, second best in the league. The answer: your beloved Steve Francis. Well, ok, not just Steve Francis. Its the TURNOVERS. We had a mediocre offense, at the same level as Detroit, Indiana, San Antonio, Denver, Memphis etc. While with a GREAT defense, 2nd in the league behind San Antonio. Just in front of the great Detroit Pistons coached by the great Larry Brown. But we were also the second most turnover prone team. Thats what separated us from the other defensive teams ala Detroit, Spurs, Indiana. Turnovers = more possesions for your opponents and less possesions for yourself. With THAT said, (and now that it's time for bed), let me conclude. Now that we have traded away our turnovers, which i have always believed was our biggest problem. And which you should believe is our biggest problem after reading all that, if your learned anything at all, and if we can match our defensive effort of last year, we will be at or above the levels of Detroit, Indiana and San Antonio. I've already showed that our offense and defense are comparable with these teams, however, what may take us over the top is something else. An intangible. SuperstarS. We have unstoppable Superstars, in addition to the good offense and suffocating defense. With the exception of Spurs, none of those teams has a Superstar. And the Spurs only have one, while we are on the verge of having two. So if everything falls into place, we WILL be improved, and we WILL be considered among the upper echelon of the NBA. And Larry Brown? He can suck a nut.
Ah..... i see great minds think alike. But since i wrote 4 times as much, my mind is proportionally great.
