Johnny Rocket

It has been tough digesting these last two losses, but Rockets fans need to take a collective chill pill.  Yes, the Rockets basically collapsed down the stretch in both games, the defensive schemes have been suspect, and Harden has been terrible on both ends.  And Alridge has played at historically great levels.  And you know what?  We almost won both games!  Even in game two, we are down three with 30 seconds to play.  In this light, I don't understand the basic logic of Rahat's post, which veers between 1) the Rockets are irreparably flawed because of poor coaching and poor leadership; and 2) we could still win this series.  Both could be true, I guess, but how do we evaluate the Rockets if they come back and advance to the second round?  Will we forget these posts and latch onto the overcoming adversity narrative?  Will we suddenly remember that McHale was an absolutely great playoff performer who knows what it takes to win a championship?  And even if we lose the series, if San Antonio, Oklahoma, and Indiana also all lose in the first round--a real possibility!--does that change the way we think of our team? 

I disagree with Rahat's premise that playing time is the same thing as player development.  The first thing that NBA players have to learn is that if you don't do things the right way, you don't play.  It is absolutely vital--especially on teams that have ambitions of becoming contenders--that the best players play without exception.  Jones didn't play last year because he wasn't as good as the other options (including Greg Smith). But that experience helped Jones, as he freely admits.

 

With all the injuries to all the big men, D-Mo has had plenty of time to establish himself as a viable option. He's failed to do so, so why reward that failure with more playing time? It would be devastating for morale, as the players would see it as a white flag of surrender.

What ST says make sense, but in a Jones-Howard-Casspi frontline, why not consider Jones the small forward?  Jones has enough foot speed and length to do an adequate job on defense, and he has ball handling ability to play small forward.  I'm not saying it would be necessarily ideal, but it might be better than player Brewer.  And you would have the benefit of Jones being able to use his size and strength against presumably smaller players.

To rephrase some of the earlier points, I'm not sure if it is IQ or inexperience.  Remember that the average age of our top six players is 25, which is way younger than most contenders.  When you have a young team that plays really fast, you'll have a fair share of turnovers and defense lapses, especially when key pieces has been together for a max of 13 months (Hardin, Lin) or 2 months (Howard).  The Rockets will be much more consistent by the end of the year an far better next year.  McHale will have a lot of gray hair by then, but that is the price of coaching a young, talented team

As I listened to the podcast, I thought the discussion was overly negative on the pairing of Asik and Howard.  I mean, didn't we beat the two WC finalists by 20 points on the road?  Sure, its preseason, but what more could they have done in the context of those two games?  The thinking seems to be if the Asik/Howard combo (AHC) clogs down the lane and slows the offense, its a failure.  The goal isn't to create space for the offense; rather, the goal is to win games. If we sacrifice some spacing and speed to totally shut down the other team--and produce turnovers and easy buckets as a result--I think that's great.  We shouldn't be afraid if AHC changes our team identity somewhat if it produces wins.

 

I totally get that AHC will not work against many smaller lineups.  I don't see that as a problem, though--we just go small, knowing that it will be very hard for any team to outside the Spurs, Thunder, and Heat to match up with us consistently in a small-ball game.  Think of the AHC as a way of taking away one of the opposing team's big men off the floor.  Its very existence forces teams to go small, which will often to be to our advantage.

 

An excellent test will be the early games against the Clippers.  I think AHC vs Griffin/Jordan really works to our advantage.  And if the Clippers go small as a result, they'll have nobody to protect the rim against our small-ball lineup.  We'll win either way.

As we wait for Howard's decision, I wonder what folks make of the very significant free agency moves that other teams in the Western Conference have made.  Here's my take on some of the signings thus far:

 

1) Timberwolves: Re-signing C-Bud and signing Martin really helps the offense, which will be one of the best in the league.  But the defense will be terrible, and I don't see how they win a playoff series if they get that far.

 

2) Thunder:  Losing Martin off the bench really, really hurts.  It means, for one, that all they got for Harden was one year of Martin, Lamb, and a couple of middling draft picks.  More importantly, I don't see them having the offensive punch to be a truly elite team.  They seem overly dependent on Westbrook and Durant.  I wonder if they think that Jackson will improve significantly?

 

3) Clips:  They will be really good, but I don't think they are an elite defensive team and thus still vulnerable to Memphis and San Antonio (and quite possibly Houston).  Maybe Rivers will push them over the top in that regard.  The bench is a real area of concern as well.

 

4)  Spurs:  Is it just me, or did they way overpay for Splitter? Maybe that's just going rate for a good but not great center these days.

 

5) New Orleans:  They'll be a lot better with Holiday, but they don't seem like a playoff team to me, especially without a center and with Gordon performing well below expectations. How do they improve from here?

My two cents: be patient, keep him, and try different combinations. We've barely played a quarter of the schedule, our head coach was gone for a month, and we have the youngest team in the league. It is way, way too early to be drawing any conclusions.

Allow me to play the role of the ridiculous optimist and say 35-40 wins, and that we'll compete for the 8th seed in a vague sort of way (3-4 games out; close enough to dream, but but ultimately not close enough to seal the deal). Here's my reasoning:

1) There is good reason to expect that Parsons, with a full off-season to prepare, will be far better than last year.
2) Asik looks great and seems set to take the next leap forward now that he's a starter. He'll be a huge upgrade over last year's centers.
3) I don't know how good Patterson will ultimately be, but he's bound to be much improved over last year.
4) The combination of Patterson and Jones at the 4 is a huge defensive upgrade over Scola, even though we'll lose something on offense.
5) Martin is set to become a borderline All-Star; he's healthy, playing for a contract, and has something to prove.
6)The rookies will have ups and downs, but they will come off the bench in generally low-pressure situations. Most of the minutes will be played by "young veterans" (Asik, Lin, Patterson, Parsons) and a few "older veterans" (Delfino, Martin).
7) We'll be less deep at point guard than last year, but Lin will be just as a good as either of last year's starters.

To compare with last year's team: 1) far better overall team defense; 2) marked improvement at shooting guard, center, and shooting forward; 3) less scoring at the four, but better defense; and 5) a younger, inexperienced, but ultimately more talented bench.


Forty wins can be had, though if injury strikes any of the starters, then 25-30 is indeed in the ballpark.

Hollinger has a great read on how Morely's strategy has basically driven a truck through a key CBA loophole. He also likes the signing in that Asik is worth $8 million a year, even if he doesn't improve on offense. Here is the last few paragraphs of his analysis:

"Asik's advanced stats support the subjective viewpoint that he's one of the five or 10 best defensive players in basketball, and defense in general tends to be wildly underrated in the free-agent market (although weirdly, not in the draft). He is also, objectively, a monstrous rebounder, with his 20.1 Rebound Rate ranking sixth in the NBA last season.
Asik is a terrible offensive player, however, with bad hands, poor touch and a proclivity for illegal screens. Advanced stats seem to indicate that he takes away almost as much with his offense as he does with his defense -- but that overall he's a plus, even compared to the league average.
And that, in the big picture, makes him a second-tier starting center. And you know how much those are worth? About $8 million a year. Houston should know; they just paid nearly the same amount to the departed Samuel Dalembert.
Houston will hope Asik can improve on that prognosis by upping his offensive production to slightly less pathetic levels, with the tutelage of Kevin McHale, but even so his defense justifies the contract.
It also helps that Houston gets somebody under lock and key before re-signing its own free agents. The cap holds for Lee and Goran Dragic are low enough that it behooves the Rockets to use the cap space first, and then rebuild their backcourt.
From there, Houston can go in any number of directions, depending on Dwight Howard's availability and the market for Kyle Lowry. But first they took care of the most urgent need if the Bulls don't match, the Rockets will have a real starting center this year, and they won't be overpaying for him."

I like this move. I think (hope?) that Asik will turn into a Marcin Gortat, somebody who improves remarkably when he becomes THE center on a team. Even if he doesn't improve much on offense, a great defensive center is a must if we are going to compete against Memphis, LA, San Antonio, Clippers, and Denver--those team with multiple big men who just abused us last year inside and on the boards.