That's odd, given how often the offense stagnated when Mike James was in the game, and how smoothly it often ran with Sura out there. This makes no sense. Basketball is not baseball where the the team is essentially the sum of its parts. Winning in basketball is as much as about chemistry as it is talent. That's why teams like Dallas and Miami haven't necessarily won anything, while a team like Detroit has. There's no doubt if you were building a team and had to start with one of those two guys, you'd pick Mike James. However, throwing together 5 talented players that need the ball simply doesn't work. With or without Mike James, this team was going to suck this year with its injuries. The lineup we feature, outside of Yao, is no better than his team in Toronto, and we have 7 more wins than they do (the benefit of having Yao and/or McGrady for a period of time). Adding James to this mix wasn't going to make us any good. And when relatively healthy, this team played as well as last year (even without Sura, Barry, or Padgett and a useless Mutumbo). So I'm not sure what impact you think James was going to have.
This makes some sense...until you actually look into the numbers and find that Toronto is averaging 101.3 points a game (that's with Bosh missing some games), and go WOW. Now the Rockets averages 90.5 a game and gives up 92. If Rockets can average 101 a game, they have much more chance of winning. Do you agree? Now, substitute RA with MJ? Do you think Rockets defense will suffer more? Yes, the answer is righ tthere.
That's odd that you're rewriting history to conform with a bunch of tired cliches. What's great is that we have 82games.com to test your recollection: 2004-2005 Rockets pts scored/48 James ON 113.8 OFF 106.8 Sura ON 109.0 OFF 105.7 +/- James ON +11. 9 OFF +2.4 NET + 9.6 Sura ON +3.9 OFF +4.1 NET -0.2 (not completely relevant to your comment, but worth menitioning is the defensive number) pts allowed/48 James ON 99.5 OFF 103.3 Sura ON 104.5 OFF 100.9 PER at PG: James 18.5 Opponent 9.5 Sura 16.1 Opponent 17.3 http://www.82games.com/04HOU4D.HTM ...so if by "stagnated" you mean "became more efficient and scored more points" --- you're right. Otherwise your recollection doesn't track reality. Basketball uses a "scoreboard", not a "fitboard" Having better players makes you a better team, just like we were a better team last year, since we had better players. Like James, Padgett, Sura et al. Bringing in inferior players -- regardless of fit -- like Alston and Anderson and Swift -- makes you a worse team. Not a difficult concept - and the empirical evidence matches it. It's blindingly obvious that the team lacked perimeter defense and scoring. It's also blindingly obvious that James provides both. If you think it's a stretch to say that he'd make them better by providing it, you're just being dense on purpose. You can take comfort in that fact when we're paying Rafer 5 million in 2010. "well we might not have made the playoffs in 2006, at least!" LOL. And if Rafer keeps putting up 0-11, 9 assists (LOVE THAT FIT! ) and 6 turnovers like tonight - we'll never have to worry about playoffs ever -- of course Alston onlly can be judged in the hypothetical world where he plays every game next to 2 HOF players. So let's not read too much in to it. James was a better player by any measure, whether he is in Toronto, or Houston or what - AND he's a better fit by any empirical measure. We were a better team with him, and are worse without him. Now we're stuck with Rafer who is both 1. worse, and 2. makes more money, over a longer period of time. How you can continue to insist otherwise with the overwhelming amount of evidence against you is beyond me.
Wow, what a great game from Rafer Alston, again! 0 for 11, 1pt, 9 asts, 6 turnovers and of course, totally schooled by Mike Bibby on the court. What a great pass first PG! If JVG's brain is not totally dead, he will look for another starting PG and play Alston backup. Thus, we will get another Moochie just after we get rid of one. Oh boy.
Just add my last comment and I am done with this subject. If the James-Alston trade was a bad move, it wasn't so much about a trading decision. It's a coaching decision. JVG obviously was not planning on using James as a starting PG. They were looking for a starting PG in place of Sura, and was willing to give up James to do so. That was a coaching decision, plain and simple. Whether that was a good decision is subject to opinions. My gripe about acquiring Alston is not that he is a bad PG. (I think he is an OK PG, as stated in my earlier posts.) It is that he is a bad shooter. Shooting clearly isn't very high on JVG's priorities. We know this not only from his quoted comments, but also from his personnel decisions such as this one.
mike james is now averaging 20 points on 47% shooting, and 44% from the three line, and adding 5.9 assists, and slightly over a 2-1 assist to turnover ratio. this debate is effectively over.
and what does that have to do with Mike James on the Rockets team? if he is/was to post those figures here, he would be doing it at the expense of 1 or 2 other guys who are without any doubt more potent offensive players than he is. and don't throw Bosh in here... he is completely different big guy from one we have here. also, James needs to play high tempo bball in order to be as productive as he is this season. and the Rockets won't be playing uptempo game as long as we have Yao... i mean that is as clear as day.
If this is true then we need a new coach. What about defense and playing hard? Is that now low on his priority list too?
sam already posted how well james fit in the rockets system, he has better numbers than sura did last season as far as how the team operated when he was on court, and you're right, who needs a guy that shoots 44% from the three line, and dishes out close to 6 assists on a young team. you're right, that says nothing about how he would do with the rockets. the rockets have no use for a someone in the top 4 in three point shooting.
Where were you in the second half of last season? Did you even watch Rox basketball at that time? That team played uptempo games all the time during that period. A lot of fastbreak points, a lot of easy baskets and yes, James was productive and it was fun.
screw numbers... i form my opinion(s) on what i actually see. again, what does that have to do with Mike James on Rockets team? he wouldn't average those here. just like T-Mac won't average 32PPG (which he proved he's capable of, but IN ANOTHER SYSTEM) as long as he has Yao here.
but he still averages almos 6 assists playing with guys not as talented as yao and mcgrady, and he's still a better shooter than anyone on the rockets. and as far as what you saw, the rockets were one of the best teams in the league, winning percentage, when james was here, so I don't know what you saw outside of a bunch of w's.
i don't know where you were b/c, despite a fairly good season, IIRC we played very hot-cold last season. lack of team identity was the major issue then, and that concern was even expressed by players.
Wow - I'd happily lack team identity on the way to 50+ wins in the playoffs rather than have the identity we have now: Losers.
okay, your opinion, you're entitled to have it. just as i'm to have mine. i'm just going to suggest you to watch one Raptors game, then one Rockets game, then again one Raptors game... i believe there are many other reason other than James-Alston that Rockets were the team they were last season, and the team they are this season...
So you believe that this team with Mike James - without Yao for 6 weeks, without McGrady for a significant portion of the season, without Sura, Barry or Padgett, and a non-functional Mutumbo (but with Hayes, Bogans, and Brunson, of course) would win 50 games? If not, I don't see your point. James would have been a better fit with this injury plagued team. We might have won 38 games instead of 33. Woohoo! When healthy, the record for this year's team with Alston was as good as last year's, even though this year's team was far less talented losing Sura, Barry, Padgett and more-or-less Mutumbo, swapping James and Alston, and adding an underwhelming Swift.
I agree with you for the most part that James is better and the Rockets would have been better with him over Alston this year. But let's be honest, this year would have been a failure regardless of which of the two was playing for the Rockets. Being losers is not on Alston.
You don't see my point? My point was pretty clear. Somebody made the claim that we "had no identity last year", which I quoted in the post above. I don't recall any identity problems once the Rockets got going last year. If the implication that Alston gives us "identity" - well, then I'd rather not have one given the results. He was a better on a non-injury plagued too. Better even than Sura, according to the numbers. Sarcastic praise at winning games doesn't help your cause - but like I said that's all this side of the argument is down too at this point given that the emprical evidence is stacked against you. But don't forget to add "won 38 games and not been saddled with Alston and his long term deal" GATER has debunked this extensively in ohter posts so I won't reinvent the wheel - but generally the Rocket's halcyon days with Alston healthy came against very weak competition - and Alston wasn't exactly dominating either in that period, especially considering his defensive lapses. Ryan Bowen looked great in the playoffs in stretches last year in the right situation too. That's not a sign of "fit", it's a sign of a player that's not that good - which is Alston.
