Many people's contention is that the hockey assist has a greater importance than a regular assist since it facilitates the regular assist. I just want to see what you think.
Generally speaking, you're right. But i'm talking about when we need points and McGrady has the ball down the stretch. Earlier in the season, he wasnt trying to spend the whole shot clock getting the ball to Yao. And he's not that turnover prone. And when thats the case, how often do you think he'll settle for the contested jumper? His "lightly" contested jumpshot may be one of the most difficult shots in the league. He tries to elevate to create separation and will often fadeaway while doing so. Even if there werent a defender there, it'd be a tough shot. First of all, earlier in the season, I doubt many opponents were expecting him to drive down the stretch. And we're talking about tmac and his shot selection here. Theres no need to reference other players.
The original argument was not that it was more important than the swing pass assist. It was that the double and first pass created the opening and the second pass got it to the man...equal importance. You argued that it was worthless even though the double team and correct pass-out created the opening. You said it was meaninigless, much like a ballboy cleaning a wet spot on a floor. edit: I am not going to argue it again, but the last few posts I have read you are changing the facts pertaining to posts in this thread
Actually, I never said it was meaningless. In fact, I have said its important, just not as important as the actual assist. The ballboy analogy was to show what happens when you take a cause & effect scenario to the extreme. Basket faciliated by assist. Assist facilitated by Hockey Assist. Hockey assist facilitated by pnr/getting the ball to yao. This is facilitated by getting a defensive rebound. Facilitated by a previous shot in the game. And the game is facilitated by pregame activities (i.e. ballboys cleaning the floors). And the only thing i accidently changed was making your singular correction a plural. I thought you had changed more. Sorry. But now you're changing the things that I said in my earlier posts.
Who is the "many people"? Most people are saying that hockey assist is a good play made by Tmac while you are saying is not suppose to be consider a good play by Tmac.
In that case, in my opinion, I think that both passes are equally important. The resulting basket can not occur without both plays being made. The stat goes to the assist guy, but that particular assist wouldn't be there if the initial double team didn't occur. It takes recognition on both players' accounts. Let's not discredit the guy who actually made the basket either, haha.
Actually, I say that if you're going to be that meticulous in finding his "good" plays, you should show that same diligence in looking for his "bad" plays.
I think there is a little misunderstanding. My statement was saying let's not forget the turnovers, forcing the ball in, etc. by the team as a whole, not TMac. I was saying that Tmac's shot selection is lower on the "blame a loss on" list than the other reasons the team loses those close games. So I followed that with him taking the shot being the lesser of many evils. Perhaps, I'm visualizing different scenarios than you, b/c often times the early shots I see are the ones where he's stepping into the shot at the 3 pt line or slightly inside of it. I honestly typically see him take fadeaways when the play is being called for him, and it's an iso play for him. And as frustrating as it may be to many that he takes these shots, let's really look at things. He wins us more games than he loses them for us. Him making the play, whether it's passing, driving, or shooting is our best play down the stretch. It just is. He is a very good playmaker. Your system is not going to win you close games. But hey, we are drifting off the thread subject here. He came out thsi season driving a lot more than usual. Or at least that seemed to be the case. It also seems he is continuing to do that post-injury. And as a defender, wouldn't you rather give up the perimeter shot as opposed to the driving play if you were guarding McGrady (or most players for that matter)? I had to reference them if you want to talk about why the team loses close games at times (seems as the trend is changing *hopefully*. no suprise it's b/c of a certain guy that wears number 1). If I am to leave them out of the discussion, then I *personally* believe of all the options TMac has down the stretch, I trust him to make the best play. if it's a perimeter shot, which he really does seem to make a lot during clutch time I trust him in taking that shot. His layups aren't money, he can't see to elevate and dunk over people as he could a couple seasons ago, and he doesn't seem to get teh foul calls he used to. If he can get a clean look and shoot it, why not? If he can drive and make the play that way, great. I guess my stance is I trust my star players. They are stars by their play and reputation. They have a history of making plays. I trust them much more than trusting a system to provide a play during crunch time.
I think this board does that plenty my friend. It's this rare thread that actually points out that this guy is actually good for the team.
If its raining and someone hydroplanes on a puddle and crashes his car, do you fault the rain and puddle equally? The rain caused the puddle, but the puddle was the direct cause of the accident. Of course the majority of the blame goes the driver who actually crashed the car.
First off, you are weird. I threw in the basket maker to throw a little more light-heartedness at this thread. Now that I've gotten that out of the way The puddle wouldn't be there if it weren't raining. Let me put my wekko hat on real fast... Shall we blame the road for not being completely level and allowing a recess where water may gather in a puddle? Shall we blame the driver for having tires with low tread leading to a higher risk of hydroplaning? Shall we blame the driver for taking that route to the strip club instead of another? Shall we blame the wife for not satisfying the man and making him drive to a strip club in the rain? Shall we blame the driver again b/c the wife's not giving it up b/c he forgot to get a Valentine's gift this year? I better get on that... I think we've taken the thread about as far as it's going to go. It's obvious we are all avid fans of the team. Let's just leave it at that.
I'll add just one more thing to this thread. When we assign credit for a score, we should consider which player was most valuable for that play. When the Rockets were scoring all those three pointers in our 93/94 championship season, Hakeem rightly got a lot of credit for that. It was his presence in the post that drew defenders away from the perimeter. If Hakeem drew a double, passed it out to Kenny who then hit Max on the wing for a 3-pointer ... who would the coaches say was the most valuable player on that play? Well ... they may firstly credit Maxwell; I don't have a problem with that. But between Hakeem and Kenny Smith, who would they credit more for that play? Consider this ... if you replace Kenny Smith with some average player, does that play still work? Now, what about if you replace Hakeem with an average player? That's the relevant question we should ask here. Because the way we allot credit should connect somehow to how coaches think about the game. You can't just pick some predetermined criteria out of a hat (e.g. whoever is directly involved always gets the most credit) and assume that's the most useful way to break down the play.
Yeah, I'm referring to his iso plays. But you're right about his 3 pters. I think that if he steps into an open shot, its a good shot. I felt that he did start the season aggressive, but he became passive after his elbow injury. And when he became passive, he started settling for his fadeaways. But lately, I've noticed that he's playing more aggressively. As a defender, I will gladly let him take a jumper as opposed to driving. I'm sure defenders feel that way about Lebron too, but Lebron still takes it too the hoop. Its not always about taking what the defense gives you. Sometimes, as the star player, you have to force the issue. I dont fully trust tmac in the playoffs. He may put up good stats, but his decision making at the end of crucial games has been poor. Last year against Utah in game 7, he became passive and deferred to teammates way too much. I dont remember his specific performance when we played dallas in the playoffs, but I do recall we lost by 40 pts in game 7.
we have no need to debate again and again . if Blake have interset in others in the Rockets, judging a player with his criteria ,such as Novac ,you will be suprised that Novac is the best player.he dont force to jump shot , his PG% is high ,he have few turnovers .Blake's appraise toward Novac will be only 'good' and 'neutral', furthermore,he will have great difficulty in find a 'bad' performance ,because if a player reach Blake's 'bad', i think the coach will stick him on the bench earlier !
Of course if you replace hakeem with an average player, there wont be a double team to start the play. Thats why, if you want to make a good analogy, you'd replace him with another low-post presence that commands a double team. The play would work if you had replaced him with David Robinson. It depends on the average player you choose to replace kenny. If you replace him with rafer, the play might not work since teams would rather rafer shoot as opposed to kenny. They might dare rafer to shoot.
You're not even trying to make sense at this point. If you want to know how good a player is (i.e. how much he helped your team on a given play), you judge him relative to an average player, or some baseline replacement-level player. Not someone who's almost just as good. What, you think Hakeem wasn't that valuable because in theory we could replace him with someone who does similar things? That's a preposterous argument. Obviously a player like Hakeem, and to a lesser extent T-Mac, aren't easy to find, so you need to value what they give you (e.g. drawing double teams, creating good shots for teammates) more.
Unless he took bad shots, made turnovers or was not defending, you are right. And if none of those things happened, then he would have had what anyone would consider a good game, much like my conclusion about TMac. Let's not exaggerate here Let's let this thread die now. It's going nowhere, and the game that it analyzed happened 3 days ago
We know that Hakeem and tmac are far above average. Whats the point in comparing him to an average player? It would just tell us what we already know. And if you want to judge how good a player is, i think its more informative to judge him against a comparable player. Which of the following gives you a better idea of a player's skill: Chris Paul is a better pg than Tony Parker. Chris Paul is a better pg than Rafer Alston. I think Hakeem was very valuable, but in the hockey-assist scenario, any well-passing big man who commands a double team will suffice. I honestly dont know where this portion of the conversation is headed. I'm trying to make sense, but you're not giving me much to work with. If you want to continue, please make your contention very clear.
