yeah we are 6-1 and the current rotation has gotten us here. If you notice that JVG and RA play the same guys doesnt that resonate with you? Maybe there are the only ones that are really any good.
Because if you're playing better than 0.850 ball, you don't mess with it. When Steve demonstrates in practice that he's our best option at the 1, he'll get in the game. In the meantime, given that McGrady is our best distributer and playmaker right now, I'm all for Luther getting more minutes at the 1 (instead of 2) if he gets hot and James stays in a slump. Rafer may be a terrible shot, but he's gotten better at pulling back on his attempts when he's off, and he does a nice job finding guys and making good decisions on the floor. Nothing annoys me more than no-pass possessions courtesy of Mike. We've got a nice thing with so many options off the bench. With Bonzi looking like the guy we hoped for last year, we can ride him at the 2 and find the hot hand amongst the 3 PG options. Evan
Yes, but what was the score in those games. In case you didnt remember the Rox won by 31 over Dallas. Of course you are going to play some extra players in a blowout. We have not had one during our 7 games so far, 6 of which are wins. I imagine that is why Vspan and Novak had any minutes in the first two games of last year. Do you really expect Adelman to suddenly decide that Brooks, Landry, Snyder or Stevie suddenly should get some minutes in a close game early in the season? If you compare stats I would guess we have one of the better benches in the league so far this year. Of course it doesnt solve the problem of Stevie not playing which is what every thread turns into here.
We need SF, Brooks to push Rafer, Mike J, so that they understand they need to (have to) have better performance to keep their minutes. It's horrible night, most of us felt heart attack, we were really really lucky, and 6-1 now doesn't mean things are going well. We should fix it before it's too late.
Do you know anything about the NBA? Look at all the successful teams. They all have around a 9-10 man rotation at most. Their scrubs don't get off the bench unless it's a blowout game. The Rockets are the same way. Giving certain players spot minutes is the worst idea ever. With that, the scrubs aren't going to be in a rhythm, and our usual bench players lose their rhythm. It's a lose-lose situation. It's not going to happen.
how about let francis play in games against New York? I think he will have enough motivation to have a good game.
Let's see now. Bonzi came to camp out of shape last year. When JVG played him, he couldn't compete. This year, SF comes to came as a starter in RA's mind, but he too is out of shape & doesn't compete as well as Alston, James & Bonzi. My question is this: "Why do we continually hire coaches that insist professional basketball players report to camp in shape & ready to play?"
Thanks to those who understood what I was getting at. At to those who are so anxious to come back with a rude or sarcastic response that they miss the whole point, let me try again. This is not about the size of the rotation. This is not about the composition of the current rotation per se. It is about plugging gaps when and if the occur. For example, if all the rotational "support" or "role" players are having an off night, why not insert some of the remaining bench players to see what they can do. Yes, they are cold, but so are TMac and Yao after an extended rest. This serves several possible purposes: 1. Maybe they are a miracle waiting to happen and reel over several scores or come up with a defensive stop. 2. It is a chance to evaluate them under game conditions. 3. It promotes the team concept because now they feel more apart. 4. It serves notice to the rotational players that they either improve their game or they may become a bench player. 5. It is a chance to evaluate different combinations. If they don't respond like you want, pull them back out immediately. I am not complaining. Yes, we are 6-1, but our guards are struggling and it makes perfect sense to do a bit of experimenting. When you barely beat the Bobcats, there is reason to consider what I am suggesting. And, yes, I have observed enough professional basketball to see other coaches do this very thing.
The most probable change I see coming is Brooks getting PT instead of SF3. If he plays well then Head and SF will be shipped sooner.
Limiting your question to this specifically, the answer is, coaches avoid doing that because it conveys a lack of confidence overall in their rotation players. Guys want defined roles and minutes and almost never respond well to being benched for 10th men. Consider how many times you've seen players grumble to the press about coaches when they don't know how many minutes they'll get on a given night. Players HATE when Doc Rivers types constantly tinker and toss around the rotation like it was a game on XBox. Look at Larry Brown's mix-em-up game with the Knicks, and how much of a disaster that was. In this league, you define your rotation and stick with it as much as you can. You ride a hot hand, but you try and let guys in a slump play through it. If it's clear after a while that the slumping player isn't coming around, you make an adjustment. It rarely if ever works well to change the formula from game to game (garbage time excluded). Evan
Can't believe this thread gets only one star. It has some point. I just gave it five star to keep it more balanced.
I agree, Adelman has to see he has a problem at the point. Even Rafer knows that shooting 20% isn't going to cut it, he better heat up fast because he will be benched in favor of SF soon if he continues shooting 20%. On a similar note, Deke needs to see the floor when Yao goes out. Bringing in Scola to play along with Hayes and Battier isn't getting it done defensively and rebounding wise. The Bobcats had a field day when Yao was out.
As Daryl Morey points out, basketball is very different than baseball -- baseball can more or less be broken into a series of of 1-on-1 matchups. Basketball is a series of 5-on-5 matchups that changes any time either team makes a substitution. For a team trying to build chemistry in a new system, especially on the offensive side, but even with part of our defensive approach (Yao on SnR's/PnR's), playing the depths of the bench is not conducive to playing the end of the bench. Since we're playing James, Wells, and Scola substantial minutes, and getting Head consistent minutes, this is about the end of the bench. It's just silly.
BINGO! Great teams have no more than a 9-player rotation with one, MAYBE, two others getting occasional, sporadic minutes. The Rockets bring Scola, James, Wells and Head off the bench with occasional minutes from Mutumbo. Pick any team in the league and you'll see the same thing. It is RARE that you see a team regularly play 11 guys. It's rare to see them regularly play 10. Most nights, it is 8+ or 9+ at most.
If by reserves, you mean our bench (Bonzi, MJ, Scola, Head) then you are an idiot. If by reserves, you mean those designated as inactive (Brooks, Novak, Landry), then I agree that it may not serve the rookies' or Rockets' best interest to have them sitting. They get to practice with the big boys, but it seems obvious that the rookies (incl. Novak) are not going to see any real minutes, and would develop better in the D-League. Why keep players that have no chance of playing, in suits on the sidelines, when they could be seeing serious floor time and ideally, showing us that they deserve time on the big court.
I agree that we shouldn't be afraid to plug in SF3 or Brooks when Alston and James are having a suckfest game. I'm not talking about wild fluctuations in playing time or benching Rafer entirely. But to say that giving Steve or Brooks a few minutes to see if they are hot and contribute is going to throw the team into turmoil is silly. Scola has also struggled and I think we should keep giving him minutes for him to adjust... but when he's a fouling machine we also shouldn't be afraid to stick Landry or Deke in the lineup for a few.
