The point is, sometimes Rafer just doesn't fit (like tonight), and in those cases, Brooks should be put in when he is clearly playing better. You don't need firepower off the bench in the last 5 minutes of the game.
Man, I typed out a hella long post, just to have me logged out and have it erased. I'll sum it up. Adelman made the right decision because he went with what has worked in the past. He went with what he knew he could trust. Badmouth Rafer all you want, but it's been proven that the Rockets are an elite team with him closing quarters out despite numerous attempts at bringing in new points (Mike James, Stevie Franchise). This is why against SAS, even though George Hill was torching Brooks, Adelman didn't just suddenly put TMac at point or Brent Barry or Luther Head or drag Stevie off the bench, even though those were viable options. He went with a known quantity. Over time, that may change. It may be that Brooks is a better closer then Rafer. A divisional game with a powerhouse team is not the best time to start experimenting however, especially based on a sample of only four or five games. To sum up my point and my "nonsensical argument", Adelman made the right decision. He saw two or three years rather then looking at one or two games. Sometimes, good decisions will still go against you; that's just the NBA for you.
The Rockets are an elite team with Rafer closing when McGrady is healthy and able to set other players up. That wasn't the case tonight because McGrady was horrific. So, the past did not apply tonight. The Rockets needed a spark because nobody else (besides Yao) was worth a dime on offense and, historically, the Rockets almost always fail at the end of games when nobody besides Yao is able to do anything. For Yao to succeed, there must be another player or two on the floor the opposing team must respect. I think you are making this harder than it is. I'm not saying AB is a better closer overall. That larger point is open for discussion. Part of it depends on the opponent also. The point is Rafer was clearly awful and didn't fit what the team needed TONIGHT. AB's job description is "offensive spark" and he should have been in there. Bad decision by the coach. To be clear, your specific statement about Rafer being a "proven closer" is what I called nonsense. What the last 2-3 years have to do with anything is beyond me. Again, for the first time since he's been here, the Rockets have a viable alternative to Rafer at PG. Maybe I didn't make that clear. This isn't last year or the year before when the Rockets were hostage to Rafer's performance. And to still argue Adelman's decision was "good" is incredible. But everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Agree to disagree then, because I still think Brooks isn't a viable option as a closer against New Orleans and that it was wise to put Rafer in. If this was an average team with an average point guard, I might be less reluctant with Adelman taking a gamble and experimenting with Brooks closing the 4th, but as it was, this was an elite team with the best point guard in the league. You don't play around lightly with your rotations in cases like this. Adelman got burned by going back to what worked before, but I still think he made a good decision in exercising caution. You could say "hypothetically this and that", but remember, Brooks never spent a significant portion of time guarding Chris Paul, while Rafer has spent hours doing it. I know the results didn't quite bear it out...but sometimes that will happen. As for McGrady, he's had his bad stretches before. but not enough to make anyone think he will consistently be a bad player down the stretch. It goes back to the essence of my point; you shouldn't just change things up because of one or two bad games. So this time it doesn't work out; well you have to lose a couple of games. In the long run however, this philosophy will win more games then it will lose.
elite team with best point guard? Are we talking about NOH? The truth is, Alston did NOT do any good on defending CP3, the last a few plays by NOH clearly showed that. So your "better defending" theory is invalid tonight. And on the contrary, AB did a good job on defending CP3 just a couple days before.
aaron already has beaten the hornets down the stretch in our last home game against them. scoring was obviously an issue in this game as the defense was solid so you go with your hot hands to finish this game, give yourself more scoring opportunities.
Have you watched the Rockets this season? McGrady has had several games where he was totally worthless down the stretch. In each and every one of those, he limped around and played like a disinterested sissy just like tonight. He had nothing from the opening tip and it was obvious he would have nothing at the end as had happened several times before (this season). When his knee bothers him like tonight, he plays like a 50 year-old man. If (and only if) exercising caution means going with someone who is playing like total dog with no confidence in his shot, then Adelman used caution tonight by putting Rafer back in. When Rafer plays tentative, he is terrible. The one hope I have about tonight is perhaps Adelman was giving Rafer rope to hang himself so that when he starts letting AB close games, there will be no shadow of doubt in anyone's mind that the change was not hastily made without giving Rafer a chance.
In case you all forgot, that was only one game...and Brooks went 1-6 and racked up a +- of 0, the only Rocket without a positive +- rating on the night, so I'm not sure that fits too well with the whole offensive spark theory. So even if that one game was conclusive, I really think it goes against your argument.
See, that's the thing about short frames of references. McGrady has had too many seasons of success (regular season anyways) to be labeled as a failure down the stretch by a couple of bad games. Unless you want Adelman to suddenly assume that one of his best players will ALWAYS be bad down the stretch and execute his gameplan accordingly, then there is nothing he can do.
Short frames of reference? Too many seasons of success? Where did I label Tracy a failure down the stretch? What are you talking about? The subject is Rafer Alston. If you check around, I had no problem with Tracy being in the tonight's game. I also had no problem when Adelman yanked him a couple of times earlier in the season. My point was Tracy was obviously incapable of making plays because of his knee injury and how it affected Rafer. Let's try to stay on the subject instead of rambling around. If you are comparing Rafer to Tracy, then I think you really need a perspective check. You've completely lost me.
During this particular game, to reiterate everything again, Adelman made the right choice, going with what usually works (and McGrady+Yao+Rafer closing out games usually works, as proven by previous seasons). I've never argued that Rafer is the ideal point or that the Rockets are perfect with him, but I will argue this; Rafer may not necessarily be the better closer at this point but with McGrady and Yao he is the more proven closer. You don't just change things on the fly based on a few quarters. I'm sorry, that's just not the way I think a basketball team should be run and I'm glad Adelman seems to have the same viewpoint.
In reference to Northside's posts...and to the thread in general <br> Since when does what a player has done in the past bear more weight than what they are doing now? Why shouldn't in game decisions be made on real time scenarios, instead of a total reliance on what has happened in the past? Northside likes to say that Rafer is a "proven closer", yet a high percentage of the time, the ball has been in T-Mac's hands in the end of a game. I don't know what is so magical that Rafer Alston has ever done near the end of the game to set up his team, but do feel free to fill me in. Aaron brooks has that ability due to his speed, and explosiveness. Brooks has the ability to close, and has proven it a few times during this season. Northside previously referenced the San Antonio game from earlier this season to cite Brooks' failure at closing a game. However, if you remember, it was Aaron Brooks that kept us close to the Spurs in that game. He was doing a terrific job of creating for his teammates. Furthermore, although he wasn't able to make one or two crunch time shots in that game, he did a good job of creating the opportunity to get those shots. Not to mention, at that time he was quite a bit inexperienced. That's changed now though. He did a perfect job of doing his thing in the three or four games he started. Again, please explain to me what outstanding thing Rafer was doing tonight to warrant his PT? Especially when there is a proven, viable option to replace him. Continuing on, if you say Rafer is immune to being taken out of the game because he is a "closer", why is it that Tracy "13 in 35" McGrady was benched last game in favor of Brooks for the final few minutes? Are you trying to say that Adleman thinks Rafer is more important than McGrady?? Is Rafer a more proven player than T-Mac? Just admit that it was a coaching blunder on Adleman's part. It happens..we understand that. I have no animosity towards the man, but, to all those claiming that Rafer is still the answer, please get a reality check..
<br> Adleman made a horrible choice. He went with a proven chucker who's shot sometimes falls, but most of the time doesn't. Just because McGrady+Yao+Rafer has worked, it does not mean that it still works, and more importantly (all you Rafer lovers take note of this) it is not the only thing that works!!! Of course you do not change things on the fly, but with the repetitive bad performances Alston has had through the years, other options should be considered...
Some of what your saying makes sense, you need a routine with your players in order to be sucessful over the course of the season so that you can go to what you know works to close out games. BUT... That is just not the case when you are talking about role players, and Rafer is a role player, he's not great at anything and i don't think he has ever been proven as consistant, so with that being the case you go with who is playing better in the current game and it wasn't Rafer. and your statement...."Rafer may not necessarily be the better closer at this point but with McGrady and Yao he is the more proven closer." .... If you are going to run everthing through McGrady and Yao, it shouldn't matter who is the better closer at the point bec. McGrady gets the ball just past halfcourt, and either creates or passes to Yao and lets him create, but with McGrady still clearly hurting, you have to go with the hot hand to close the game, to try and be that other "option". Don't just go with the vet. just because he is a vet.
a) Paragraphs are your friends. b) Rafer is a proven closer because he closes games with tangible actions, like, oh I dunno, hitting three-pointers? He has a knack of throwing down cold-blooded threes. Recent example of the Atlanta game comes to mind. c) You say Brooks was inexperienced when he was facing San Antonio...what's changed in the last month or so? His total of 5 or 6 games started? Like I said, small frames of reference. d) Rafer warrants PT because even if you rationalize that all he does is be present (which is absolutely false), just his "presence" closing games is enough for 50-win seasons. You don't mess with that unless you have more then one or two games (something like twenty games) telling you that Rafer is consistently losing games for the Rockets. So far, that hasn't happened. e) Adelman benched Mac last game because Tracy complained of soreness.
