As far as I saw in the game, he was doing everything the play called for, except he didn't cut as hard as say a Luther Head or Bonzi Wells. He came back prematurely from an injury, so I'm not going to sit here and say he should cut really hard, because it's probably impossible for him. I'd like to see more energy from him though, it really helps the team out when he's energetic. Even if he isn't playmaking or scoring, if he's moving with energy out there, it rubs off on everyone on the team.
TMac was given credit b/c Rafer got a wide open 3 point look. He was WIDE OPEN b/c his man doubled TMAc and the second defender blew the defensive rotation and didn't rotate to Rafer. Therefore Rafer was open. Rafer chose to drive instead of shoot, but TMac created what should have been a wide open shot, so it was a good play. Have you been poked in the eye? The replay showed he got poked. The reaction is to drop down and grab your eye, not chase the player. It hurts...badly. When a 6'7 player drives to the hoop and tries to score, it's a good shot. When DWade, Lebron or Kobe does that, it's considered a good shot. It's good b/c you can draw a foul (points-good), make it at a short distance (points-good) or miss it close up (miss-neutral). It isn't a bad shot.
Whats the point of setting up criteria if you're just going to overrule it with how you think it should be graded? My point all along was that your grading criteria is insufficient. You proved my point by not only deviating from it, but also by defending your deviations. If your original grading criteria was adequate, there would be no need for deviations.
That being said, I do appreciate the effort you took in compiling that list. It clearly took a lot of time and let to a nice conversation.
okay, but use common sense. I should have been more clear, but it was late, I had just spent over an hour watching every play, pausing it, writing it down, watching the next play, then evaluating them. My brain was fried. I consider it a good shot when someone is 6'7 and they beat their man off the dribble and drive to the hoop to shoot a layup. The purpose was good plays and bad. that was a good play. It was a good shot. It didn't go in. Neutral. The rafer example was a good play on TMac's part. Rafer got a wide open look b/c of it and had the ball in his hands. Therefore, Tmac created an opportunity. It was good. You can get technical, but really it boils down to good and bad, and those were good (or neutral on the misses) If Yao beats his man and drives 3 feet to the hoop and someone tries to block. alter or foul him and he misses, it's not a BAD SHOT. It's a good shot that missed
But you are not answering my questions, i.e. when you count something as good, how about the other possibilities I listed that could be counted as bad? You are not answering that question. That's why I said: your analysis is not totally objective although it has its value. And I saw there were another argument between you and someone else on a pass to Rafter regarding whether it was a good pass but Rafter fumbled it or it is the other way. ON this particular issue, it can be pretty subjectivce.
Sorry, I think that in order for a shot to be considered part of a good play, it needs to lead to points. Hypothetically, you could have counted 20 good offensive plays in a period and the rockets could still be at 0 points. What does your common sense tell you about that scenario?
It tells me that TMac set up players and they didn't make shots. It tells me that we were better out there with him than without him. It tells me he has a good influence on the game. It tells me that others, besides him, should be blamed for that loss. I didn't do this to defend TMac. I did it to see if, with a one game example (which means little in a full season), he helped or hurt us out there. He helped. IF he has spent the game hogging the ball, dribbling and shooting contested jumpers or ignoring open teammates in order to shoot bad shots, I would have marked it down and this thread would have ripped him. I can't help the results. Perhaps tonight he does it. I am going out, but will Tivo it, but I don't see the point in doing it again...it takes too much time and it's just another ONE GAME example, which certainly won't change people's minds about whether he helps or hurts us If Steve Nash spends a whole game getting doubled or passing to wide open players on drives and no one hits it, I would say that the other players lost the game, not Nash and that he had a positive overall impact on the game, despite the loss
Well of course we're better with him that without him. He's the highest paid player on the team. When I read posters saying we'd be better w/o tmac, I interpret that as "we'd be better if we had someone else who makes almost 20 million instead of tmac"
Question 1: It isn't indirect. It's direct. The double on him caused the opening. His proper pass helped get the open basket. If he made a bad pass it would have been counted against him. Question 2: I don't know what plays are called so there is no way to measure that. I just judged what I could see. I tried to be as objective as possible.
What if he drives to the hoop each time, misses, and doesnt get a foul called. In your book, thats still 20 good plays that yielded 0 points.
What about the open shots that T-Mac has missed? Why would you just make the conclusion that "it tells me that TMac set up players and they didn't make it?" Are the role players the only one that miss open shots? Isn't that double standards? And you haven't answer my question in my previous quote yet. As I said, your analysis is not purely objective though has its value.
Lots of posters here (not you) claim that he hogs the ball and only takes ill advised shots. Lots of posters here think we are better without him at all. Other posters think he is more important than Yao. I wanted to see what his impact really was on the game. The stat sheet looks okay, but delving deeper it appears that he had a pretty good game.
No. If he missed all of his open shots as well, I would say he had a bad game too. However, I wouldn't call them bad plays. Just bad outcomes. It isn't a double standard. A neutral play is a missed open shot. The question was good plays (setting up open shots). He can make a good play and someone can miss Gotta go. You guys have a good one
Are you saying that if a player creates a double team that leads directly to a two pass open jumper, he shouldn't get any credit for that? And do you think the middle guy who did nothing but catch the pass and swing it deserves more credit just because he got the assist? I think the fairest way to count up the "good" plays" is to just focus on possessions where the Rockets score 2 or more points. If T-Mac did what he was supposed to do, and that led to a score ... it's a "good play". On the flip side, if T-Mac didn't do what he's supposed to do in the offense and that led to no points scored in the possession, that's a "bad play". Everything else, just call it "neutral" for simplicity.
Exactly. The one who makes the most important pass (the one leading to the score) deserves more credit.
if you rate this game of T-MAC as "GOOD" ,you should rate yourself as TOH ,you are looking down upon T-MAC ,he should had done better ! IMO, in this game ,his offence is ＯＮ ＴＨＥ AVERAGE ,I may credit 70(full mark:100),certainly ,i have observed that he would like to intergrate into the team ,ill-advised JS was less ,but his offence was far away from 'GOOD' ,considered his last pass to Alston is very very very bad (deserve 5 stars 'bad') ,finally,i give him 65 on offence . his defence of this game is bad ,i give him 55. in total ,T--mac got 60 ,not 'bad',far from 'good'.
I don't agree with that at all. I think credit should be given based on what the player did to give the team an advantage over and above what an average player would have done in that circumstance. Any player could have swung the ball to the open guy. What really makes that play possible, though, is drawing the double team. How often did Hakeem or Shaq or Jordan draw double teams that led to an open jumper, and they didn't get credited with the assist? It was still their greatness that got those shots. That's why assists can be overrated; it's really an imperfect measurement of shot creation.
