Where Do the Rockets Go From Here – The Power Forward Position

Telling us that a PF that takes a ton of midrange jumpers and doesn't even hit them at a 50% clip is a bad fit is a foregone conclusion.

I'll be very interested in how your analysis shows that Love is a terrible fit. Don't think that one is going to work out too well.

 

Jeff Green...good role player with break out potential, a Rasheed Wallace type but I would say more athletic with less of a post game.

I'd prefer over an unattainable Aldridge.

 

cool article jtr
my dream man is horford, he is so dam underrated

 

Who is the best PF in NBA now?
Lebron!

 

Okay, so a guy who:

1. has an efficient inside game (33% of his shots are from <'8 and hits a higher percentage of the Rockets as a team)
2. can make 81% of his FT
3. good at the midrange, which has been the BIGGEST weakness of the Rockets offense (they didn't only take very few midrange shots, but they hit at a very poor rate -- 36%)

is a bad fit?

 

This kind of logic is a misrepresentation of the basic shot selection efficiency argument (which, by the way, has nothing to do with "money ball"). Without rehashing a discussion that was already had in an older thread, the only thing being said is that, all other things being equal, if you have a player attempting to make a shot, you want him to do so either very close to the rim or at the 3-point line. This isn't saying "only" take those shots. It isn't saying you can't ever take any long 2's. It's just a basic proposition about the value of where you take a shot in the NBA. A long 2 has nearly the exact same chance of going in as a 3. In that case, you might as well just have your guy take a step back and go for the 3 instead.

People seem to be overstating the importance of this basic insight from both ends. In reality, shot selection is much more complicated than just where on the floor you are making the shot. For one, it ignores the distinction between contested shots and uncontested shots, which causes a huge difference in the chance that a shot will go in.

As a hypothetical, let's say that half of the 3-point attempts are contested and the other half are uncontested. An uncontested 3-point shot has a 60% chance of going in (1.8 Points), but a contested 3-point shot has a 20% chance of going in (0.6 Points). Then when you look at the total numbers, it would tell you that 3-point shots have a 40% chance of going in on average (1.2 Points). But that's a very shallow interpretation of the data, because it may well be that you don't want guys taking contested 3-point shots ever, because an 18-foot jumper's shot percentage goes up to 40% even if it's a contested shot (0.6 Points vs. 0.8 Points).

This is the kind of data that Morey and the FO actually have access to. It's this information, including other variables such as the player(s) involved (every player has different percentages and tendencies), etc. which can provide some pretty deep insight into where and when you want your players to attempt shots. This information, in turn, can be used to actually design plays. For example, you might be OK with Harden taking a contested 3-point shot as the outlet option in a double-screen play, but you wouldn't run the same play with someone else taking his place (because he's the only one on the team with the percentages who would justify that option).

In reality, the analytics has actually moved a bit beyond this, to the extent that they are literally tracking the physics of what goes on in the court - where players move, where the ball is, etc. etc. etc. However, I would bet that the insights gained from this kind of tracking are actually much harder to find, because they are not only less generalizable but also provide so much data that you don't know where to begin. A good analogy would be knowing that Yao Ming is 7' 6" tall and then asking if he's going to be a good basketball player.

 

I more or less echo this sentiment. My own opinion of Aldridge in a nutshell.

1. I would prefer he can shoot some corner 3s the way Bosh has done. Which should increase his efficiency quite a bit. But even if he doesn't want to, I'd still like to trade for him.

2. Aldridge has a habit of knocking down jumpers at a massive clip against the Rockets, who basically tries to defend Portland by leaving him wide open on th perimeter. This was true in the 2009 series under Adelman, and still true today. IMO, this is a big reason why Rockets fans overrate him, as he has put up monster numbers against us. But perhaps Aldridge's jumper is simply better when he can get in a groove. So if opponents are giving him wide open 18 footers, perhaps he really can make them efficiently enough. I'm sure this is something Rockets analytic people would know.

3. People like to use the Miami big 3 as a reason why we shouldn't have Aldridge. But I see the Rockets more as the Boston style big-3 instead of Miami's. Howard is not really a shot creator. He only counts as half of one. While Lebron and Wade are both ball-dominant. I do give extra credit for Aldridge's ability to create offense. Especially when Harden's sitting.

4. Regardless of his shortcomings, Aldridge IMO still represent a significant upgrade to the roster(assuming Asik, some young players, and picks traded).

Actually, people here who generally don't think highly of Aldridge here are all absolutely in love with Love(injury issues notwithstanding). Aldridge and Love represent two opposite end of the spectrum in terms of their abilities. Aldridge is the jack of all trades. Love is an extreme player in that the bulk of his contribution comes from his great shooting and incredible rebounding.

Also, Love when healthy is simply a much better player than Aldridge.

 

The Lebron, Wade, Bosh situation in talking about reducing shotgs/scoring is also a ridiculous example.

Here's the combined fga/fta of those 3 in their last year before teaming up

19.6 + 20.1 + 16.5 = 56.2 fga

9.1 + 10.2 + 8.4 = 27.7 fta (So using the TS 0.44 calculations, you end up with 12.2 scoring attempts)

For a grand total of 68.4 scoring attempts per game combined for 80.3 ppg on 111.4 mpg.

Now in 2013 together they took

15.8 + 17.8 + 12.3 = 45.9 fga

6.2 + 7.0 + 4.1 = 17.3 fta (7.6)

So 53.5 scoring attempts for 64.6 ppg on 105.8 mpg, but the reason this is a bad comparison is because all three miami players had high volume scorer as a skillset

Now let's compare this to the highest volume year of each of Harden, Dwight and Lamarcus

16.1 + 13.4 + 17.5 = 47.0 fga

9.6 + 11.7 + 5.5 = 26.8 fta (11.8)

So now you have 58.8 shot attempts for 70.6 ppg on a combined 115.5 mpg

Now let's adjust this for minutes so you now have lebron, wade and bosh whilst the lead guy on their respective teams took 0.614 scoring attempts per minute, now whilst sacrificing together they take 0.505 scoring attempts per minute (note this is the lowest of their 3 year team up).

Now Harden, Aldridge and Dwight, whilst the lead guy on their respective teams combining the highest volume years of each's respective careers combined for 0.509 scoring attempts per minute. Yes there will be sacrifice but it will likely be public spotlight related rather than scoring related.

However to do this, you need players who can operate without each other (the comparative paces are pretty much a wash), this is probably where Aldridge holds more value than any other pf (except maybe Duncan), in that sense he becomes a luxury when Dwight is on the court and a necessity when he's not. For comparisons sake, Asik will likely be a hindrance (except against specific matchups) with Dwight on and a necessity when he's not, and Anderson will be a luxury with Dwight on and a hindrance when he's not (This is also why I view Anderson as the worst of all alternatives, 16 min necessity/16 min luxury > 20 min necessity > 30 min luxury).

 

With this lineup all we need in a starting PF is a player who can spread the floor, hit both the long-range 2 and the 3, is happy with taking only 8 shots a game, can play respectable defense and just generally stays out of the way and doesn't make dumb mistakes.

Save yourself tens of millions of dollars and just re-sign PPat. Seriously.

 

+1..................

 

I agree with you, I think we need to let the young guys play until the trading deadline and see what we have before spending money on a higher priced player.

With all of the pf's that we have had you would think that sooner or later the odds would be that we would have a quality player.

 

coming back to this point a few things I want to point out.

1. This is actually wrong. Because "all other things" are not equal. A player is not equally likely to make a 15 footer as he is to making a three point shot. I am pretty sure, if they moved the free throw line to the three point line, the numbers would drop across the league for FT%. Hence, sure, mathematically it may seem that a lay up and three point shoot give you the most points for the effort put in, but at the same time, you have to calculate the probability of that player making a mid-range shot vs a three-point shot and the multiply that to the amount of points received.
2. The mid-range game sets up the inside and outside game. This is the most monumental fact in basketball history. The reason Olajuwon is was so good was because he had the dream shake, baseline shot. Kobe Bryant LIVES on his mid-range jump shot. Nowitzki, lives at making that mid-range shot. Same goes for Jordan. The perenial all-stars lived in the mid-range game because it is what establish their game. A defender has to play up close to defend your shot, so it creates the ability to drive.
3. Having a mid-range game allows you to run more plays. In a system where all your options include drive or shoot, it doesn't allow for much variable to a team's game. Right now, besides Howard, NOBODY in our team has a mid-range game. Harden survives on driving or the drop step. Parsons is incapable (as of now) of creating on his own. And lin, well thats for another thread. Without a mid-range game, a team cannot survive in the playoffs. No team has. You need to have a mid-range game to encourage the drive and three point shots.

the "money ball" or whatever you want to call it concept works well in the season. but in the playoffs, where defenses can narrow down on your plays, you'll be stuck running iso plays all game because you have a lack of dominant post up, and mid-range options.

 

Offense was not the problem with the Rockets last year. In fact, the scored well and had one of the highest ppg average in the league.

Their defense, however, was horrible, relatively speaking. If the Rockets want to get better, they will need to focus on improving their defense, regardless of how unsexy that might be to the casual fan.

 

its alright people I'll play PF and I'll take us to the promise land that's right ! ..ME

 

Not only tens of millions of dollars, but Asik, too.

 

It is incorrect to say that the Rockets have a "weakness" in shooting midrange shots. They simply choose not to take many of them.

The 36% number is not actually "poor." First, the league as a whole made only 38% from that range (16-23 feet) so the Rockets were only 2% off. Second, only 53.6% of HOU's FGs from that range were assisted while 61.7% of such shots around the league were assisted. This indicates that a higher % of HOU's midrange shots were more difficult (pull up Js off the dribble, for example, as oppose to spot up stand still Js) than that of most teams' midrange Js. This is most likely a result of the Rockets tending to spot their shooters behind the arc more for spot up situations so many of the midrange shots were Harden or Lin shooting off the dribble (in pick and rolls or isos), often when the shot clock is running down.

It is not surprising that HOU's highest % midrange shooter, Patterson who shot 49% from that range, also had 92% of his FGs from that range being assisted. If James Harden, for example, were allowed to take 92% of his midrange Js off teammates passes while standing still, he'd likely hit a good % also.

 

I say give Terrence or D-Mo a shot at the position. If neither work out trade for one of these guys:

LMA (unlikely)
Love (unlikely)
Ilyasova
Anderson
Sullinger (or maybe even Bass at the right price)
Amir Johnson
P-Pat (I know, I know... but he'd be perfect next to Howard)

 

Amir Johnson is a underrated player, he is one of the best defensive PF

 

An excellent post,the only thing about Love that I don't like is his poor defense.

 

That's the whole point. The whole basis of the argument that you should prioritize 3-point shots over long 2's is that the long 2 is nearly the same percentage as a 3 but the 3 is worth 50% more points.

The average FG% for the league last season:

64.6% - At the rim
39.8% - 3-9 Feet
41.7% - 10-15 Feet
38.3% - 16-23 Feet
35.9% - 3-Point

The phrase "all other things being equal" is not meant to imply that the shot percentages are equal. I don't even know how you can get that if you bothered to understand the idea of shot efficiency in the first place. Whatever you're arguing against is some sort of weird caricature of the actual idea that only lives in your mind. I'm being serious right now. Whatever you think people are saying bears almost no resemblance to what is actually being said.

I mean, I have to be honest here. Reading your entire response feels almost like satire. Do you really think that the calculation involves EFFORT multiplied by the number of points, and that's why people are saying you shouldn't take long 2's? What is the unit of measurement for "effort" in this calculation?

The fact that you would actually type out what I quoted above when I literally performed that exact calculation in my post is kind of mind-boggling. You aren't being serious, are you?