55 replies to this topic

[txtdo1411]

I was actually bummed when Utah matched Gordon Hayward's contract from Charlotte.  I thought he would have been a great addition for them.  Going from #1 guy on a bad team to #3 guy on a playoff team is huge.  I think he would have made their offense exceptionally good---much like Parsons did for us.

 

Now, Parsons may wind up in the same boat in Dallas--Dirk and Monta are still the lead guys.  Parsons is a solid off-ball player and with Dirk/Monta drawing defensive attention he should get open looks from 3 and easy baskets cutting to the rim.  We'll find out.  It might be a great fit that allows him to excel and return fair value for his contract.  The important question is how it affects the win column.

 

Completely agree that Hayward on the Bobcats was a really good fit. They would have been a very exciting young scrappy team.

 

Regarding Parsons, Is he going to be their 3rd option? I don't necessarily see how Cuban can sell the fan base and organization on paying $14+ mill., paid way more than Ellis and Dirk, for a player that will be your 3rd option. Unless he is a helluva defensive player as well, which Parsons hasn't been for the last two years. I mean it makes sense for Dirk and Ellis to be "the guys" there, because they can create their own offense, and Parsons hasn't shown that ability consistently. Just seems to me Cuban (and Parsons himself) is expecting more than just being an off-ball player. That would essentially be the same exact role he had here. Only at 14 times the cost. 

[thejohnnygold]

Completely agree that Hayward on the Bobcats was a really good fit. They would have been a very exciting young scrappy team.

 

Regarding Parsons, Is he going to be their 3rd option? I don't necessarily see how Cuban can sell the fan base and organization on paying $14+ mill., paid way more than Ellis and Dirk, for a player that will be your 3rd option. Unless he is a helluva defensive player as well, which Parsons hasn't been for the last two years. I mean it makes sense for Dirk and Ellis to be "the guys" there, because they can create their own offense, and Parsons hasn't shown that ability consistently. Just seems to me Cuban (and Parsons himself) is expecting more than just being an off-ball player. That would essentially be the same exact role he had here. Only at 14 times the cost. 

 

I think Parsons and Monta will primarily be options 1-2 through the first 40 minutes of the game, but Dirk is one of the best late game players over the last few years.  They would be crazy not to ride him down the stretch.  I really do think it will be a lot like it was here.  He will get his turns being a 1-2 option, but he will wind up #3 overall.  Maybe Carlisle has a plan that will utilize Parsons' talents better than we did.  Personally, I don't think he is quick enough to beat most SF's off the dribble so maybe they put him in the post?  The extra muscle he has added plus his height could help there.

 

I think paying a player $15M if he transforms your team into a consistent winner is an easy sell.  I think the Mavs would need to finish in the top 4 for that to happen though.  The good news for Parsons: Raymond Felton will be playing the role of scapegoat this season. 

[txtdo1411]

I think Parsons and Monta will primarily be options 1-2 through the first 40 minutes of the game, but Dirk is one of the best late game players over the last few years.  They would be crazy not to ride him down the stretch.  I really do think it will be a lot like it was here.  He will get his turns being a 1-2 option, but he will wind up #3 overall.  Maybe Carlisle has a plan that will utilize Parsons' talents better than we did.  Personally, I don't think he is quick enough to beat most SF's off the dribble so maybe they put him in the post?  The extra muscle he has added plus his height could help there.

 

I think paying a player $15M if he transforms your team into a consistent winner is an easy sell.  I think the Mavs would need to finish in the top 4 for that to happen though.  The good news for Parsons: Raymond Felton will be playing the role of scapegoat this season. 

 

I did not see the game the other night, so I haven't seen the added weight, but that would be an interesting way to go. I don't remember him posting up much at all here. That would be something we did not utilize at all during his tenure if he can be effective from the block in Dallas.

 

I also agree $15M for a player that transforms you into a contender is an easy sell, but I was unaware Parsons was that kind of player. I mean we were about to massively overpay for Bosh, but he made us an instant contender so we were all on board with it. I guess the general public agrees with Cuban and that Parsons does vault them into the contender status. I just don't see it. We will see come regular season. For all I know, I could be that bitter ex-gf just thinking of all the flaws during our relationship just to make myself feel better. 

[thejohnnygold]

I did not see the game the other night, so I haven't seen the added weight, but that would be an interesting way to go. I don't remember him posting up much at all here. That would be something we did not utilize at all during his tenure if he can be effective from the block in Dallas.

 

I also agree $15M for a player that transforms you into a contender is an easy sell, but I was unaware Parsons was that kind of player. I mean we were about to massively overpay for Bosh, but he made us an instant contender so we were all on board with it. I guess the general public agrees with Cuban and that Parsons does vault them into the contender status. I just don't see it. We will see come regular season. For all I know, I could be that bitter ex-gf just thinking of all the flaws during our relationship just to make myself feel better. 

 

Hold up there...I'm not saying he is that kind of player either.  I think most fans have not really seen him play aside from highlights.  Check out this info. on team TV ratings: LINK

 

The Rockets rank 9th in the league, but that number is skewed beyond belief--we are still 4 spots below "average" because it is so top heavy.

 

Here is a breakdown of every single nationally televised game from last season along with ratings.  LINK  Houston had a total of 7 games that scored an above average rating (avg. is 1.956M viewers).  Of those games, the highest was HOU vs. SA on Christmas day.  Here are all 7 in descending order:

 

HOU/SA (12/25) Won 111-98

 

HOU/MIA (3/16) Lost 104-113

 

HOU/LAL (11/7) Lost 98-99

 

HOU/DAL (11/20) Lost 120-123

 

HOU/NYK (11/14) Won 109-106

 

HOU/GSW (2/20) Lost 102-99

 

HOU/CHI (12/18) Won 109-94

 

(bonus 8th game because it came in just under the average  ratings score)

 

HOU/OKC (1/16) Lost 92-104

 

So, the 8 games people saw the most from our season were these.  We went 3-5 in those games, beating CHI, NYK, and SAS ( meaning we pissed off two large markets while getting no credit for SA because--as always--no one cares about SA until they win another championship).  Meanwhile, we got beat by media darling teams like Golden State, Miami, The Lakers, and Dallas (which only matters here in Texas).

 

Is it any surprise that we get zero respect nationally?  That was our showing--for the most part--from last season.

 

Now, let's look at what Mr. Parsons did in those games.  Again, in descending order.

 

8-14 (5-9 from deep), 21 pts, 6 reb, 6 ast, 1 to

 

4-9 (0-1 from deep), 9 pts, 1 reb, 5 ast, 4 stl, 2 to

 

6-11 (1-3 from deep) 16 pts, 3 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 1 to

 

7-10 (4-5 from deep) 21 pts, 5 rebs, 11 asts, 4 stl, 2 to  (no surprise, this was against DAL...they liked what they saw)

 

7-11 (2-5 from deep) 22 pts, 2 reb, 2 ast, 2 stl, 0 to

 

8-24 (3-10 from deep) 21 pts, 8 reb, 5 ast 1 stl, 1 blk, 3 to

 

8-14 (3-4 from deep) 19 pts, 9 reb, 3 ast 1 blk, 2 to

 

4-13 (3-9 from deep) 14 pts, 4 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 4 to.

 

Some of those stat lines are superb!  Really, there were only two duds and they came against MIA and OKC.  Over the 8 games, Parsons averaged this line:

 

17.9 pts, 4.8 reb, 4.4 ast, 1.6 stl, 0.25 blk, 1.9 to on 49% shooting ( 46% from deep)

 

For comparison, his season averages are:

 

16.6 pts, 5.5 reb, 4.0 ast, 1.2 stl, 0.4 blk, 1.9 to on 47% shooting (37% from deep)

 

Well, is it any surprise the average NBA fan thinks Parsons is a star?  Given the public perception that between McHale and Harden no player can prosper here it all paints a pretty picture.  Add to that a decent playoff showing and here we are--everyone thinks he's going to break out....except most of us who have watched him the last 3 years who think this is about as good as it gets.

 

Again, I don't think anyone is saying Parsons isn't good and I think most everyone wanted us to keep him moving forward.  What we're dealing with is some really good PR/marketing versus the old adage about coveting a hot girl...you know the one....you see some girl and think she must be the best thing ever....just remember....somewhere, some guy is sick of her.

 

Parsons has joined the enemy and I look forward to the next years of competition between us and them.  I hope he does well (except against us) and nothing would make me happier than meeting them (and beating them) in the WCF's on our way to the NBA Finals.

[txtdo1411]

Really nice post JG. I hadn't really thought about which games had the most national viewers, and how much of an impact his performance during those games affected the public perception. His three point shooting was insane in most of those games, so I can see how that can skew the opinion of a non-Rockets fans. 

[clydesmoustache]

I am sad to see Parsons go but for $15 mill!? See you and good luck! The only thing that is good about that contract is that it makes Harden's contract look like a bargain

[timetodienow1234567]

Once the Cap rises to 90 mil his contract will be a bargain.

[Steven]

Once the Cap rises to 90 mil his contract will be a bargain.

Dirk and Timmah!!! for $10M, that is bargain. Parsons for $15 will replace Amar'e as the worst contract in the NBA.

[timetodienow1234567]

I was responding to the previous post about Hardens contract.... I guess I have to be as specific as possible if people won't read.

[thejohnnygold]

I was responding to the previous post about Hardens contract.... I guess I have to be as specific as possible if people won't read.

 

$15M/year for a player that is in the MVP discussion is already a bargain.  Under a $90M cap, that's just a steal.  

[thejohnnygold]

I've been thinking about how Harden fared in those games I went over regarding Parsons in this post above.

 

These are in chronological order--not in order of descending ratings like the ones above.

 

HOU/LAL - 9-24 (3-9 from deep) 35 pts, 9 rebs, 5 asts, 4 stl, 2 blk, 3 to (lost)

 

HOU/NYK - 9-17 (2-6 from deep) 36 pts, 9 reb, 2 ast, 1 stl, 5 to (won)

 

HOU/DAL - 6-14 (2-8 from deep) 23 pts, 1 reb, 8 ast, 1 to (lost)

 

HOU/CHI - 7-13 (1-4 from deep) 22 pts, 4 reb, 6 ast, 3 stl, 7 to (won)

 

HOU/SAS - 11-16 (3-3 from deep) 28 pts, 6 reb, 6 ast, 2 blk, 2 to (won)

 

HOU/OKC - 6-16 (2-8 from deep) 16 pts, 7 reb, 8 ast, 3 to (lost)

 

HOU/GSW - 14-27 (3-8 from deep) 39 pts, 4 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 2 to (lost)

 

HOU/MIA - 7-16 (5-12 from deep) 30 pts, 3 reb, 1 ast, 1 stl, 4 to (lost)

 

Let's see how that averages out:

 

28.6 ppg, 5.4 reb, 5.1 ast, 1.3 stl, 0.5 blk, 3.4 to on 48.3%fg (36.2% from deep)

 

For comparison, here are his season averages:

 

25.4 ppg, 4.7 reb, 6.1 ast, 1.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.6 to on 45.6%fg (36.6% from deep)

 

All in all, he played above average in these games.  I don't know what to make of it.  I think people dislike the appearance of his game--the free throw shooting, the offensive flopping, the defense, the aloofness....

 

I would like to add that of these 8 games, 6 were on the road.  4 were the second night game of a back-to-back (3 of which were on the road).  One was during the Asik/Howard trial period.  Not making excuses, but I think we all agree that these things are factors in winning and losing over the course of a season.

 

Regarding the perception of Harden--I guess if you are looking at him through MVP-glasses then yes, his stats are a tad underwhelming and the 5 losses are not good either.  I'm excited to see him play this season...especially after reading all that praise from Coach K.

 

Ultimately, I have concluded that the difference in perception between Parsons and Harden comes down to a sub-conscious, superficial judgement based on their hair.  Parsons' hair (GQ faux-hawk with George Michael perma-stubble) is appealing to people.  James' hair (Mr. T faux-hawk/epic beard) is awesome, but is also a tad gnarly and not as easy on the eyes.  

 

[Steven]

I was responding to the previous post about Hardens contract.... I guess I have to be as specific as possible if people won't read.

Agreed then, your statement had just followed Clyde's about Parsons.

[timetodienow1234567]

I am sad to see Parsons go but for $15 mill!? See you and good luck! The only thing that is good about that contract is that it makes Harden's contract look like a bargain

The last line refers to Hardens contract looking like a bargain, hence my reply.

[rockets best fan]

@JG

the point you have raised is a perspective I had not viewed the love affair the national media has with Parsons from. the way you have laid out the facts for your point was excellent. it makes perfect sense. most of the main stream media watch the nationally televised games and he's putting on a show for them. they are suffering from the grass is greener in somebody else's yard syndrome. excellent point and I agree 

[Johnny Rocket]

Great post, JG.  BTW, Bradford Doolittle at ESPN has projected Parson's as the 9th best shooting forward in the league.  Ariza is ranked 11th.  Given the huge disparity in contracts, it seems clear that the Rox made the right choice.

[thejohnnygold]

Great post, JG.  BTW, Bradford Doolittle at ESPN has projected Parson's as the 9th best shooting forward in the league.  Ariza is ranked 11th.  Given the huge disparity in contracts, it seems clear that the Rox made the right choice.

 

Glad you guys appreciate the posts--it is a perspective I hadn't really considered until this Summer's events made me curious.

 

Parsons as #9, eh?  Those lists are very subjective and, these days, convoluted by positional ambiguities.  ESPN lists Jeff Adrien as a SF and his PER ranks him in the top 10 of SF's....huh?

 

Guys who are definitely ahead of Parsons?  Durant, James, George, Anthony, Gay, Batum, Leonard.....I am already starting to feel like I am in the gray area.  Jeff Green?

 

(Just for fun, ESPN's fantasy player rater has Ariza #6 and Parsons #10...so there's that...)

 

Let's forget that stuff and check out some head to head stats for Parsons and Ariza.

 

Here is a Win/Loss split for both Parsons and Ariza with Parsons first:

 

 

...and here is Ariza...

 

 

you can click on the charts to enlarge them

 

While the sample sizes are different (which means these numbers may be meaningless) let's trudge forward anyways.  The thing that strikes me is Ariza's stat lines are pretty steady aside from 1 missed fg/game and 1 missed ft/game in losses.  His shot attempts and peripheral stats are steady.

 

On the other hand, Parsons shows a distinct shift between losses and wins...and it does not bode well for Dallas.  His FG attempts increase and he generates 1 extra ppg, but his FG% decreases, rebounds decrease, assists decrease, turnovers increase and pretty much anything negative that can happen does while playing roughly the same mpg.  This is a reflection of increased usg% (what Dallas allegedly has planned for him).

 

Now, I haven't gone through each game log and seen who might have been hurt, what exact teams we played, or any other factor that could explain some of this.  Just looking at it blindly, I like that Ariza seems to be a steady hand win or lose.  He is going to show up and do his thing.  Morey used to preach variance.  I think the move from Ariza to Parsons could signal a shift in his team building.  We are no longer looking for variance; rather, we are looking for steadiness and consistency to put around our variance guys (Dwight and James).

 

I think this is why our team seemed to be in so many lop-sided games last season.  If everyone is "on" then we blow a team out and vice versa.

 

With this new direction, I believe we will be better equipped to win more often.  Why?  Because if we presume improved defensive play and combine that with steady, consistent contributions from our role players then we can better withstand the "off" nights from our stars and still win games we would otherwise have lost.  Brace yourselves...lots of numbers coming  

 

We were 8-11 in games where Harden shot sub 40% from the field.  We were 8-0 when Harden shot 60% or better.

 

We were 8-11 in games where Harden scored less than 20 points.  We were 17-6 when Harden scored more than 30.

 

We were 7-9 when Harden notched 3 or fewer assists.  We were 20-9 in games where Harden notched 7+ assists.

 

I know--common sense stuff....

 

We were 17-8 in games where Harden had 5+ turnovers.  We were 11-7 in games where Harden had 2- turnovers.

 

This one is counter-intuitive a bit.  We were 6-2 in games with 6+ turnovers.  We were 4-0 in games with 7+ turnovers.  This is why nobody chides Harden for his turnovers as much as the other players.  His aggression and play-making generates more mistakes....and more wins.

 

I'm getting to a point....I promise.    Let's do the same for Parsons.

 

We were 12-8 when Parsons shot sub 40% from the field.  We were 12-4 when Parsons shot 60% or better.

 

*I'm adjusting the points comp because Parsons only scored 30+ twice and we were 1-1 in those games.  In fact, I will have to adjust the other numbers as well for scale.

 

We were 14-4 when Parsons scored fewer than 12 points.  We were 10-8 when Parsons scored more than 20 points.

 

We were 7-11 in games where Parsons notched 2 or fewer assists.  We were 21-6 in games where Parsons notched 5+ assists.

 

We were 19-5 when Parsons had 1- turnovers.  We were 1-4 when Parsons had 4+ turnovers.  (He had a lot of 2-3 turnover games.)

 

 

Stop right there.  Immediately something jumps out.  Parsons is a higher variance player than Harden.  Harden had 27 games that fell outside of the NBA "bell curve" (40%-60% shooting).  Parsons has 36!...and that is out of 74 games, not 82!  That's huge.  49% of Parsons' games had him shooting well above or well below average (20 below compared to 16 above).

 

Another interesting point is the overall effect each player's performance had on winning.  Harden's poor shooting led to a winning% of .421 while his good shooting led to a winning percentage of 1.00.  Parsons, on the other hand has a wining% of .600 when he shoots poorly and a winning% of .750 when he shoots well.

 

So, while Harden is less of a variable overall--his performance has a much bigger impact on winning% (+.579).  Parsons, who is much more variable game to game brings a smaller winning% impact (+.150).  Now, I understand that usg% is a factor here.  Harden's usg% was 27.8 and Parsons was 19.3--roughly 1/3 less.

 

Where Parsons' effect was really visible was in creating for others.  When he was racking up assists, we were racking up wins.  That has been mentioned as a point of concern by quite a few--there is some validity here.  I think Beverley can make up for some and Ariza brings about 3 per game...we'll have to see how this one works out.

 

Parsons' turnovers had the normal effect one expects to see.

 

I apologize for this huge mess of a post (welcome to my mind  ).  The point is that I think we have brought in a player who will help us generate more wins overall (and this is before factoring in the defensive upgrade) by virtue of providing a consistent offensive contribution versus a sporadic one.

 

Regarding the rankings--Parsons will most likely produce more "eye-popping" stat lines next season and people will see him as "better".  However, as Johnny Rocket noted, when looking at contract value and the hopeful improved fit for us in that position we are in great shape.