Its not that alot of people underestimate Rafer, its the fact that he can't shoot the ball with a high enough percentage. I don't want a point guard that can't shoot the ball. With so much commanding of double teams by yao and tmac we will have wide open looks from battier, rafer and juwan. battier and juwan have proved they can knock down jumpers. Rafer hasn't. He has been way too inconsistent. He may be able to make passes and bring the ball up the court, but so can j. lucas. So, needless to say im not too thrilled he is still our starting point guard.
I don't remember where they ranked but I remember this as a big weakness. This is one reason the Sonics had our number during those years. Rudy would moan about how we would get stops at critical times but couldn't close it out by getting the rebound. This should enlighten some of us who discount the rebounding of guards and put all their stock in the C and PF. Despite the fact Dream and OT were both very good rebounders the 94 team was not that good a rebounding team. If they were actually in the bottom 5 that would be amazing. Rebounding is a team issue and it falls on everyone on the floor, especially with the high % of long range shots taken now. On Rafer, if we had a solid SG who could fill it up, his bad shooting would be more acceptable. But with our SG position as jumbled as it is, Rafer's shooting kills us. I expect him to have a better year. He's got to do more than just take care of the ball.
Here's a potential starting 5: Yao: has the teams highest shooting %. Juwan: can knock down shots. Battier @ 3: can knock down shots. TMac @ 2: can knock down shots. Rafer, as the PG, would be the least reliable shooter on the floor. Given that his assist/turnover ratio is so good, I can live with that if the other 4 spots are ok ...and it seems like that is the case. Now, if we have injuries again and Ryan Bowen is our starter AGAIN, I'll make a prediction that Rafer's FG% wont look so hot. Just a guess.
The problem with that though is you have to eliminate yao and tmac when they get doubled: juwan-only good from 15-17 ft out battier-decent to good shooter alston-approx 30% shooter so our options thus are limited
Seriously? Dude, you are all doom and gloom. Relax a little. Yao and TMac are doubled everytime they touch the ball but they both still average over 20ppg. But lets assume that both Yao and TMac are doubled (which only leaves one more defender, btw) and Juwan and Battier are both being covered by the only remaining guy ...I have enough faith that Rafer can: 1. penetrate to find an assist (he is GREAT at assists ...best we've seen in years). 2. get a layup (since all four other players are being doubled) 3. Hit a wide open shot the likes of which he never saw last season because he was called upon to be a primary scorer ...not just a PG. All teams have weaknesses. Great teams know how to mask those weaknesses. The '94 Rockets team were terrible rebounders ...but you'd never know it.
sorry, but history has shown me otherwise. my option is he takes the wide open shot and misses 70% of them and causes fast breaks going the other way. I think everybody knew the 94 team was horrible on the boards which is why the national media questioned the thorpe-drexler trade. We will have a hard time masking our weaknesses because we really didn't get that much better offensively. We will still continue to be a great defensive team but will lack alot on offense. i think at best as we sit right now with our roster, we can be no better than a 2nd round playoff team. there are 3 teams better than us and a possible 4th: spurs mavs suns clippers(depends on maggette) i guess i am taking more of a pessimistic view of the rockets while you are taking more of a optimistic view. i hope you are right though
Actually, last season he shot 38% ...not 30%. From 3pt, he shot 33%. The previous season, when he wasn't a primary scorer, he shot 42% and 36%. Those are more realistic #'s for the coming season than your dramitized figures you keep throwing around. Still not stellar #'s but I can live with it given that he is otherwise a quality PG and if our other teammates can hit shots. But I guess you'd prefer Steve Francis that shoots better but turns the ball over constantly. ...and they were wrong. I strongly disagree. We WILL be better offensively on the backs of TMac and Yao. Those guys have to carry the burden on this team. If they don't, then this is a mediocre team. When I say carry the burden, I don't mean they have to score all the points themselves. But they do need to demand enough respect on the court that they affect EVERY play even if they don't have the ball. Furthermore, they need to make the right decisions at the right times to optimize every scoring opportunity. That's what sets a star player apart from a superstar. This team needs our stars to turn into superstars. When that happens, the sky is the limit just like that Laker's team full of scrubs but had Shaq and Kobe. I don't see myself as being pessimstic ...I see myself as being realistic. Here's some reality: 1. Yao will get hurt again this summer and/or won't play to the level of last season. 2. TMac will get hurt again. 3. Most or all our new players won't prove to be solid contributors that can hit open shots. If any ONE of those things turn out to be true, this is a mediocre team ...at best. BUT if 1-3 above turn out to be false, which I see as being within the realm of posibility because it isn't that big of a stretch esp given what we saw in '93-'94, then this team CAN contend. That's all I'm saying. It CAN happen with this squad. Is it likely? Probably not. But since I'm a Rocket fan ...I'll remain hopeful. But I point out, the success or failure of this team lies with Yao and TMac FIRST ...not with our role players. Any role player looks automatically better of the stars play like superstars ...and that is my point.
If Lebron, Carmello, Wade or Pierce or Duncan or Dirk or Rip get hurt what kind of tem will those teams be? I don't believe that is such a realistic view. Its a hypothetical. A hypothetical that makes me glad we have two options instead of one already. Rafer may not be perfect but I believe if he gets constant wide open shots, they will become practice and he will begin burying them. He can get the ball there all he has to do is keep shooting them or will find a way to penetrate and pop or pass. Its not like nobody is running at him like Bowen. Every team is going to contest and a solid team will exploit the shift in D. If we can set up plays where a big guy has to run at Rafer,(the way other teams force Yao to run at them, God I hate that JVG makes him do that!), then we have the opportunity to take advantage of the situation with a mismatch somewhere closer to the basket. I like his tempo, his set up passes to Yao, and his unselfishness. I think 90% of the shooters in the league are inconsistent but I believe with Rafers playground credentials, he will attack more. I just think he's trying not to dribble too much and to get his teammates involved. I also believe since he has not been on many succesful teams in the league, that last year was frustrating with the injuries and that he will thrive when his team is at full strength and he is finally on a team with a chance in this league. I truly believe alot of his poor play was mental fatigue, in a lost cause season. It happens. When you have a lot of hope and the world falls apart it is easy to falter. I think this year, the team as well as Rafer, will improve. How much is to be determined. Lets just wait and see. I would rather have a team that scores with smart baket ball, than a team that relies on just three individual scorers. Even a scorer is merely a role on a good team. Even Wade will admit that. Rafer has not had a good chance yet, lets give him a shot, and perhaps the shot will take advantage of him.
i dont think rafer is a bad point guard at all, the guy has shown that he can't carry a team but he can run the team's offense. even with our stars out with injuries he was still able to rack up an avg of 6 assists. i'd rather have him as point guard for next year, to see if he can really fit in our team, then have SF back. remeber when everyone was complaining that steve was a ball hog? well in my perspective, rafer is almost the complete opposite.
and yes, i do think that tracy and yao could surpass koby and shaq's duo, when tmac came here 2 years ago, yao was still maturing as a player. now that he's starting to understand how things work, this duo's future is in tracy's hands, or rather on his back.
I don't think im too far off in my dramatized figures....his percentages have been decreasing every year. Shooting 30% from 3 point land is not far from the 33% he shot last year. And he did get wide open looks, he just couldn't knock them down. Francis was a selfish point guard/2 guard who didn't have much range anyways. I would prefer somebody with a decent to good history of a pass first with better shooting percentages than rafer. Scrubs? Horry, Fisher, Fox, Horace Grant, and then later when they lost, Malone and Payton? I would hardly call them scrubs. They had a previous history of playing well. I called you and optimist, not a pessimist. Agreed, the success and failure depend on our superstars, however success is then limited by the role players they play with. And its not automatic that role players play better with stars. Some role players play better with certain superstars vs others.
1st, there is a HUGE difference between 37% and 30%. 2nd, he shot over 41% twice in his career in non-consecutive seasons so I wouldn't call that trending downwards. I'd say that is a result of inconsistent play with various teams. I expect Rafer to have nearly a career year because he now knows the system for the 1st time in his career and hopefully will have a full cast around him. But we'll see. His assist/turnover ratio is good which is hard to find so I'm willing to give him another year of consistent play to see what he's really capable of. Including Horry (who is a career 7ppg/5rpg guy), none of those guys were EVER even briefly mentioned as an outside possibility of an all-star team. That was not a talented team. Decent enough role players who brought toughness and veteran leadership. Scrappy guys but not "talented." ...not unlike our '94 team. The stars carried that team which allowed their role players to flourish where they wouldn't have otherwise. It's called making teams match-up against you. Typo, sorry. I'm not being optimistic ...I'm being realistic. It is entirely realistic that if Yao/TMac play exceptionally well that this team will gel around them. If they don't play well, this team won't gel regardless of who's on the team. Phew. You just need role players that are able to find their role and do it to the best of THEIR ability. They don't need to be all-stars. Of our newcomers, IMO only Snyder is a big question mark in terms of somebody that is capable of adjusting their game to fit this team. Unfortunately, I beleive we need Snyder to step up his game more than anybody. If he can become a legit starting SG or 6th man, then we are much better shape. If he can't make himself usefull, we'll still be in the market for an athletic SG. I have no doubts that Novak, JL3, Head and Sura (if playing) can all find ways to contribute and hit wide open shots. They are all smart, hard-working players willing to put in the work and most importantly ...can hit wide-open shots. Defensively they are perhaps liabilities but we play team defense and I no doubt we'll be fine in the defense category.
I meant from 3 point land You said he shot 33% from 3 point land. Which is close to 30% Lets clarify scrubs from good role players then. Scrubs are the 10,11, and 12 man off the bench. Role players start and 6,7 or 8 man off bench. They aren't supposed to be allstars? i never said that And, you said it yourself, veteran leadership. The guys we have arent veterans except for juwan and battier. That lakers team was a talented team, shoot they won 3 championships in a row! This team is still a year away from contending for a championship based on the fact that the role players will need to gain experience if we keep them past this year.
To compare the average TmReb% of the two groups: Group A (with Battier as PF) and Group B (without Battier as PF) has two major deficiencies: 1. Difference in total minutes between the 2 groups: Group A's 604 total mins vs Group B's 1506 total mins. Group B is 2.5 times of Group A's total mins. Group A has a smaller sample size. Thus, Group A's data is subjected to bigger deviation. Actually, the bigger deviation is obviously showed in Group A's data: 4 lineups below 47.5% and 2 lineups above 53.5%. 2. Difference in total lineups between the 2 groups: Group A has only 6 lineups vs Group B has 14 lineups. It's obvious that Battier played PF in a very limited scenario in last season (probably for matchup of small lineup). Thus, the ineffectiveness of rebounding by Battier was masqueraded. So, the TmReb% in Group A are some favorable results. I chose to use the MODE of TmReb% in the 2 groups for comparison because of: - The MODE of TmReb% in the two groups show up in the largest mins lineups. - For Group A, the MODE of TmReb% 47.5% is very close to the TmReb% of 2nd largest mins lineup 44.0%. - For Group B, the MODE of TmReb% 50.0% also appears in the 2nd largest mins lineup and is very close to the TmReb% of 4th largest lineup 49.5%. I think using the MODE of TmReb%, ie 47.5% vs 50.0% is a better comparison than using the average TmReb% of the 2 groups. But no matter how u view the data in the 2 groups, it's an obvious result that Group B is better than Group A. Somebody can always say the result is insignificant. BUT, there is always the DIFFERENCE.
Bottom 5 rebounding in the league!? Which championship season??? 1994-1995* team / total rebound Rockets---3545 Sonics----3381 Cavaliers--3443 Jazz------3444 Kings-----3471 Bucks----3280 There were still about a handful of teams behind the Rockets in total rebounding in 1994-1995, I dont think it is necessary to list them. 1995-1996* team / total rebound Rockets------3320 Jazz---------3286 Hornets------3227 Bucks--------3250 Cavaliers-----3282 Pistons-------3162 Bullets--------3263 Timberwolves-2973 Clippers-------3140 There were 8 teams behind the Rockets in rebounding. Bottom 5? U got me!!!??? The Rockets didnt play well in 1995-1996 regular season, but the Rockets were still the top 10 offensive team. Poor rebounding (==> decline in defense) + bottom half offense are deadly combinations. *data according to baskertball-reference.com
Thanks for providing those stats. So in BOTH championship years, the Rockets were bottom 10 in the league. Further evidence that rebounding, while certainly nice to have, isn't a necessary componant. That being said, we'll need to improve just a tad on offense to compenstate for our lack of rebounding.
Well, I don't recall you specifying 3pt. But giving you that, 3% difference is still sizeable, IMO. A 39% 3pt shooter vursus a 42% is the difference between an average shooter and a good shooter. That's relative. I am comparing players accross the NBA ...not by what spot they come off the bench. Fox was a starter. He wouldn't start for last season's Miami team. Nor would he start on the Pistons. Nor the championship Spurs, etc etc. Rick Fox is just not that good of a player in NBA terms. But he had a role to play and he played it VERY well on that team. Same goes for Horry, Fisher, etc. ...and that's my point. Our current roster, despite not having many fancy names on it, has the ability to gel and make some noise. Chances are ...you are probably right. All I'm saying is it is POSSIBLE this squad could gel and make some noise. I'm not ready to simply write them off without seeing them play.
Championship seasons were 93/94 and 94/95. We were dead last in offensive rebounding in the 94 season, and second to last in offensive rebounding in the 95 season. We were 5th in defensive rebounding in 94 (very good), but only 19th in the 95 season.
Sorry, I misunderstood your stats. But I clearly recall that the Rockets were bottom of the league in some rebounding stat so I checked out your beloved basketball-reference website (which I noticed not only the link you provided was not the exact query ...just a top level URL and you even misspelled that). Anyway, Basketball-Reference says the Rockets were DEAD LAST in offensive rebounds in '94. In '95, they were the THIRD WORST. I beleive that was the stat I was thinking aobut. I just thought it was an interesting stat given that they were a championship team. No biggy.
