we can't be a team of chuckers when dwight, harden and lin get to the line as much as they do for their individual position. so if wood chuck chucks wood than who chucks parsons?
The Rockets are not onto something, the truth is that we are passing up good midrange shots and shooters who can get inside are now 'settling' for threes. You think LMA would want to come here if he was told to not use his midrange game and shoot outside and layups? It's funny how Garcia and Beverley respond, it's like they've been brainwashed. The Vipers article on shooting more threes than two's was another example of people thinking it's going to be a game changer. To those people I say three things: the three point shot is never going to fall at the rate of a 2pt midrange shot, three pointers won't get you to the FT line, no midrange game and focus on threes will not win you come playoff time. Given that we have a great midrange player in Harden and a post-up presence in Howard, I'm really shocked we are staying with this run-and-gun strategy.
I don't know about ISOs but what about Parsons and Lin? Both of those guys are penetrators, big time.
If LMA came here, we'd let him take midrange shots. When we sign players off the scrap heap, we don't want them taking midrange shots, because most players can't hit them worth dick.
I don't like a philosophy of hardly any mid-range shots. That's the money shot. That's what LMA, Parker, CP3 and even Westbrook live on. 3's are not high-percentage shots and while I don't mind guys taking them, more diversity is good. Harden would be a better player with a mid-range game, as would Jones, Bev, and Lin and to some extent Parsons. Also in the playoffs, lay up whistles are swallowed as the game is more physical.
Yes. They also need to run more screens. Smith and Asik like to screen but we haven't seen much of Smith or Asik.
Teams put more efforts on defense in playoff, no easy layups and anything easy near rim. It is hard to image any team to win playoff series by 3s. Playoff is when jumper plays a bigger role on winning games.
I think the "No Midrange" thing is not exactly the truth about the Rockets, but is rather a bit of an overblown reputation among fans. First, the team obviously do take SOME midrange Js when it's the best choice available-- end of shot clock, wide open from 15 feet when the paint is clogged and no one open at 3, etc. The team simply LOOK for layups and open 3s first, with the midrange J (or in particular contested midrange J and midrange Js from guys who can't make them efficiently) being low on the hierarchy of preferred shots. Teams don't go out there having decided how many shots they'll take from each spot during pregame meetings, they take the best shots that they actually manage to generate against the defense. Luckily, this team has actually been able to generate layups and open 3s, so they end up not having to take many bad midrange Js. Second, a bit part of Houston's shot chart results from talent, not tactics. You just want guys to take shots they can make efficiently and with this group it happens to be layups and 3s. If the team actually had Dirk Nowitzki, Lamarcus Aldridge, or even Patrick Patterson and Luis Scola, I am pretty sure that we wouldn't mind them shooting some 18 footers. The point is that for these guys, the 18 footer is actually a pretty effective shot in the overall scheme of things, but guys have to be really exceptionally good shooters from this range for you to bump their midrange Js significantly higher in the hierarchy of preferred shots. In the end, "No Midrange" is really just a convenient shorthand for what the Rockets actually do. To take it literally would be overly simple-minded.
If LMA came here, he'd stop taking all those 42% 2's and start shooting 3's, and take his game to another level.
I respectfully disagree with your three points. First, a long two may garner a slightly higher percentage than a three in straight percentages. However, those percentages are not as important as the effective field goal percentage. For example, if a player takes 10 long range two's and hits 5 of them they get 10 points. If the same player takes 10 threes and only hits 4, that's 12 points. That's more points per shot than a long two. Second, I would argue that a long range two isn't going to get you to the FT line either. That's why we use both drives and 3's. Third, I don't think our strategy as been tried much in play offs so it's difficult to say it absolutely won't work. However, we can look to the mavericks championship year to see a somewhat similar system that lead to a ring.
20.8% of points come from free throw line (1st), top 3 in the league in fast break points and points in the paint. Yeah, just a bunch of chuckers.
Chucking it like its never been chucked before. Then when they can't handle it, we chuck it some more.
I respectfully disagree and can answer your first two arguments by stating the fatal flaw in them: long range two. I'm talking about midrange, that doesn't mean one toe or a foot inside the line. I think most people would agree a long range two is probably worse than a 3pt shot but midrange, not so much imo. The third one I can kind of agree on, but my counter would be: why do you think not more teams have tried it? Mavericks of 2011 was not the same as what we're trying to do.
What the Rockets do is shoot the most efficient shots possible. Those are shots very close to the basket and shots far from the basket that result in an extra point for a make. Mid range shots are the least efficent shot in basketball. Even the 15 foot jumper is an inefficent shot. Further, with the defensive rules being what they are, there is no reason to ever have to take a large number of them. There are a few players that are fairly efficient from mid range (Dirk and Aldridge), but those same players are almost always more efficient closer to the basket, especially considering drawing fouls and spacing.
Some of you guys act as if we don't even attempt 2 point shots that aren't in the paint. Ridiculous. If we had the elite personnel some of you are rattling off, I think we would be perfectly fine letting them take their midrange jumpers. It's not like there is some law passed down by Morey and McHale that if you settle for a 2 you are losing your spot. We just focus and emphasize on the most effective shots in basketball. There is a reason our offense has been one of the best in basketball. 79 FGA per game and 27.2 are 3s. That's still a lot of 2s being taken.
