Yes and No. They certainly have a great core and the flexibility to make another big move but by no means are they a finished product and can stand pat. They've already done the hard part, getting the two stars. The Dwight signing was huge but we had to get rid of a lot of our depth and complementary players in order open up enough cap space . It was absolutely the right move but it left us with quite a few roster spots to fill and limited choices on filling them so it is going to take another year or so to properly fill those complementary roles. I commented about this very thing last January: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8642921&postcount=41 As far as style of play I don't think that there's a uniform answer that works for evey team. Your style has to fit the makeup of your team. I was watching the Spurs earlier in the year and Belinelli comes of a screen running full speed away from the basket, catches the ball and turns and swishes a 3pt shot. That's a great play for the Spurs/Belinelli but we don't really have the personel to run that play and it wouldn't be a good choice for us. Likewise almost every player on the Spurs is a plus passer and they can be devastating with their cuts to the basket. We don't have as many good passers so if we tried to rely on that type of play then it wouldn't be as effective for us. The flip side is true. Because Tony Parker is great at Pick and Roll he runs it a ton (44.9% of the time) and he produces a ppp of 0.9 while turning it over 12.5% of the time. In ISO Parker isn't as good so he only runs it 10.9% of the time producing a ppp of 0.83 but turns it over 16.9% of the time. Harden is really good in ISO producing a ppp of 0.96 and only turning it over 9.3% of the time. So, ISO is a good play for Harden but it's not really a good play for Parker. The Rockets have the ability to make one more big acquisition. That is obviously the major offseason move and all of the other complementary stuff will have to wait until the big move is made. I've been looking at different stats lately and as simple as it sounds it really comes down to winning the battle at the majority of the positions. I looked at the better teams from the last two years and both of the finals teams going back to 2007. What I'm seeing is that the great majority of the really good teams have a clear advantage at at least 3 positions on the floor. I was looking at net PER and the line for "clear advantage" seemed to be about 2 PER points. Most of the teams that I viewed as true contenders had at least 3 positions where their net PER was +2 or better. In the case of this year's Rockets we were +6 at SG, +3 at center but we were only +0.2 at SF, -1.6 at PG and -0.4 at PF. So by my definition we only had a clear advantage at two positions (SG and C). The only true contenders (by my view) that didn't meet this criteria were 2013 Pacers (2), 2011 Dallas (1), 2009 Lakers (2) and 2007 Cavs (2). This season Miami, SA, Ind, LAC and OKC all met that criteria but HOU, POR and Memphis didn't. Based on that I think that the Rockets just need to get that one more piece (be it Love, Anthony or whoever) that is going to win the battle most nights at either the 1, 3 or 4 spot. Once we do that then the fine tuning is to put the right parts around them. In our case that's likely to mean upgrading the 3 point shooting off of the bench. We need as many 40% 3FG guys as we can find. Sorry for the long post. That'll teach you to ask for my opinion!
Not really sure what you mean. The stats show that the Rockets only ISO 10% of the time in both the regular season and in the playoffs. We were just much more efficient on the ISOs in the playoffs. The stats further showed that there were 4 other type of shots that we took much more frequently than the ISOs. We typically have around 100 possessions per game and we ISO around 10% of the time so that's 10 possessions. Likewise San Antonio runs close to 100 possessions per game and they ISO just over 5% of the time (~5 possesions). So bottom line the difference in our ISO rate and the Spurs is about 5 per game. I find it confusing that you can somehow translate 10% of the time or 5 more than the Spurs into "ISO all day". The Spurs run pick and roll 21.96% of the time...more than any other type of possession. Is the fact that there's the extra screener involved that big of a deal to you? You do realize that the Spurs run a TON of Pick and Roll and that it's basically a two man game? Not 5 on 5?
You are too boggled down by your analysis that you lose sight of the big picture here. If iso is much more efficient, why not iso all day? Why is iso more efficient than other forms of possessions?
In other words, we are more effective playing 1 on 1, rather than playing as a team. It's quite obvious what is wrong with this picture, isn't it?
Did you not read the long post that I just wrote explaining why ISO was more effective than Pick and Roll? The difference was due to the way that Portland was scheming their defense to prevent Harden from getting to the rim. He ended taking mid range shots on most of his ISO which meant he only had one defender to beat rather than the 3 he faced when he went all the way to the hole on PnRoll. Why didn't we ISO all day? Because it wouldn't have worked if you ran it every time, nothing will. Transition is hugely efficient for most every team in the league but you certainly can't run it every time, the opportunities simply aren't there. ISO is the same way. We can ISO when given the opportunities but the times that the defense takes it away we have to do something else. The big picture is any successful team runs what is working for them (i.e. efficient) as much as possible. The fewer inefficient shots that you have to take the better your chance of winning. Simple as that. In this series our PnRoll was very inefficient and we ended up running it more than anything else...that's a recipe for a loss.
And they Spurs are most effective playing 2 on 2 than they are at doing anything else, so what's the problem with that? Like it or not elite players can influence games in the NBA much more than they can in any other sport. That's why teams put the ball in their stars hands to make plays. A Lebron James is going to score much more efficiently and create more opportunities than his teammates. So what does Miami do? They put the ball in Lebron's hands and let him make plays. Take a look at Lebron's usage rate vs that of his teammates. Ditto for Durant, CP3, etc... When Shaq/Kobe were winning titles, what do you think they did? Shaq posted up and Kobe ISOd. Harden ISO's on 23% of his possessions, Tony Parker runs pick and roll almost 45% of his possessions. Those guys play to their strengths.
No complaints! If we could manage it, would you lean towards getting that 3rd superstar/all star, like Melo or Love, as opposed to getting 2 "near" or "borderline" all star players, like a Lowry and a Paul Millsap (although Millsap has proven to be an underpaid All Star after this season - at least he still has one more underpaid season to go!)? Right now, I'd fall in a faint if we could snag Lowry and Millsap, while hanging on to Parsons.
Props for this thread. I would add my 2 cents, but it's the offseason and I'm kind of in trade rumors and delusions of superteam mode until things actually shake out.
Under the right circumstances I'd take either scenario. It really just depends on what you have to give up and what you have to pay salary wise. I think that Love, Anthony or a combo of Lowry and Millsap put us in the conversation of true contenders. As odd as it sounds, based on the current availability of several stars it may actually be easier to get a 3rd star than to grab both Lowry and Milsap. I guess the idea would be to use Asik to acquire Milsap but I'm not clear on how you then go get Lowry. The problem is there are teams with money that are going to be looking to spend it so I don't think that you get Lowry on the cheap. For example, if the Lakers don't get Lebron, Carmelo or Love then Lowry could be their next target and they might be willing to overpay for him. Of course they could also offer a max deal to Bledsoe and hope PHX doesn't match but regardless I just think that somebody is going to overpay for Lowry. For that matter, can Toronto afford to let him walk away or do they overpay? The tricky part for the Rockets is the timing. We have the MLE to use to try to plug in a better fitting bench player but we can't make a move there until we finalize a deal for a star. Realistically I think it's as several others have said in various threads, the Rockets will pursue any and all available deals and then they'll have to take the first one that they think makes them a contender. They just can't pass up a deal for a star in the hopes that a better deal may be available later. Then they can turn their attention to using the MLE. I'm not convinced that Minnesota is going to deal Love prior to the season unless they get a killer offer and that won't be coming from us. Because of that I think that there's a pretty good chance that the Rockets have to go another route because they'll have a deal available that they feel they can't pass it up. As I said, I'm ok with Love, Anthony or a Millsap/Lowry combo. I'm kind of wishy-washy on Rondo. If I had to pick the most likely to happen then I'd have to guess Anthony. It's just the simplest scenario...less moving parts.
