# Gundy had you fooled....



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

We know it takes 5. Jazz proved it. But it takes more than just that.

It takes a functional 5, a Coach and a of course a bench too. Jazz proved that also.

The number one defense used for JVG is ...yeah well it's the players fault. Obviously he is not playing out there.

So i ask you....

Who got these players here in the first place?
Who refuses to develop young talent?
Who has minimal respect for draft picks?
Who refuses to play players that management get?
Who has been getting into Ego wars with his players?

I also ask you...

How excited do you get while watching Gundy's offense?

Do not for a second think that Gundy has no say in who comes to play for Rockets. This has been going on for a while. Gundy went and got an old Oakley. He got an old Charlie Ward. He got an old Rod Strickland. He traded away Mike James for Rafer Alston because he had talked to his brother Stan who raved about Rafer. He has refused to trade Juan on multiple occasions, once even for Cassell. Gundy has to take blame for his players because the players that he put on the floor...are the players that he went and got here in the first place.

Was Gundy oblivious to Rafer's overall FG% and his poor defense?
Was Gundy oblivious to Juan's losing career and terrible stint for Dallas in playoffs?
Was Gundy not watching when Mike James helped Rockets win couple of big games in playoffs?
Was Gundy not aware of Shane Battier accepting minimal responsibilty in past playoffs?

Here's the kicker. If the Rockets management gets a player that Gundy does not like he will make sure they do not get off the pine. I am not a VSpan fan. At the beginning of the season I didn''t know whether he can contribute at all. Hell, I still don't know. Why? Because Gundy wanted to secure his job and refused to take risks. Had Vspan played here and there this season, we could have at least found out if this guy can do anything or not. One season in book and we are still at ground zero with him. Same with Novak. Gundy apologists claim..."Well he got 2 minutes yesterday and he sucked." Anyone who gets sporadic 2-3 minutes a game and 0 minutes most of the time is going to suck. Players need REAL GAME court time to develop. Do you guys think Barbosa and Joe Johnson came into the league averaging the numbers that they average right now?? Suns went throughh painful times to develop them. I had been following Barbosa and Johnson. They were highly mistake-prone in the beginning but Suns kept playing them. They developed them by giving them time on the court, not sitting them on the bench. Look at them now. D'Antoni still has a job because he took the risk and has had more success than JVG past couple of years.

JVG must have the biggest ego for a coach that has never won a championship. It gets personal with him. He will not play Bonzi because his ego cant swallow pride and he refuses to be flexible for the welfare of the team. He never liked Vspan and he never wanted him on this team. When management got him here on false promises, he made sure every mistake made by Vspan was magnified. Vspan could not breathe. He had absolutely no room for error. If he made the slightest mistake, he was yanked, yelled at, and made an example of.

I absolutely have no problem with a coach being tough on his players. Popovich does it and he has had results. But what I have problem with is double standard. If you are going to yell at Vspan or Yao for a mistake, then make sure you do the same next time when your beloved PF just sits right under the basket and does not even attempt to play defense while someone just lays the ball in. How about pulling Rafer aside and yelling at him for mindlessly chucking up shots and throwing up wild floaters. Popovich yells at Duncan, Manu and Parker just as same as he yells at 12 and 13th person on the bench. Oh right right....I know the Gundy apologists response..."Well Gundy knows his personnel and how to handle each one." If Tracy, Juan, and Rafer are so fragile that they cannot respond well to harsh words from JVG, then they are not worthy to play in big games. And judging from each of those guys performances so far, they might not be. JVG's double standard needs to go.

What's ironic about all this is that the very strategy that JVG used to safeguard his job, might have been his undoing. He had one short-term goal in his mind. "Gotta keep my job". He made no attempt to hide it. So his first step? Go with people you trusted. He traded the draft pick for a guy he knew he could trust. He knew exactly what he could get from Battier and he knew Battier would do exactly what he would ask him to. Good move for short term? Sure. Long term? Very debatable. Battier is hardly a player that will shine when the spotlight is on him. We needed much more than a decent defender who will occasionally hit 3s from outside. It was a lottery pick... a reward for a really painful season...but of course Gundy has no respect for lottery. He was hell bent, the previous year, to win meaningless games... Lottery and Gundy? Match made in hell. That debacle ultimately cost us Brandon Roy. We could have had Brandon Roy but long term success for Rockets wasn't on Gundy's mind. His shortsightedness had a couple wins and a good paycheck on radar. He went with 8 man rotation for the entire season. Only players he could trust not to make any mistakes were allowed in this elite club. Zero vision for future. Well Gundy... no risk means no reward. No soup for you.

If Gundy does not like certain players on Rockets, can he at least not bring their trade value to absolute zilch? Swift was not Gundy kinda player. Ok fine understandable. But why get in an ego war and devalue him so that we cant get anything for him? Why does it end up getting personal with Gundy? Why did he let Bonzi rot to nothing? In all the years of coaching, I don't think Rudy ever made it personal. If he thought he could get better deals for players, he would do it. He was very up front about it. I don't think he ever embarrassed his players. Gundy on the other hand seems to be hell bent on embarrassing players he never liked in the first place. That is just childish and immature. I expect better from a head coach.

Gundy drama might cost us free agent signings. How many of you have high hopes for free agent signings? Would you be lining up to sign with the Rockets as CD claimed couple years ago after what has transpired over the years? Would you come here looking for the Swift and Bonzi treatment? And for what exactly? A first round exit?

Moving on to the coaching part...When was the last time you sat down after a hard day's work, turned your TV on, and exclaimed, "I would love to see me some Gundy offense!" My God. If you want one coach who would never think outside of the box on offense, this guy would be your pick. I have heard that Gundy has countless schemes and X's and O's yet when it comes to game time I see only two plays run. Dump the ball to Yao and let him decide based on how offense reacts, or give the ball to Tracy and let him do "something." Tracy, of course, will be either in Iso mode or coming off of a pick. How many other plays can you think of? I have been saying it for years now....This offense is too damn predictable. Good defenses will have no problem shutting it down. Utah capitalized on it eventually. What makes this predictable offense even more poisonous is the fact that Yao is slow. Match made in hell. After all these years I am absolutely certain that Gundy cannot coach decent offense to take this team to championship. Especially in such a brutal division and conference. The gap between other teams and our team will only widen further if Gundy remains on board.

How about the 8 man rotation eh? Well 8 man rotation is not bad when you have young munchkins with endless energy. Our star player is a 7-6 behemoth, another one has chronic back problems, we have a slow footed PF that is running on his last legs, and lastly Mutombo could have retired during the last recession. Count it. That handicapped group right there is half of our 8 man rotation logging heavy minutes in the season playing at 100% for 82 games. What does that get you when the playoffs get here? Your opponents have another gear to kick it into. While your team has only 2 choice. Either stay at the same level or go down from there. Rockets came with low energy in most of the games. WHY!?!? So much was riding for Gundy, Tracy, and Yao. Yet they came out so flat in not one, but multiple games?? Either Gundy does not know how to motivate his players or he left them with nothing in the tank. As a reference, Riley and Gundy's Knicks were often cited as playing with same energy in regular season and playoffs. Well at least they maintained that energy. This team might have spent too much energy in regular season on a 8 man rotation just to save Gundy's job.

You can ignore all that I have said so far. Yet it will be hard for you to ignore the fact that this guy is just a bad fit for this team. Gundy cannot tap into Yao and Tmac and use their creativity. He has stifled their creative offense. It's not that he wants to. Its just that his system will not let him

The sad thing in all this...This guy is a very good defensive coach, which is one of the most coveted quality for a playoff coach. He knows how to prepare his team defensively. He knows how to take away other team's strength. Yet his ego, double standards, short sightedness, inept and predictable offensive schemes keep him away from success. Too much drama, nothing to show for it.

Maybe Gundy can succeed. But his kind of team would need 8 Battiers. Hardworking, yes sir-no sir, players who he can control like robots. He seems like a coach who can take a band of average players and make them overachieve, but not one who can start off with superstars and take them to next level. Unfortunately for us, we have 2 superstars and I am not sure it would wise on Les' part to get rid of two superstars just so Gundy can continue with his mad experiments.

"Win Now" never stood for Winning a Championship.

"Win Now" was meant to win some games so Gundy could save his job.

We were fooled.


----------



## AZNoob (Jan 21, 2006)

Wow.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

i was on to him all along


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

T-T-T-Totally Dude!!!


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

During the season at least, Van Gundy trying to secure his job was in the best interests of the team, as he would have only kept his job had the Rockets done well.

He played Alston because we had no one else. Spanoulis can't shoot, which is a major weakness in an offense that primarily involves surrounding a dominant post player with shooters to give him space.

He does not refuse to play young players. He only refuses to play young players when there are better options available. Last season he played Chuck Hayes, an undrafted rookie. He started him over Juwan Howard this season.

He played Luther Head heavily last season and this season.

He started Novak early in the season against the Suns. This proved to be a mistake, and he did not play him again. Anyway, it's not like we didn't get a look at Novak in the preseason. He is clearly a terrible defender and rebounder. This was supposed to be our year. T-Mac is declining, and we have an oldish team. You don't groom players if you have a shot at the title.

To say that he disliked Swift and deliberately lowered his stock is ridiculous. Why would he want to devalue Swift if he's looking to trade him? Anyway, Swift is crap. He lowered his stock himself by playing like an idiot.

Only deep teams have more than an eight-man rotation. We are not deep. Who should be the 9th guy getting regular minutes? Snyder? Spanoulis? Tsakalidis?

Not integrating Bonzi was a huge mistake. I don't know if it was stubborness and ego, or if it was simply because he was incapable of fitting him into a system. Either way, it was criminal.


----------



## kisstherim (Jul 15, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> During the season at least, Van Gundy trying to secure his job was in the best interests of the team, as he would have only kept his job had the Rockets done well.
> 
> He played Alston because we had no one else. Spanoulis can't shoot, which is a major weakness in an offense that primarily involves surrounding a dominant post player with shooters to give him space.
> 
> ...



:clap: :clap: Awesome post as usual


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> During the season at least, Van Gundy trying to secure his job was in the best interests of the team, as he would have only kept his job had the Rockets done well.


Nope. Winning now at expense of developing a good bench was good for Gundy but not for long term interest for the Rockets. Sure it got him some extra wins in regular season but ultimately we know how that strategy came back to bite him later on. In the end, short-sightedness cost Gundy AND the Rockets.

Short term goal != long term goal. 



Hakeem said:


> He played Alston because we had no one else. Spanoulis can't shoot, which is a major weakness in an offense that primarily involves surrounding a dominant post player with shooters to give him space.


Yes he played Alston because no one was better but he was the one who put himself in that situation. Mike James fit better with this team, shot LOT better, had better showing in playoffs, yet Gundy traded him because his brother gave the green light. You want to surround Yao with shooters and yet you are supporting Alston who is shooting 33% in playoffs??! Wow!

Here's what Yao had to say about this situation...

"In this playoff series, if we have an energy player like Mike James, we definitely will have won the series. "



Hakeem said:


> He does not refuse to play young players. He only refuses to play young players when there are better options available. Last season he played Chuck Hayes, an undrafted rookie. He started him over Juwan Howard this season.


Really? This is what Yao has to say...

"Vassalis Spanoulis and Steve Novak were not given chance to play because they were rookies."

"But later in the series, Kirk Snyder was also dropped, and this I just could not comprehend."

Chuck Hayes was unleashed a year late. Quiet a few of us on another board were wondering why Hayes was not given time more often when it was clearly obious he covered Yao's weaknesses better. Yet Gundy kept playing Howard all season long...in an injury plagues season to our stars. It took Gundy 1 year to figure out what most caual fans had already noticed a year earlier... *Yikes!*

Again, you cant sympathize with Gundy having no talent because he was the one who put himself in that situation in the first place. Gundy has a big say in player moves. His track record speaks for him. He has history of going for older players.

I am not sure if you followed Gundy while he was on Knicks. Even then he traded most of team's future away and left the team in shambles. 



Hakeem said:


> He played Luther Head heavily last season and this season.


Luther was played by Gundy last year because of injuries, not because he wanted to. Even he has admitted to that.



Hakeem said:


> He started Novak early in the season against the Suns. This proved to be a mistake, and he did not play him again. Anyway, it's not like we didn't get a look at Novak in the preseason. He is clearly a terrible defender and rebounder. This was supposed to be our year. T-Mac is declining, and we have an oldish team. You don't groom players if you have a shot at the title.


Shot at the title? Get real. This team is far too slow and unathletic to compete with the big dogs. We dont even have a bench. 

4 years with Gundy on board. 3 first round exits in playoffs and 1 no show. How about getting past first round first before talking about titles?!




Hakeem said:


> To say that he disliked Swift and deliberately lowered his stock is ridiculous. Why would he want to devalue Swift if he's looking to trade him? Anyway, Swift is crap. He lowered his stock himself by playing like an idiot.


He didnt lower his stock on purpose. He just didnt care either way. I am not defendeing Swift. But when you know you have a player who doesnt fit in your system, you keep it low-key and get the best value you can for him in trade or elsewhere.

Similarly he could have kept the Bonzi situation low key and gotten something in return.

Gundy's ego is far too great to make such calculated moves.



Hakeem said:


> Only deep teams have more than an eight-man rotation. We are not deep. Who should be the 9th guy getting regular minutes? Snyder? Spanoulis? Tsakalidis?


Again Gundy built it. Gundy got hit by it. Cant sympathize with someone who dug his own grave.



Hakeem said:


> Not integrating Bonzi was a huge mistake. I don't know if it was stubborness and ego, or if it was simply because he was incapable of fitting him into a system. Either way, it was criminal.


Yep, and he payed for it.

Gundy's ego > what's good for team.

Here's what Yao had to say...

"Bonzi Wells was abandoned and I am certainly not at all surprised, because he and the head coach were having personality clashes."


You can read the entire Yao interview and get an idea of how Yao feels about Gundy's stubborness, one-dimensional offense, and lack of bench use. This is not me talking. It's one of his own star players.

This one is a gem for Gundy lovers...

"Our offense was too uni-dimensional"


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

nanoBeast said:


> Nope. Winning now at expense of developing a good bench was good for Gundy but not for long term interest for the Rockets. Sure it got him some extra wins in regular season but ultimately we know how that strategy came back to bite him later on. In the end, short-sightedness cost Gundy AND the Rockets.


Home court advantage is cruicial. We were a couple of offensive rebounds away from going to the second round. If Game 7 had been in Utah, we wouldn't have stood much of a chance. If you're making a serious run for the title, you don't put guys like Novak and Spanoulis in your rotation. It's just not done. This isn't simply a Van Gundy thing.



> Yes he played Alston because no one was better but he was the one who put himself in that situation. Mike James fit better with this team, shot LOT better, had better showing in playoffs, yet Gundy traded him because his brother gave the green light. You want to surround Yao with shooters and yet you are supporting Alston who is shooting 33% in playoffs??! Wow!
> 
> Here's what Yao had to say about this situation...
> 
> "In this playoff series, if we have an energy player like Mike James, we definitely will have won the series. "


I'll bet that like you Yao has no idea that Mike James was garbage this season in Minnesota. We got rid of Mike James because he wouldn't pass the ball enough to our two superstars. Alston had come off a good season in Toronto. There was no way of knowing that he'd suddenly get a whole lot worse.



> Chuck Hayes was unleashed a year late. Quiet a few of us on another board were wondering why Hayes was not given time more often when it was clearly obious he covered Yao's weaknesses better. Yet Gundy kept playing Howard all season long...in an injury plagues season to our stars. It took Gundy 1 year to figure out what most caual fans had already noticed a year earlier... *Yikes!*


Chuck Hayes had stamina problems last year. He pretty much had to devote his summer to improve his conditioning enough to play more minutes. He also had defensive issues, far too often fouling on his own man and not playing good enough team defense.



> Again, you cant sympathize with Gundy having no talent because he was the one who put himself in that situation in the first place. Gundy has a big say in player moves. His track record speaks for him. He has history of going for older players.


Aside from James-Alston, which Van Gundy player moves exactly do you feel diluted our talent? Drafting Luther Head? Signing Chuck Hayes? Trading for Jon Barry? Bonzi? Snyder for cash? Battier for Gay/Swift? And what else do you think he could have done?



> Luther was played by Gundy last year because of injuries, not because he wanted to. Even he has admitted to that.


Would you have preferred it if he'd taken some of McGrady's minutes?



> Shot at the title? Get real. This team is far too slow and unathletic to compete with the big dogs. We dont even have a bench.


If things had gone right -- specifically Yao not breaking his leg, Bonzi cooperating, Battier playing as well as he had in Memphis -- we would have been legitimate contenders. Still, we were a 60-win team with McGrady and Yao in the lineup. We got the second-worst possible matchup in the First Round and lost in 7 games. You don't go from being a 51-win team, improve significantly, then out of nowhere decide that you're not good enough and waste your season and a year of your superstars' primes by grooming two second-round draft picks.



> He didnt lower his stock on purpose. He just didnt care either way. I am not defendeing Swift. But when you know you have a player who doesnt fit in your system, you keep it low-key and get the best value you can for him in trade or elsewhere.


He didn't publicly castigate him. He simply threw him in a trade as a bad contract, which is exactly what Swift was (and is).



> Similarly he could have kept the Bonzi situation low key and gotten something in return.


Bonzi was thought to be valuable because he was a genuine starter getting paid virtually nothing. The best you can do is hope that he comes through at some point. Van Gundy may not have handled it well, but most of the blame does have to go to Wells, who turned up fat and uninterested.



> You can read the entire Yao interview and get an idea of how Yao feels about Gundy's stubborness, one-dimensional offense, and lack of bench use. This is not me talking. It's one of his own star players.


I read the article. You're reading way too much into a Chinese interview conducted immediately after a crushing loss. Tracy McGrady calls Van Gundy the best coach he's ever had, and Yao said that Van Gundy made him the player he is today. If you're going by player interviews (which are almost always fluff) then do it fairly.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Home court advantage is cruicial. We were a couple of offensive rebounds away from going to the second round. If Game 7 had been in Utah, we wouldn't have stood much of a chance. If you're making a serious run for the title, you don't put guys like Novak and Spanoulis in your rotation. It's just not done. This isn't simply a Van Gundy thing.


While homecourt is important, more important is the overall quality of the team. Are you saying that developing a bench is less important that securing homecourt? 

In any case they are two seperate issues. You can play all season for good record and homecourt AND you can take time to develop bench. It doesnt have to be one or the other. Spurs and Suns always develop their bench and STILL manage to get homecourts. That's why they are contenders while we are pretenders.

Please stop with the serious run at title thing. Rockets are NOT contenders. Our record was inflated while going virtually undefeated against weak Eastern conference. We had a losing record against good teams in the West. Hardly a sign of a contender.

As for how close we were... Yeah we were close on our HOME COURT in game 7. Most good home teams win in good 7. It wasnt that close anyways. The Jazz played us really close in all the games in Houston. They convincingly beat us in all the games in Utah. Hardly a sign of a contender. The Jazz are just a better team. We are a 2 man team and it showed. 




Hakeem said:


> I'll bet that like you Yao has no idea that Mike James was garbage this season in Minnesota.


I will also bet that Yao isnt as shortsighted to just look at how Mike James did in one season where he wasnt used properly in the first place. It made no sense for Timebrwolves to bring in Mike James when they were going to draft Foye and play him all along. Bad move on their part. Then again, it's the Timberwolves we are talking about here. Not surprising.

Yao knows what mike James is capable of doing in Houston Rockets system. He has already proven it.



Hakeem said:


> We got rid of Mike James because he wouldn't pass the ball enough to our two superstars. Alston had come off a good season in Toronto. There was no way of knowing that he'd suddenly get a whole lot worse.


Are you kidding me? Have you even looked at Alston career FG%?? 

We need high % shooting more from our guards than assists or playmaking. Tmac will always be the primary playmaker when it counts. We need good shooters to make teams pay for double teaming Yao/Tmac. We also need another player who can create his own shots. Mike James did that. He had proven he could do that. He had 3 excellent games against Dallas in playoffs 2 years ago. 

BTW, if you want to use the playmaking ability to defend Alston, you might want to check out his FGA.

If Mike James was as inadequate as you make him out to be, Houston rockets management would not have desperately gone after him time and time again AFTER trading him. They should NOT have traded him in the first place. A dumb move.



Hakeem said:


> Chuck Hayes had stamina problems last year. He pretty much had to devote his summer to improve his conditioning enough to play more minutes. He also had defensive issues, far too often fouling on his own man and not playing good enough team defense.


Can you give me the link for Chuck's stamina problems from last year. Anyways, the way you get rid of stamina is by playing!!!! Put him on the court and let him develop stamina. How much could he have hurt really?? We werent even going to make playoffs last year with all the injuries so might as well devote time to developing young players. How does playing Juwan big minutes instead solve the problem??

You had issues with Chuck's defense last year but you had no problem with Juwan's defense?? Are you serious? Have you even checked Juwan's defensive numbers and how much of a liability he is on that end?



Hakeem said:


> Aside from James-Alston, which Van Gundy player moves exactly do you feel diluted our talent? Drafting Luther Head? Signing Chuck Hayes? Trading for Jon Barry? Bonzi? Snyder for cash? Battier for Gay/Swift? And what else do you think he could have done?


Luther Head is a non-issue. It was a late round pick and that is the best that could be done.

But if you guys still believe Battier was a good deal for a lottery pick then wow....

Battier has had a history of disappearing in big games. So far in 11 playoff games, he has only come to play TWICE!! Go check it out.

In a league where teams are going quick and athletic, we are going slow. We have only ONE athletic player in our 8 man rotation. And he plays with a bad back.

Rockets had the chance to get Roy but Gundy was hellbent on winning meaningless games the year before and that dropped us 2 spots in lottery. Rockets had the chance to keep Gay instead but Gundy wanted Battier. All they got was a player who is a good team defender and hits wide open 3s when left open. Even that seems to disappear in playoffs.

We needed another creator on offense playing besides Yao and Tmac. All we got was another beneficiary. We made that mistake once with Alston. We did it again with Battier. The Jazz couldnt have been happier.

That move intself set this team back. Battier would have been a decent addition on a team ready to contend. We were never there. 




Hakeem said:


> If things had gone right -- specifically Yao not breaking his leg, Bonzi cooperating, Battier playing as well as he had in Memphis -- we would have been legitimate contenders.


I am sure a lot of other teams can play this multiple IFs scenarios and be a contender.

Bonzi cooperated just as much as Gundy cooperated. Read Yao's quote again. It clearly puts the blame on both parties.

Battier disappeared in big games when he was in Memphis too. Have you even looked at his performance there? You might wanna check with MemphisX about this too.



Hakeem said:


> Still, we were a 60-win team with McGrady and Yao in the lineup. We got the second-worst possible matchup in the First Round and lost in 7 games. You don't go from being a 51-win team, improve significantly, then out of nowhere decide that you're not good enough and waste your season and a year of your superstars' primes by grooming two second-round draft picks.


Inflated regular season record. Again, we went pretty much undefeated aganst a crappy eastern conference. Might wanna check our record against good teams in the West.

Troubling signs were always there.




Hakeem said:


> Bonzi was thought to be valuable because he was a genuine starter getting paid virtually nothing. The best you can do is hope that he comes through at some point. Van Gundy may not have handled it well, but most of the blame does have to go to Wells, who turned up fat and uninterested.


Nope it goes 50-50. Same Bonzi performed very well for another coach just a year ago. 



Hakeem said:


> I read the article. You're reading way too much into a Chinese interview conducted immediately after a crushing loss. Tracy McGrady calls Van Gundy the best coach he's ever had, and Yao said that Van Gundy made him the player he is today. If you're going by player interviews (which are almost always fluff) then do it fairly.


If you would have cared to look at the date my original post was made, you would have noticed that what I had written initially was long before the Yao interview.

Yao's interview only reinforces what I had said earlier.

It doesnt matter WHEN Yao said all that. The fact that Gundy's own star player called him out publicly on coaching and management issues spaks volumes. And yes, he did give him credit for playing a hand in his personal development. That still does not take away what Yao said about his other flaws.

Look at what other coaches McGrady has played for in the past. Then you would understand where Tmac is coming from. Hardly a great endorsement.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

nanoBeast said:


> While homecourt is important, more important is the overall quality of the team. Are you saying that developing a bench is less important that securing homecourt?


When the bench you are referring to consists of two second round draft picks, then yes, developing them is less important than securing home court advantage. It's one or the other. 



> Please stop with the serious run at title thing. Rockets are NOT contenders. Our record was inflated while going virtually undefeated against weak Eastern conference. We had a losing record against good teams in the West. Hardly a sign of a contender.


It's not like we were the only team to face Eastern Conference minnows. Anyway, we beat the Spurs twice. The only time we faced the Mavs with Yao and McGrady, we beat them. We can never beat the Suns. We split the season series with Detroit. We swept the Heat with an healthy Shaq and Wade, and swept the Bulls.



> As for how close we were... Yeah we were close on our HOME COURT in game 7. Most good home teams win in good 7. It wasnt that close anyways. The Jazz played us really close in all the games in Houston. They convincingly beat us in all the games in Utah. Hardly a sign of a contender. The Jazz are just a better team. We are a 2 man team and it showed.


Just a horrible matchup for us. Their two best offensive players are at our two weakest positions, while they have two or three good defenders to cover McGrady.



> I will also bet that Yao isnt as shortsighted to just look at how Mike James did in one season where he wasnt used properly in the first place. It made no sense for Timebrwolves to bring in Mike James when they were going to draft Foye and play him all along. Bad move on their part. Then again, it's the Timberwolves we are talking about here. Not surprising.


Mike James wasn't used in an unorthodox way. He's simply on a new contract and therefore has little incentive to play hard. And he's getting old. 



> BTW, if you want to use the playmaking ability to defend Alston, you might want to check out his FGA.


Got very little to do with it. In any case, James is much more of a chucker.



> If Mike James was as inadequate as you make him out to be, Houston rockets management would not have desperately gone after him time and time again AFTER trading him. They should NOT have traded him in the first place. A dumb move.


Made a lot of sense at the time. Alston was pass first, cheap, locked in for a few more years, and coming off clearly the best season of his career. James was a shoot-first PG, had only one year left and wanted big money, and T-Mac had expressed frustration with his selfish play.
Also, Houston went after James after he put up big numbers in a contract year. He's not playing at anywhere near the same level any more.



> Can you give me the link for Chuck's stamina problems from last year. Anyways, the way you get rid of stamina is by playing!!!! Put him on the court and let him develop stamina. How much could he have hurt really?? We werent even going to make playoffs last year with all the injuries so might as well devote time to developing young players. How does playing Juwan big minutes instead solve the problem??
> 
> You had issues with Chuck's defense last year but you had no problem with Juwan's defense?? Are you serious? Have you even checked Juwan's defensive numbers and how much of a liability he is on that end?


It wasn't always clear that we weren't going to make the playoffs. And while Juwan is a very poor team defender, Hayes isn't very good either, and was a lot worse last year. Furthermore, Howard played well as the second option when we still had a chance of making the playoffs.



> Luther Head is a non-issue. It was a late round pick and that is the best that could be done.


That's the point. That's just about the best pick that could have been made. And Van Gundy made it.



> But if you guys still believe Battier was a good deal for a lottery pick then wow....


Remember what this part of the discussion was about. I said Van Gundy didn't have a huge amount of talent to work with these past couple of seasons. You said that we can't sympathize with JVG because he built the ship. I replied that his moves didn't dilute our talent. And it's true. The Battier trade improved our talent in the short term. As did most of Van Gundy's other trades.



> I am sure a lot of other teams can play this multiple IFs scenarios and be a contender.


Er, no. These aren't things that anyone could have conceivably expected to happen together.



> Bonzi cooperated just as much as Gundy cooperated. Read Yao's quote again. It clearly puts the blame on both parties.


All Yao said is that there was a personality clash. And there was. Bonzi didn't want to play preseason or get fully fit. Van Gundy didn't like this. It was clearly mainly Bonzi's fault.



> Nope it goes 50-50. Same Bonzi performed very well for another coach just a year ago.


Yes, fit, healthy, playing for a contract and not suffering the humiliation of throwing away a massive amount of money.



> If you would have cared to look at the date my original post was made, you would have noticed that what I had written initially was long before the Yao interview.


You referenced the Yao interview repeatedly in your last post. It's clear that this is what I was referring to.



> It doesnt matter WHEN Yao said all that. The fact that Gundy's own star player called him out publicly on coaching and management issues spaks volumes. And yes, he did give him credit for playing a hand in his personal development. That still does not take away what Yao said about his other flaws.
> 
> Look at what other coaches McGrady has played for in the past. Then you would understand where Tmac is coming from. Hardly a great endorsement.


You seem to be reading what you want in Yao's comments. He didn't say a whole lot. It was pretty much just the Snyder thing. And I'm with Van Gundy on that. Snyder was garbage last season.

And it's not just McGrady who has called Van Gundy the best he's ever played for. Mutombo and Alston said it too. Juwan Howard and Battier were also full of praise.


----------



## kisstherim (Jul 15, 2004)

I didn't read all the responses but just wanna say sth about Yao's comment on Mike James. I think what Yao said in the original Chinese interview didn't mean he really want *the* player called Mike James but just *any* energy player like Mike James. I don't think Yao is fond of Mike Jame that much.


----------



## jdiggidy (Jun 21, 2003)

I'm almost afraid to post on this one since everyone is breaking down each sentence of the previous poster.

Why now are we analyzing this in so much detail.


Everyone knew JVG was a defensive coach who does not really develop players. What has changed in his style over the past 3 years?
The Bonzi Wells experiment was a great gamble that failed. Blame falls on player and coach.
Our stars didn't play like ALL STARS in the playoffs.
Our bench sucked in the playoffs.

I say that the rockets problems stem from bad contracts and bad draft picks over the past 7 years all of which happened on CD's watch. For every good decision CD made, he made 2 bad decisions that have continued to set this franchise back.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> When the bench you are referring to consists of two second round draft picks, then yes, developing them is less important than securing home court advantage. It's one or the other.


Perfect example of short-sightedness. No vision for the future. Thanks for proving my point.

Now...

1) We dont have a developed/developing bench
2) Home court did not even get us out of first round.



Hakeem said:


> It's not like we were the only team to face Eastern Conference minnows. Anyway, we beat the Spurs twice. The only time we faced the Mavs with Yao and McGrady, we beat them. We can never beat the Suns. We split the season series with Detroit. We swept the Heat with an healthy Shaq and Wade, and swept the Bulls.


We made the most of those weak Eastern teams. We had the greatest disparity among Western conference teams between winning % against Eastern and Western teams. 

Those numbers dont lie. What they say is that we made the most out of beating teams that we were supposed to beat. We did not do good when it came to winning against good tams in West. If Rockets want to get to Finals they need to beat 3 good Western teams. You do the math.



Hakeem said:


> Just a horrible matchup for us. Their two best offensive players are at our two weakest positions, while they have two or three good defenders to cover McGrady.


There were two matchups working against us. There were also 2 matchups working for us. Guess which coach exploited the most of his matchups but the other one came up short.

Jazz bad matchup for us...Suns bad matchup for us...Warriors bad matchup for us..... excuses..excuses...

We were a 2-man-team with close to zero bench production and got outcoached. 



Hakeem said:


> Mike James wasn't used in an unorthodox way. He's simply on a new contract and therefore has little incentive to play hard. And he's getting old.


Randy Foye got most of Mike James minutes this season. I am not even sure what there is to argue about that.

The Rockets tried TWICE to get James this season. Once before the season started, along with Dallas. Another time, right before the trading deadline. That was a lot of desperation for a player not playing hard and old as you claim to be.... Oh wait.. but this is Gundy we are talking about so your "old" argument makes sense! 



Hakeem said:


> Got very little to do with it. In any case, James is much more of a chucker.


Rafer apologists just crack me....

"Rafer is a pass first PG"
-Have you looked at his FGA?
"Well yeah but James is more of a chucker"

Completely forget the fact that James actually MADE most of the shots he took while Rafer continually MISSES most of them. Who would you rather have? Someone who takes 10 shots and makes 3 or someone who takes 15 but makes 8?



Hakeem said:


> Made a lot of sense at the time. Alston was pass first, cheap, locked in for a few more years, and coming off clearly the best season of his career. James was a shoot-first PG, had only one year left and wanted big money, and T-Mac had expressed frustration with his selfish play.
> Also, Houston went after James after he put up big numbers in a contract year. He's not playing at anywhere near the same level any more.


LOL @ Alston pass first comment again. Locked in for a few more years in terms of Alston is a slow and painful kiss of death. If you care about ROckets winning you would rather it be a short and done with contract so Rockets can get a real PG who makes his shots when left open and is not an invisible man on defense. 

He's not playing anwhere near the same level anymore and yet Rockets tried to get him AT THE TRADING DEADLINE!? 

Again in terms of contract, originally it would have been wiser for Rockets to let him walk instead of trading him and locking up Rafer to a long term contract. Just a bad move on Rockets part and they tried fixing the situation over and over agian and failed.



Hakeem said:


> It wasn't always clear that we weren't going to make the playoffs. And while Juwan is a very poor team defender, Hayes isn't very good either, and was a lot worse last year. Furthermore, Howard played well as the second option when we still had a chance of making the playoffs.


What are you talking about? It was quiet clear near end of season that we were not going to make playoffs. Gundy was still trying to win last couple of games by playing Juwan over 30+ minutes. 

Hayes has always been a hustler and even last year his defense was better than Juwan. Are you talking about Howard playing well last year or this year? We were talking about last year and he was bad all around. This year he did well when he was not paired up with Yao. When Yao came back he went back to sucking hard core.



Hakeem said:


> That's the point. That's just about the best pick that could have been made. And Van Gundy made it.


If you want to give Gundy credit for that pick, I have no problem with it. But then he also has to get the balme for other moves which have resulted in us having no bench. Talk about being partial..




Hakeem said:


> Remember what this part of the discussion was about. I said Van Gundy didn't have a huge amount of talent to work with these past couple of seasons. You said that we can't sympathize with JVG because he built the ship. I replied that his moves didn't dilute our talent. And it's true. The Battier trade improved our talent in the short term. As did most of Van Gundy's other trades.


Short sighted move may have given us extra regular season wins this season but it certainly did not improve us talent wise. Battier is a hardworking hustle kind of player. He is not lottery pick worth talent. Rockets LOST talent wise.

Here's antoher good one for ya. You remember Nachbar? You know, the one that Gundy shipped out....

Well that Nachbar outperformed our ENTIRE bench this playoffs. All by himself. Now that is hysterical! =D



Hakeem said:


> Er, no. These aren't things that anyone could have conceivably expected to happen together.


Excuses excuses.... Contenders dont make excuses. They play late in May and into June. They dont watch the playoffs from their living room 4 years in a row.



Hakeem said:


> All Yao said is that there was a personality clash. And there was. Bonzi didn't want to play preseason or get fully fit. Van Gundy didn't like this. It was clearly mainly Bonzi's fault.


Personality clash works both ways. Bonzi's personality sucks but if Gundy was willing to bite on his ego and suck it up for the team, then we could have been playing in the second round today. Blame goes to both parties. 



Hakeem said:


> Yes, fit, healthy, playing for a contract and not suffering the humiliation of throwing away a massive amount of money.


If Gundy had handled the situation better, Bonzi would be playing for money again. 



Hakeem said:


> You referenced the Yao interview repeatedly in your last post. It's clear that this is what I was referring to.


Yes because most of it REINFORCED what I had posted in the original one. I got the ammo, I used it. The juicy ammo came straight from Gundy's star player. 



Hakeem said:


> You seem to be reading what you want in Yao's comments. He didn't say a whole lot. It was pretty much just the Snyder thing. And I'm with Van Gundy on that. Snyder was garbage last season.


He didnt say a whole LOT!??! LOL! After all Yao said about one dimensional offense, bench not being used, personality clashes, Mikes James/Snyder, and Gundy not letting him work with CD....I would LOVE to be there when he ACTUALLY says a LOT! I will bring my baseball bat and hardhat just in case!



Hakeem said:


> And it's not just McGrady who has called Van Gundy the best he's ever played for. Mutombo and Alston said it too. Juwan Howard and Battier were also full of praise.


It would make sense. Other than Mutombo none of them has done squat in playoffs. In light of this I actually have newfound respect for Yao. He wants to win and he wants changes now.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

kisstherim said:


> I didn't read all the responses but just wanna say sth about Yao's comment on Mike James. I think what Yao said in the original Chinese interview didn't mean he really want *the* player called Mike James but just *any* energy player like Mike James. I don't think Yao is fond of Mike Jame that much.


He could have just said that we could have used Kirk's energy or just an energy player. The fact that he brought up Mike James indicates he misses what he could do on the court.

As for Yao/Tracy not liking players...

Jordan did not like Rodman but he knew what he could do on the court and recruited him first hand.

Hakeem and Vernon were as far apart as possible personality wise but that did not mean Hakeem didnt respect his play on the court.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

jdiggidy said:


> I'm almost afraid to post on this one since everyone is breaking down each sentence of the previous poster.
> 
> Why now are we analyzing this in so much detail.
> 
> ...


Bingo! Really..all this is not hard to see.



jdiggidy said:


> I say that the rockets problems stem from bad contracts and bad draft picks over the past 7 years all of which happened on CD's watch. For every good decision CD made, he made 2 bad decisions that have continued to set this franchise back.


I agree with everything you have said. I also agree that CD should get blame for moves. But as I said earlier, considering Gundy has a big say on who comes and plays on his team, you cannot say he is not to be blamed either. CD has been bad in terms of getting talent here. Gundy has complicated the matter even more by getting in more old players and getting rid of what little talent there was supposrting Yao/Tmac.


----------



## bronx43 (Dec 9, 2005)

Everything Nano and Hakeem is arguing about is secondary to the fact that Yao did not play like he did during the first half of the season. Our offense is anchored around Yao, and if he can't utterly dominate the opposing center, our offense will stagnate. How Yao didn't put up 30 ppg on Mehmet Okur is beyond me, especially considering that the Jazz didn't double all that much. Tracy played well in spurts, but also struggled throughout the series. The fact that he did not destroy Utah's backcourt is not acceptable. We simply cannot win games with Tracy being thwarted by the likes of Derek Fisher and Gordan Giricek. 
Van Gundy may or may not be a good coach for this team, but as far as I'm concerned, this early exit was entirely on Tracy and Yao's shoulders.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

bronx43 said:


> Everything Nano and Hakeem is arguing about is secondary to the fact that Yao did not play like he did during the first half of the season. Our offense is anchored around Yao, and if he can't utterly dominate the opposing center, our offense will stagnate. How Yao didn't put up 30 ppg on Mehmet Okur is beyond me, especially considering that the Jazz didn't double all that much. Tracy played well in spurts, but also struggled throughout the series. The fact that he did not destroy Utah's backcourt is not acceptable. We simply cannot win games with Tracy being thwarted by the likes of Derek Fisher and Gordan Giricek.
> Van Gundy may or may not be a good coach for this team, but as far as I'm concerned, this early exit was entirely on Tracy and Yao's shoulders.


Too simplistic.

Ok, so we have found out that maybe Yao and Tmac are not going to dominate like Kobe/Shaq ..so now what? Do we keep mulling over why they didnt do this or that?

Or how about surrounding them with better talent?
Or going in a new direction with a different coach?

Or do you just want to stay the route and just pray that Yao/Tmac change?


----------



## bronx43 (Dec 9, 2005)

nanoBeast said:


> Too simplistic.
> 
> Ok, so we have found out that maybe Yao and Tmac are not going to dominate like Kobe/Shaq ..so now what? Do we keep mulling over why they didnt do this or that?
> 
> ...


I never said we have to stay the way we are. I was simply pointing out why we lost THIS YEAR. This season was built around the idea that Tmac and Yao can carry the entire team's offense. It was perhaps a bad idea, but it worked for almost an entire season as we amassed a solid record. The resulting collapse of our two superstars cannot be blamed on the coach alone.


----------



## jdiggidy (Jun 21, 2003)

```
This season was built around the idea that Tmac and Yao can carry the entire team's offense. It was perhaps a bad idea, but it worked for almost an entire season as we amassed a solid record.
```
OK, now lets carry this into next year. This team will continue having the win now attitude as long as Jeff is the coach and Tracy and Yao still have a few strong years left.

The question this offseason how creative Morey can be with the limited amount of cap space we have.


Can we package JHo, Sura's Expiring, and our draft pick for something?
Can we package JHo and Sura for something?
Can we package Luther and our draft pick to move up into the top 10?
Do we take a chance and sign Steve Francis to the vet minimum?
Do we take on another bad contract to get something of value in return?

Winning now means we risk mediocrity down the road. Winning now means we might have to trade away one of our superstars in the future to save this franchise.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

nanoBeast said:


> 1) We dont have a developed/developing bench
> 2) Home court did not even get us out of first round.


1) There isn't much of a bench there to develop. It isn't like we're not playing a #3 draft pick like Darko Milicic. These are second-rounders. It would be stupid to play them at the cost of winning.
2) We didn't know we wouldn't make it out at the time. We had a legitimate shot.



> We made the most of those weak Eastern teams. We had the greatest disparity among Western conference teams between winning % against Eastern and Western teams.
> 
> Those numbers dont lie. What they say is that we made the most out of beating teams that we were supposed to beat. We did not do good when it came to winning against good tams in West. If Rockets want to get to Finals they need to beat 3 good Western teams. You do the math.


Again, we split the season series with the Spurs, and beat the Mavs the only time we faced them with both T-Mac and Yao. Those are two of the three best teams in the league. We lost the season series with the Suns (though we beat them when healthy near the end of the season) and we lost to the Jazz. You match up well with some teams, and not so well with others. If the Mavs hadn't faced the Warriors, they'd have gone to the second round. If the Spurs beat the Suns, the Mavs would have probably won the title. If the Suns win, the Mavs would probably have lost to them in the Conference Finals. That's the way it works.



> There were two matchups working against us. There were also 2 matchups working for us. Guess which coach exploited the most of his matchups but the other one came up short.


We had one matchup working for us -- Yao vs Okur. Kirilenko is a great defender. Harpring and Giricek are also good. We thought McGrady might have been able to exploit their lack of quickness on the perimeter, but it's clear now that he is not that sort of player any more. So, while they had Boozer guarded by a guy 10" taller than him and Okur guarded by a guy 6" shorter than him and Deron guarded by our two worst defensive players, all we had to our advantage was Yao. And he was injured and tired from actually having to play hard on both ends of the floor.



> Randy Foye got most of Mike James minutes this season. I am not even sure what there is to argue about that.


Mike James played almost exactly the same amount of minutes per game as he did in Houston. Anyway, it should be easier to produce when you are playing fewer minutes.



> Rafer apologists just crack me....
> 
> "Rafer is a pass first PG"
> -Have you looked at his FGA?
> ...


James and Alston both had PERs of 13 this year. James scored slightly more and did it more efficiently, but Rafer produced at nearly the same rate while playing a lot more minutes. Alston also turned it over less and was a better rebounder. As for things that aren't captured well on the stat sheets, James is the superior defender, while Alston is the better passer. They played about as well as each other this season. I'd rather have Alston on the Rockets, since we have two superstars who need to be fed as much as possible. James is a selfish player, which certainly wouldn't do on a team like ours.



> LOL @ Alston pass first comment again. Locked in for a few more years in terms of Alston is a slow and painful kiss of death. If you care about ROckets winning you would rather it be a short and done with contract so Rockets can get a real PG who makes his shots when left open and is not an invisible man on defense.


Alston is pass first. The shots he takes are mostly open ones. 
And again, the point is that when we acquired Alston he had just come of a very good season. There was no way of predicting that he'd get worse. 



> He's not playing anwhere near the same level anymore and yet Rockets tried to get him AT THE TRADING DEADLINE!?


Out of interest, who did they try to trade for him? They certainly didn't want to sign him for that money. In fact, it was the trade kicker that turned them off if I remember correctly.



> What are you talking about? It was quiet clear near end of season that we were not going to make playoffs. Gundy was still trying to win last couple of games by playing Juwan over 30+ minutes.


Hayes averaged 25 mpg over the last five games. 



> Hayes has always been a hustler and even last year his defense was better than Juwan. Are you talking about Howard playing well last year or this year? We were talking about last year and he was bad all around. This year he did well when he was not paired up with Yao. When Yao came back he went back to sucking hard core.


Howard played well without Yao last year, too. He had some 30-point games. And although his man defense has gotten worse, it was decent last year. As I said, Hayes kept fouling his own man too much last year. At least when he fouls now it's usually on help defense (at which he has improved considerably too, btw).



> If you want to give Gundy credit for that pick, I have no problem with it. But then he also has to get the balme for other moves which have resulted in us having no bench.


Like the move for Snyder? Or was it Bonzi? Or Jon Barry? Or Hayes? Or Head? Or JLIII? Which moves specifically destroyed our bench? There have been some good, a couple bad. But it's ridiculous to suggest that our lack of bench is Van Gundy's fault.



> Short sighted move may have given us extra regular season wins this season but it certainly did not improve us talent wise. Battier is a hardworking hustle kind of player. He is not lottery pick worth talent. Rockets LOST talent wise.


Once again, remember that you were arguing that Van Gundy is to blame for the lack of talent on our _current_ squad because he diluted its talent. Battier is better than Gay right now. Therefore, the trade for Battier was not inimical to our overall talent level for this season.



> Excuses excuses.... Contenders dont make excuses. They play late in May and into June. They dont watch the playoffs from their living room 4 years in a row.


Could you address the point, please? "Excuses excuses" is a meaningless statement.



> Personality clash works both ways. Bonzi's personality sucks but if Gundy was willing to bite on his ego and suck it up for the team, then we could have been playing in the second round today. Blame goes to both parties.


Or it could be that Van Gundy felt that a lazy and unabashedly uninterested player would hurt team chemistry and would not be worth it especially when he plays at our deepest positions. 



> He didnt say a whole LOT!??! LOL! After all Yao said about one dimensional offense, bench not being used, personality clashes, Mikes James/Snyder, and Gundy not letting him work with CD....I would LOVE to be there when he ACTUALLY says a LOT! I will bring my baseball bat and hardhat just in case!


You're really seeing just what you want to see in this. 
Our offense is one dimensional. That's the way teams like these are designed. The great Rockets sides of the '90s were also one dimensional. It's the way it is when you have only a one or two very good players.
Our bench was not used because it sucks. Playing Steve Novak 15 mpg isn't going to turn him into Dirk Nowitzki. 
We definitely could have used a guy like Mike James had he been playing at the level he was at a couple of years ago in Houston. Unfortunately, he isn't. 
Van Gundy didn't let Yao work with CD because Tom Thibodeax is better. CD is a GM. As Yao said, he'll only going back to CD if Thibodeau is no longer available. In fact, he sounded disappointed about it.



> It would make sense. Other than Mutombo none of them has done squat in playoffs. In light of this I actually have newfound respect for Yao. He wants to win and he wants changes now.


OK, so not having won in the playoffs (apart from the most experienced player in the league, Mutombo) disqualifies their opinions on coaches? Shane Battier thinks Van Gundy is a great coach. But because none of his teams in the NBA have been past the first round, this renders his opinion is worthless and suggests that he doesn't want to win? This is getting a bit ridiculous.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> 1) There isn't much of a bench there to develop. It isn't like we're not playing a #3 draft pick like Darko Milicic. These are second-rounders. It would be stupid to play them at the cost of winning.


Gundy apologists logic...

1)There was no bench to develop. Gundy did the best he could with what we had.
2)Gundy was not responsible for us having no bench.
3)Luther was a great Gundy pick.
4)Battier was a great rental for this season

Apparently Gundy will get credit from Gundy apologists when they like the move. But all those bad roster moves...not his mistake at all. Riigghhhtt

The same people, DESPITE admitting there was no bench will contend we are contenders. Huh?



Hakeem said:


> 2) We didn't know we wouldn't make it out at the time. We had a legitimate shot.


Legitimate shot at making playoffs != contenders. When you make it so obvious that we have no bench that is even more imperative to develop one. Especially if you want to look at yourself at contenders.



Hakeem said:


> Again, we split the season series with the Spurs, and beat the Mavs the only time we fa......That's the way it works.


Over-emphasis on few games which worked in favor of Rockets. Completely overlooking the big picture...

We padded our regular season record against weak Eastern conference.

I am sorry but the regular season numbers don't lie.

The end result ESPECIALLY does not.



Hakeem said:


> We had one matchup working for us -- Yao vs Okur. Kirilenko is a great defender. Harpring and Giricek are also good. We thought McGrady might have been able to exploit their lack of quickness on the perimeter, but it's clear now that he is not that sort of player any more. So, while they had Boozer guarded by a guy 10" taller than him and Okur guarded by a guy 6" shorter than him and Deron guarded by our two worst defensive players, all we had to our advantage was Yao. And he was injured and tired from actually having to play hard on both ends of the floor.


*Yawn* More excuses. Contenders don't make excuses about getting knocked out of first round of playoffs. 

We had Tmac/Yao
They had Deron/Boozer.

They also had a good bench, LOT better offensive scheme, and a better coach. Our coach failed to make any adjustment for second time in a row in 7 game series and he got what he deserved.




Hakeem said:


> James and Alston both had PERs of 13 this year. James scored slightly more and did it more efficiently, but Rafer produced at nearly the same rate while playing a lot more minutes. Alston also turned it over less and was a better rebounder. As for things that aren't captured well on the stat sheets, James is the superior defender, while Alston is the better passer. They played about as well as each other this season. I'd rather have Alston on the Rockets, since we have two superstars who need to be fed as much as possible. James is a selfish player, which certainly wouldn't do on a team like ours.


Why don't you look at the numbers on the Rockets for both players? That would be the true indication of how each player fits in system. Compare Mike James # when he played with Yao/Tmac to those of Alston's. If you want to compare how each did in Toronto, compare both players performance while in the SAME system. You are comparing Mike James WORST season in system he never fit in with Alston's BEST season (which was still pathetic btw in our system). And yet they still had same PER for this year. *laugh*

Now if you compare the two in Rocket's system, which is what matters (we are not running Timberwolves system), you get your clear answer.

Mike James on Rockets >>>>>>>> Alston on Rockets.



Hakeem said:


> Alston is pass first. The shots he takes are mostly open ones.
> And again, the point is that when we acquired Alston he had just come of a very good season. There was no way of predicting that he'd get worse.


LOL @ Alston pass first. Maybe "I pass first after I have taken countless floaters and mindless 3 pointers". Alston's 3FGA this season >>>> Maxwell's. The most in Rocket's history. Yes that was Gundy's approach to Rockets...let Alston take a whole lotta shots. Brilliant!!

Did you just say Alston coming off a very good season?!?! WOW!!! You consider Alston's last season as "very good"?!?! Have you looked at those numbers? If that is very good then I can understand why you are satisfied with Gundy's performance. You might be suffering from a case of lowered expectations. 



Hakeem said:


> Out of interest, who did they try to trade for him? They certainly didn't want to sign him for that money. In fact, it was the trade kicker that turned them off if I remember correctly.


It was widely reported, including in Houston Chronicle that Rockets were trying to acquire Mike James this season at the trading deadline. It did not work out though. The trade kicker was Free agent signing BEFORE the season (which makes it look even more stupid now). The difference between 1st round and 2nd round could have been a measly trade kicker. 

Back to the point. The fact that Rockets tried TWICE this season alone indicates how they feel about Mike James situation.



Hakeem said:


> Hayes averaged 25 mpg over the last five games.


He should have averaged even more and more importantly LOT earlier. 5 games...LOL. No point of playing Juwan all those minutes.



Hakeem said:


> Howard played well without Yao last year, too.


The story of Howard's career. He will put in decent numbers when he becomes a scoring option. The end rusult will ALWAYS be a loss. 13 years...nothing has changed. When you ask him to play a supporting role with Yao/Tmac..he disappears. It is clear that Howard can play leading role on a losing team but not a supporting role on a winner.



Hakeem said:


> He had some 30-point games. And although his man defense has gotten worse, it was decent last year. As I said, Hayes kept fouling his own man too much last year. At least when he fouls now it's usually on help defense (at which he has improved considerably too, btw).


13 season do not lie. Howard is a perennial loser. Gundy swore by Howard and Alston. Gundy is paying for it now. Like I said, he dug his own grave.



Hakeem said:


> Like the move for Snyder? Or was it Bonzi? Or Jon Barry? Or Hayes? Or Head? Or JLIII? Which moves specifically destroyed our bench? There have been some good, a couple bad. But it's ridiculous to suggest that our lack of bench is Van Gundy's fault.


Nope it is not. Gundy had a big say on his roster where he was at. He had a big hand in it, now he is paying for it. Rightfully so!



Hakeem said:


> Once again, remember that you were arguing that Van Gundy is to blame for the lack of talent on our _current_ squad because he diluted its talent. Battier is better than Gay right now. Therefore, the trade for Battier was not inimical to our overall talent level for this season.


I am not even sure if Battier is better than Gay right now. He is one dimensional and disappears in big games. Add to that that Battier has peaked while Gay only has upwards to go. Wasted all that for just this year...Classic short-sightedness. I can see why you like Gundy so much.



Hakeem said:


> Could you address the point, please? "Excuses excuses" is a meaningless statement.


I have. Multiple times. You seem to be making a LOT of excuses for a team you consider to be a "contender"

Gundy didnt have a bench...
Rockets had mismatch problems....
Battier was great for one season rental....



Hakeem said:


> Or it could be that Van Gundy felt that a lazy and unabashedly uninterested player would hurt team chemistry and would not be worth it especially when he plays at our deepest positions.


Nah. You are looking too much into it. Ego problem. 



Hakeem said:


> You're really seeing just what you want to see in this.



I have numbers to back up my claim of padded regular season winning.
I have numbers to back up my claim that Alston has always been bad.
I have numbers to claim that Howard has never been a winner.
I have numbers to back up Gundy's failure as a coach.
I have numbers to claim that Battier has been a no-show in big games.
I have Gundy's own star player exposing him.....

Seem like it is clear who really wants to see the way they want to see it...

Thank God the Rockets brass feel Gundy is a problem..or Gundy would be secured for next season.



Hakeem said:


> Our offense is one dimensional. That's the way teams like these are designed. The great Rockets sides of the '90s were also one dimensional. It's the way it is when you have only a one or two very good players.
> Our bench was not used because it sucks. Playing Steve Novak 15 mpg isn't going to turn him into Dirk Nowitzki.


Rockets team in 90s had some amazing role players. This Rockets team, thanks to Gundy, has fodder. 

Rudy wasnt afraid to play rookie Casell in big games in playoffs. He wasnt afraid of giving him minutes in rookie season. Now that team was a contender AND Rudy played a rookie to get results.

That's one of the main reasons why Rudy won 2 championship. Gundy has same number as you and I do combined. 

This isn't even 90s anymore. The league has gone uptempo and West is filled with good and deep teams. If Gundy is stuck in 90s, and it seems he is, more the reason to boot him. 



Hakeem said:


> We definitely could have used a guy like Mike James had he been playing at the level he was at a couple of years ago in Houston. Unfortunately, he isn't.


He isn't because he is NOT in Rockets system. Again, the fact that Rockets tried TWICE to get him this season alone should tell you more. Pretty stupid for them to go after him this trading deadline KNOWING he was struggling, wouldn't you say? Unless.....they figured he fit in their system by looking at I don't know...what he did with us when he was here? 




Hakeem said:


> Van Gundy didn't let Yao work with CD because Tom Thibodeax is better. CD is a GM. As Yao said, he'll only going back to CD if Thibodeau is no longer available. In fact, he sounded disappointed about it.


Again Ego problem. It's not like Yao would unlearn from Tom if he spent time with CD. The lengths that Gundy apologists will go to to defend him...Amusing!



Hakeem said:


> OK, so not having won in the playoffs (apart from the most experienced player in the league, Mutombo) disqualifies their opinions on coaches? Shane Battier thinks Van Gundy is a great coach. But because none of his teams in the NBA have been past the first round, this renders his opinion is worthless and suggests that he doesn't want to win? This is getting a bit ridiculous.


When your CURRENT players say good things about you, its not news. This happens ALL the time. With a lot of teams.

When your CURRENT player, especially a star and cornerstone of the franchise, has to say negative things as Yao did..

Now that is NEWS. That indicates problems.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

nanoBeast said:


> Apparently Gundy will get credit from Gundy apologists when they like the move. But all those bad roster moves...not his mistake at all. Riigghhhtt


Van Gundy's biggest mistakes were the trade for Battier and not integrating Bonzi. That said, I think he greatly helped this team too, and that it's unfair to put most of the blame for our failures on him.



> The same people, DESPITE admitting there was no bench will contend we are contenders. Huh?


You don't need a good bench to be a contender. It helps, but so does having two superstars, and most contenders -- let alone championship sides -- don't have that. This is one of the things that annoys me the most about some fans. Statements like: "you need a very good offense to win in this league" and "you need a go-to guy on the bench to be a contender". None of it is true. You don't _need_ anything in particular. You simply have to be good enough with the players you have. Doesn't matter if it's one guy scoring 100 ppg or if it's incredible defense with the worst offense in the league.



> Legitimate shot at making playoffs != contenders. When you make it so obvious that we have no bench that is even more imperative to develop one. Especially if you want to look at yourself at contenders.


For the third time, when your potential bench consists of two rookie second-rounders, it simply isn't worth it to develop them during the regular season at the cost of home court advantage.



> Over-emphasis on few games which worked in favor of Rockets. Completely overlooking the big picture...
> We padded our regular season record against weak Eastern conference.
> I am sorry but the regular season numbers don't lie.
> The end result ESPECIALLY does not.


It's not overemphasis. It's simply stating the fact that we did beat top teams when healthy. It would be foolish to look at our results over the course of the entire season, knowing that we were missing a superstar for a good portion of it.



> *Yawn* More excuses. Contenders don't make excuses about getting knocked out of first round of playoffs.
> 
> We had Tmac/Yao
> They had Deron/Boozer.
> ...


This isn't answering the point. We match up well with some teams. We match up poorly with the Suns and the Jazz. It's not an excuse. It's a fact. As for Van Gundy not making adjustments -- could you perhaps explain what you expected him to do? Did you want him to make Yao go out to the perimeter and guard Okur, effectively throwing away our interior defense? Or did you want him to put Snyder on to guard Harpring in the post, even though he proved repeatedly during the season to be a poor defender there? Or did you want him to put Spanoulis on so that the Jazz could leave him wide open on the perimeter, watching him brick three after three? Or maybe Novak at power forward to provide some extra perimeter shooting, while hoping that Boozer gets tired by the time he grabs his 30th rebound of the night?



> Why don't you look at the numbers on the Rockets for both players? That would be the true indication of how each player fits in system. Compare Mike James # when he played with Yao/Tmac to those of Alston's. If you want to compare how each did in Toronto, compare both players performance while in the SAME system. You are comparing Mike James WORST season in system he never fit in with Alston's BEST season (which was still pathetic btw in our system). And yet they still had same PER for this year. *laugh*
> 
> Now if you compare the two in Rocket's system, which is what matters (we are not running Timberwolves system), you get your clear answer.


Why would I look at the Mike James of two years ago? If he could succeed in Houston's system -- one of the hardest for point guards to put up big numbers in, since their role is pretty much to give the ball to T-Mac or Yao straight away -- he should be able to succeed at least as much in Minnesota's with it's freer offense. This especially applies to guys like James who can create their own shot. 
You very rarely see players' numbers change dramatically simply because they change teams. These guys are professionals who have been playing the game their whole lives. It has almost always got to do with a change in the player's ability or desire. Mike James clearly isn't the player he was two years ago. That has very likely got to do with the fact that he now has a guaranteed contract for several years, while the two years before that he was trying to prove to the world that he deserves big money. He's also getting less athletic by the year. 



> LOL @ Alston pass first. Maybe "I pass first after I have taken countless floaters and mindless 3 pointers". Alston's 3FGA this season >>>> Maxwell's. The most in Rocket's history. Yes that was Gundy's approach to Rockets...let Alston take a whole lotta shots. Brilliant!!


Did you even watch this team during the regular season? Our offense revolved around Yao and T-Mac scoring or finding the open man on the perimeter. And btw, Alston took a huge number of threes, but made 36% of them. That is impressive. There are few players in this league who could have taken that many long range shots while maintaining such a healthy percentage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking shots if you are open and you can make a good percentage of them. Alston's big problem is his inability to consistently hit the mid-range jumper or finish. He is pass first. But, like every role player, he is limited by his weaknesses.



> Did you just say Alston coming off a very good season?!?! WOW!!! You consider Alston's last season as "very good"?!?! Have you looked at those numbers? If that is very good then I can understand why you are satisfied with Gundy's performance. You might be suffering from a case of lowered expectations.


Read it more closely. I said Alston had come of a very good season when we first signed him.



> Back to the point. The fact that Rockets tried TWICE this season alone indicates how they feel about Mike James situation.


When they tried to sign him they thought he'd be really good like he was last season. When they tried to trade for him, they obviously were not willing to give up much, or the Wolves would have bitten. They could have tried to acquire Jackie Butler or LeBron James. It doesn't matter who you go for. What matters is what you offer.



> He should have averaged even more and more importantly LOT earlier. 5 games...LOL. No point of playing Juwan all those minutes.


Yao wan't there. Howard had to play those minutes. 



> The story of Howard's career. He will put in decent numbers when he becomes a scoring option. The end rusult will ALWAYS be a loss. 13 years...nothing has changed. When you ask him to play a supporting role with Yao/Tmac..he disappears. It is clear that Howard can play leading role on a losing team but not a supporting role on a winner.
> 13 season do not lie. Howard is a perennial loser. Gundy swore by Howard and Alston. Gundy is paying for it now. Like I said, he dug his own grave.


You are massively overrating Chuck Hayes if you think he is a significant improvement over Howard, especially in his first season. Hayes causes Yao and T-Mac to face a lot more defensive attention. The opposition pretty much get to play 5 on 4 when he is out there. That's a huge disadvantage offensively. The few layups he makes don't nearly make up for it. 



> Nope it is not. Gundy had a big say on his roster where he was at. He had a big hand in it, now he is paying for it. Rightfully so!


Care to answer the question? Which moves exactly crippled our bench?



> I am not even sure if Battier is better than Gay right now. He is one dimensional and disappears in big games. Add to that that Battier has peaked while Gay only has upwards to go. Wasted all that for just this year...Classic short-sightedness. I can see why you like Gundy so much.


Battier is a lot better than Gay right now, and fits a whole lot better into our system than Gay would. I think Gay will surpass a prime Battier at some point in his career, but right now it's not even close. Defensively, the gap between them is enormous. Offensively, Battier complements Yao and T-Mac very well.




> I have. Multiple times. You seem to be making a LOT of excuses for a team you consider to be a "contender"
> 
> Gundy didnt have a bench...
> Rockets had mismatch problems....
> Battier was great for one season rental....


No, you still haven't answered whether you think the triple dose of bad luck -- Yao breaking his leg, Battier having a bit of a mid-career slump, and Bonzi deciding not to give a crap -- could have been expected. Simply saying "excuses" doesn't answer anything.



> Nah. You are looking too much into it. Ego problem.


Meaningless.



> I have numbers to back up my claim of padded regular season winning.
> I have numbers to back up my claim that Alston has always been bad.
> I have numbers to claim that Howard has never been a winner.
> I have numbers to back up Gundy's failure as a coach.
> ...


You are including games in which Yao/T-Mac were injured and ignoring their wins when healthy.
You have absolutely no evidence that Alston was always bad, since he was a good player a couple of years ago.
You call Howard a loser, yet McGrady is a loser too by that criteria. In other words, it's a bad argument.
You don't have any numbers to back up Gundy's failure as a coach. To simply look at numbers for something like this is to dumb it down incredibly.
You forget that Battier is a great defender and doesn't put up numbers in the regular season either.
You are taking a few unexceptional comments from Yao and making it sound like he's "exposing" JVG because that's simply what you want to see.



> Rockets team in 90s had some amazing role players. This Rockets team, thanks to Gundy, has fodder.


Like to explain how Van Gundy could in his three years here have gone out at acquired players the caliber of Otis Thorpe, Robert Horry, Mario Elie, Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell?



> Rudy wasnt afraid to play rookie Casell in big games in playoffs. He wasnt afraid of giving him minutes in rookie season. Now that team was a contender AND Rudy played a rookie to get results.


Cassell was a far superior player to Spanoulis. 



> This isn't even 90s anymore. The league has gone uptempo and West is filled with good and deep teams. If Gundy is stuck in 90s, and it seems he is, more the reason to boot him.


The league was just as fast-paced when Van Gundy begain in '96 as it is now.



> Again Ego problem. It's not like Yao would unlearn from Tom if he spent time with CD. The lengths that Gundy apologists will go to to defend him...Amusing!


There is a limited amount of time. You go through a long-term program with a trainer. You can't have more than one. No player has two personal trainers, unless they each train them on different aspects (which clearly wouldn't be the case here).



> When your CURRENT players say good things about you, its not news. This happens ALL the time. With a lot of teams.
> 
> When your CURRENT player, especially a star and cornerstone of the franchise, has to say negative things as Yao did..
> 
> Now that is NEWS. That indicates problems.


When NBA veterans call you the best coach they have ever had, it means something. It's not something you hear often at all. Even Yao has repeatedly praised Van Gundy. Immediately after a season-ending loss, he mentions, among a hundred other things, something about how he can't understand why Snyder wasn't used (when it's actually pretty obvious -- he sucks) and that the coach had personality clashes with the cancerous Bonzi (is there any Rockets fan in the world who didn't know that?), and you jump on it and declare that Van Gundy has been exposed by his star player. That's the problem.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Van Gundy's biggest mistakes were the trade for Battier and not integrating Bonzi. That said, I think he greatly helped this team too, and that it's unfair to put most of the blame for our failures on him.


I never said he did not help this team. I already noted his defense and discipline. That's what makes the whole situation sad. He brings some great stuff to the table which should make him a winner. But the deficiencies he has kept him away from success. Also, had he not interfered in personell decisions, I would have never blamed it on him.



Hakeem said:


> You don't need a good bench to be a contender. It helps, but so does having two superstars, and most contenders -- let alone championship sides -- don't have that. This is one of the things that annoys me the most about some fans. Statements like: "you need a very good offense to win in this league" and "you need a go-to guy on the bench to be a contender". None of it is true. You don't _need_ anything in particular. You simply have to be good enough with the players you have. Doesn't matter if it's one guy scoring 100 ppg or if it's incredible defense with the worst offense in the league.


When 2/5 of starting lineup is a liability you could use all the help you can gt from the bench. Considering we got close to 0 production from the bench, and almost nothing from battier except in 2 games, while Hayes and Alston being a handicap for most nights, you are putting it all on Yao/Tmac. Shaq and Kobe needed help from Horry/Fox/Fisher to win. What makes you think that Yao and Tmac, who are not even as good as shaq/Kobe of back then, will be able to carry this team with LESS than what they had??



Hakeem said:


> For the third time, when your potential bench consists of two rookie second-rounders, it simply isn't worth it to develop them during the regular season at the cost of home court advantage.


For the third time, this makes no sense at all. You work on both. You work on making the playoffs and you work on constantly improving your team. Other teams do. What makes us so special? If Gundy had no confidence in the players he had then he should have gotten someone he would have confidence in. 



Hakeem said:


> It's not overemphasis. It's simply stating the fact that we did beat top teams when healthy. It would be foolish to look at our results over the course of the entire season, knowing that we were missing a superstar for a good portion of it.


2006-07
Houston Rockets
vs. Dallas: 1-3
vs. Phoenix: 1-3
vs. San Antonio: 2-2
vs. Utah: 1-3
vs. Denver: 2-1
vs. Lakers: 2-2
vs. Golden State: 1-2
Total: 10-16
vs. Rest of league: 42-14 (credit to [email protected])

I am sorry but those numbers dont lie. You can make excuses all you want but those are facts. You can only use injuries as an excuse for so long. The playoffs even reinforced these numbers. A healthy Rockets team with Home court still lost.



Hakeem said:


> This isn't answering the point. We match up well with some teams. We match up poorly with the Suns and the Jazz. It's not an excuse. It's a fact. As for Van Gundy not making adjustments -- could you perhaps explain what you expected him to do? Did you want him to make Yao go out to the perimeter and guard Okur, effectively throwing away our interior defense? Or did you want him to put Snyder on to guard Harpring in the post, even though he proved repeatedly during the season to be a poor defender there? Or did you want him to put Spanoulis on so that the Jazz could leave him wide open on the perimeter, watching him brick three after three? Or maybe Novak at power forward to provide some extra perimeter shooting, while hoping that Boozer gets tired by the time he grabs his 30th rebound of the night?


Excuses again. Contenders dont whine about matchups. Spurs dont whine about matching up with fast paced teams. If you are whining about matching up then chances are you are on the losing side.



Hakeem said:


> Why would I look at the Mike James of two years ago?


Because that's when he played on our team?! That's the best guage of what a player can do on your team/system.

You can keep trying to convince yourself that Alston/James trade was great but again....the fact that Rockets went after him TWICE this year tells people how they really felt.



Hakeem said:


> Did you even watch this team during the regular season?


Yup. I have had league pass for couple of years now.



Hakeem said:


> Our offense revolved around Yao and T-Mac scoring or finding the open man on the perimeter.


Exactly! James shot better than Rafer (2fg% and 3fg%) so there's yoru answer.



Hakeem said:


> And btw, Alston took a huge number of threes, but made 36% of them. That is impressive.



36% is not impressive. 36% is decent. To be impressive you have to shoot atleast 40%. The difference between is 36% and 40% is not to be overlooked when it comes to 3pt FG %. ESPECIALLY when Rafer shoots as much as he does.




Hakeem said:


> There are few players in this league who could have taken that many long range shots while maintaining such a healthy percentage.


:lol: Rafer the Mighty!

And you know this how??

Yeah I am sure a bunch of players would struggle to make a bunch of 3 pointers at a Godly 36%!! lol



Hakeem said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking shots if you are open and you can make a good percentage of them.


Nothing wrong if you make them. BUT Alston...

1) Shoots a pathetic 33% from field
2) A decent 36% from 3 point. EVEN LOWER in playoffs.
3) Attempts a number of 3 point attempts when it is not kicked out to him
4) Loves his floaters which almost never go i.n




Hakeem said:


> Alston's big problem is his inability to consistently hit the mid-range jumper or finish. He is pass first. But, like every role player, he is limited by his weaknesses.


Pass first PG does not set records in FGA. :biggrin: 

You also forgot his invisible defense. That's half of the game right there.




Hakeem said:


> Read it more closely. I said Alston had come of a very good season when we first signed him.


First of all, we never signed him. Toronto signed him to a long contract. We did them a favor by giving them an expiring contract for a player they were desperate to get rid of.

"very good season"??! Wow you really are suffering from a case of lowered expectations. I am looking at those numbers and I am seeing decent at best. I am looking even before that and I am seeing a lot on inconsistency and pretty much a consistent bad shooting %. We need to surround Yao/Tmac with good shooters. Not bad shooters like Alston.




Hakeem said:


> When they tried to sign him they thought he'd be really good like he was last season. When they tried to trade for him, they obviously were not willing to give up much, or the Wolves would have bitten. They could have tried to acquire Jackie Butler or LeBron James. It doesn't matter who you go for. What matters is what you offer.


Wow! Now you are just pulling stuff out of your @ss. Stop assuming what happened and go read about what actually happened.




Hakeem said:


> You are massively overrating Chuck Hayes if you think he is a significant improvement over Howard, especially in his first season. Hayes causes Yao and T-Mac to face a lot more defensive attention. The opposition pretty much get to play 5 on 4 when he is out there. That's a huge disadvantage offensively. The few layups he makes don't nearly make up for it.


In my book, they are both terrible options at PF if you are trying to win a ring. Hayes is only better of the two because he masks Yao's deficiencies while Howard amplifies them. Hayes is also younger so you can actually develop him. With Howard there is no where to go but down. That is why it was mind boggling that Gundy stuck with Juwan a year ago when we were not going anywhere. 




Hakeem said:


> Care to answer the question? Which moves exactly crippled our bench?


Sure.

James/Alston trade - James used to come off the bench for us and gave us instant scoring off the bench. I will even give you examples of key games. 2 seasons ago exploded in 4th quarter against the Suns (the same suns we have such a hard time with now). Came off the bench and contributed heavily in wins in playoffs against Dallas, especially Game 1 and Game 6.

Nachbar trade - We traded for old and those players are not even on the roster anymore. While Nachbar single handidly outplayed our ENTIRE bench this playoffs.

James this year - James would have been our 6th man off the bench this year but I guess that trade kicker was just too much. *Yikes*

Juwan Howard - Rockets were offered Casell for Howard by Timberwolves and they refused. How do you refuse a clutcch player...especially when the other team is asking for a perennial loser. Gundy loved Juwan and Rafer. He has only himself to blame.

Battier trade - Absolutely NOT worth a lottery pick. To complicate matters, we dont even force West to add in Grizzlies 24th pick. Oh yeah, why bother. Not like Gundy would do much with it anwyas.




Hakeem said:


> Battier is a lot better than Gay right now, and fits a whole lot better into our system than Gay would. I think Gay will surpass a prime Battier at some point in his career, but right now it's not even close. Defensively, the gap between them is enormous. Offensively, Battier complements Yao and T-Mac very well.


Wow he fits so well but hardly shows up to play in big games. Battier is hyped and not worth what we gave up for him. Considering how we were in "Win now" mode, this move was even more of a disaster since we didn't even get out of first round.




Hakeem said:


> No, you still haven't answered whether you think the triple dose of bad luck -- Yao breaking his leg, Battier having a bit of a mid-career slump, and Bonzi deciding not to give a crap -- could have been expected. Simply saying "excuses" doesn't answer anything.


Battier with a mid-carrer slump. What the hell is that?!?! So now every time some team loses they will say , "Well our X player is in a slump right now. Pardon us pleae." LOL. Now that is an excuse if I ever saw one.

BTW, Battier disappears in big games. This is not a slump. This is a trend.

Yao broke his leg but he was playing in playoffs. Amare came back from an even worse injury and he went farther than Yao did. pleae, stop making excuses.

Bonzi and Gundy were 2 sides of the same coin. Bonzi had a bad attitude but Gundy had an ego problem.

Excuses..excuses..excuses...




Hakeem said:


> You have absolutely no evidence that Alston was always bad, since he was a good player a couple of years ago.


Good player....lol...I am lokoing at his career stats right now.




Hakeem said:


> You call Howard a loser, yet McGrady is a loser too by that criteria. In other words, it's a bad argument.


Yes, they are both losers when it comes to playoffs. Unless you are happy with one player making playoffs only 3 times in 13 seasons, and another player losing each and every first round playff series, they are losers.




Hakeem said:


> You don't have any numbers to back up Gundy's failure as a coach.


4 Seasons.
3 First Round Exits.
2 Series Losses after going up 2-0

How are those numbers for ya??? :lol: 

Oh yeah... He got Fired too. You can add that to his resume.




Hakeem said:


> Like to explain how Van Gundy could in his three years here have gone out at acquired players the caliber of Otis Thorpe, Robert Horry, Mario Elie, Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell?


No he couldn't. He cant judge talent. Thanks for making my point.



Hakeem said:


> Cassell was a far superior player to Spanoulis.


Yup, we found that out in Cassell's rookie year because Rudy was not afraid to play him even though we were contending.

Sadly with Gundy, we still dont know what Span can do since he hardly sniffed court time. I am not saying he is good or bad. I am saying he is where he was last year. Almost 0 experience. 




Hakeem said:


> There is a limited amount of time. You go through a long-term program with a trainer. You can't have more than one. No player has two personal trainers, unless they each train them on different aspects (which clearly wouldn't be the case here).


LOL! Stop pulling stuff out of your @ss again.



Hakeem said:


> When NBA veterans call you the best coach they have ever had, it means something. It's not something you hear often at all.


Yup. It means they are going to be FIRED!




Hakeem said:


> Immediately after a season-ending loss, he mentions, among a hundred other things, something about how he can't understand why Snyder wasn't used (when it's actually pretty obvious -- he sucks) and that the coach had personality clashes with the cancerous Bonzi (is there any Rockets fan in the world who didn't know that?), and you jump on it and declare that Van Gundy has been exposed by his star player. That's the problem.


Nope. The problem was Gundy. And the problem was fired.

I am sure Yao expressed his feelings to management in that exit interview.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

OK, this is getting a bit ridiculous. You're hardly even addressing any of my points now. Repeating phrases like "Excuses, excuses" and "You're pulling stuff out of your ***" is simply lamely stating your opinion. Those statements aren't very convincing as arguments.



nanoBeast said:


> had he not interfered in personell decisions, I would have never blamed it on him.


It would be foolish for a coach to stay away from personnel decisions.



> When 2/5 of starting lineup is a liability you could use all the help you can gt from the bench. Considering we got close to 0 production from the bench, and almost nothing from battier except in 2 games, while Hayes and Alston being a handicap for most nights, you are putting it all on Yao/Tmac. Shaq and Kobe needed help from Horry/Fox/Fisher to win. What makes you think that Yao and Tmac, who are not even as good as shaq/Kobe of back then, will be able to carry this team with LESS than what they had??


Horry was little better than Battier. Similar offensive production (though he only had to play something like half Battier's minutes and thus would have had more energy to expend when he was on the floor), slightly inferior defense and superior rebounding. If you think Battier disappeared in these playoffs (10 ppg, 45% from the field, 44% from the arc), you don't remember Horry in 2001 (6 ppg, 37% from the field, 36% from the arc) or 2003 (6 ppg, 32% from the field, 5% from the arc). Horry has been hugely overrated for hitting several big shots over his career. People forget that he can be virtually nonexistent for the previous 47 minutes. It's not all redeemed by one basket at the end.
Rick Fox's PER in 2000 was worse than every single rotation player on the Rockets this season. The only guys he beat out are Spanoulis, Novak, Padgett and Bonzi. Even Tsakalidis and JLIII were better statistically. Derek Fisher's PER was even worse.
Two man teams with a weak bench can win. Kobe back then was still developing and wasn't even as good as the current McGrady. We were't a top-three team this season, but when healthy we weren't far off. To simply look at the fact that we lost in the first round and declare that we were far from contention is just lazy or disingenuous.



> For the third time, this makes no sense at all. You work on both. You work on making the playoffs and you work on constantly improving your team. Other teams do. What makes us so special? If Gundy had no confidence in the players he had then he should have gotten someone he would have confidence in.


What makes us special? It's the fact that our guys are second round draft picks with gaping holes in their games. You don't need playing time to improve your shot (Spanoulis) or bulk up (Novak). The Lakers in 2000 weren't very deep, yet they didn't try to groom Devean George or Travis Knight (both first round picks). You don't see the Spurs developing Jackie Butler (who is actually in his third season in the league). Isiah loves his young players, but Mardy Collins (a first rounder) only started getting playing time on the Knicks after the team was hit with several injuries. You don't play guys just because they're young and you have no bench. It requires a little more analysis than that. 
Furthermore, Van Gundy has a lot more information on these guys than we do. To you it may seem that Spanoulis and Novak have potential that just needs to be tapped. But JVG sees them play every other day in practice. He has a very good idea of how capable they are. To most of the world they appeared to be rookie second rounders with crippling weaknesses. Watching them train and play behind the scenes clearly affirmed that to Van Gundy.



> I am sorry but those numbers dont lie. You can make excuses all you want but those are facts.


Why not put up the numbers when both players were healthy? That would be a lot more relevant, since that's how we were in the playoffs. 



> You can only use injuries as an excuse for so long.


What is the point of saying this? Just an utterly meaningless statement. Injuries occurred and they made our team worse. We were close to healthy for the playoffs. Why would you use our injured team as a basis of comparison instead of using our healthy team when discussing playoff performance? 



> Excuses again. Contenders dont whine about matchups. Spurs dont whine about matching up with fast paced teams. If you are whining about matching up then chances are you are on the losing side.


You're stating the obvious and once again shying away from actually addressing my point. Why would the Spurs whine when they're still in it? They were lucky enough not to face a good team that they matched up badly with. The Spurs fans would definitely be complaining about matchups if they had been unfortunate enough to face the Mavs. Remeber how what should have been a far inferior team in the Kings pushed them to 6 games last year? That was simply because of bad matchups -- the Spurs didn't have the personnel to effectively guard Artest and Bonzi at the same time. And remember how they lost to the Mavs? Again, an inability to guard Dirk, since Duncan couldn’t come out and Bowen was too small. 
Matchups matter in the NBA. It's not an excuse. It's reality. The Rockets probably wouldn't have won a title in '94 had they met the Sonics in the Conference Finals. They probably would have won it all in '93 had they met anyone but the Sonics in the Second Round. It's just the way it is.
Oh, and you still haven't answered the question: what adjustments did you expect Van Gundy to make against the Jazz?



> Because that's when he played on our team?! That's the best guage of what a player can do on your team/system.


You are once again not offering any argument. You're simply stating your opinion. Give me a reason why the Rockets' system is easier for a guy like James to put up numbers in than the Wolves' system. Randy Foye getting his minutes is not good enough. He should play better playing 25 mpg as opposed to 35.



> You can keep trying to convince yourself that Alston/James trade was great but again....the fact that Rockets went after him TWICE this year tells people how they really felt.


It doesn't tell you much at all. Of course Mike James would be a valuable addition to any team. It's a question of who they were willing to give up for him. The New York Knicks could offer Jared Jeffries for Mike James. That wouldn't necessarily imply that they think James is better than Marbury or Francis or Crawford. It would only mean that they think James is better than Jeffries. The Rockets weren't trying to trade Alston straight up for James. 



> Exactly! James shot better than Rafer (2fg% and 3fg%) so there's yoru answer.


Except James wouldn't be as eager as Rafer to pass the ball to Yao or McGrady in the first place (or as effective at doing so), leading to fewer open shots for himself and his teammates. He'd also grab fewer rebounds and turn the ball over more.



> 36% is not impressive. 36% is decent. To be impressive you have to shoot atleast 40%. The difference between is 36% and 40% is not to be overlooked when it comes to 3pt FG %. ESPECIALLY when Rafer shoots as much as he does.


The more shots you take, the lower your percentage is going to be. Craig Hodges is one of the best three point shooters ever, percentage-wise. But he only shot when no defenders where anywhere near him. If had been given a greater role in the offense and asked to shoot more, his percentage would have plummeted. Similarly, John Paxson shot a better percentage than Larry Bird from beyond the arc. That didn't make him a better three point shooter, though, because he usually only attempted perfect, wide open setups. That's why Rafer's feat is impressive. 



> :lol: Rafer the Mighty!
> 
> And you know this how??
> 
> Yeah I am sure a bunch of players would struggle to make a bunch of 3 pointers at a Godly 36%!! lol


Inane, pointless response. If Luther Head had tried to squeeze in an extra 130 three pointers this season, his percentage would have crashed.



> Pass first PG does not set records in FGA. :biggrin:


Why not? That was his role in the offense. You can't get much more pass first than Michael Adams, yet he attempted even more threes than Alston one season.



> "very good season"??! Wow you really are suffering from a case of lowered expectations. I am looking at those numbers and I am seeing decent at best. I am looking even before that and I am seeing a lot on inconsistency and pretty much a consistent bad shooting %. We need to surround Yao/Tmac with good shooters. Not bad shooters like Alston.


He makes 192 season for the season on 36% and suddenly he's a bad shooter? 
Also, Alston's PER in the season before we got him was 16.5. That’s about where Andre Miller, Lamar Odom and Tayshaun Prince were this season. He passed the ball well, rebounded very well for a PG, did not turn the ball over much, and scored 17 points per 40 minutes. It was a very good season for a standard starting point guard.



> In my book, they are both terrible options at PF if you are trying to win a ring. Hayes is only better of the two because he masks Yao's deficiencies while Howard amplifies them. Hayes is also younger so you can actually develop him. With Howard there is no where to go but down. That is why it was mind boggling that Gundy stuck with Juwan a year ago when we were not going anywhere.


Hayes masks Yao's deficiencies? How? Is it when his man leaves him and double teams Yao? Or when he gets wide open 12 feet from the hoop but doesn't attempt the shot because he can't make mid-range jumpers. Hayes rebounds and defends well. That does not cover Yao's deficiencies since Yao is a good rebounder and defender.



> James/Alston trade - …
> Nachbar trade - …
> Juwan Howard - …
> Battier trade - …


Of these, only the Nachbar trade negatively affected our bench. 
James only came off our bench because we had Bob Sura. If Sura were healthy, he'd start over Alston, and we'd have Alston as our backup point guard instead of Head/JLIII.
Van Gundy gave Nachbar more minutes per game than Rudy T did. He played like crap. He also played like crap in New Orleans (where he got plenty of minutes) and the next year in New Jersey. It's only now that he came out of nowhere to break out. Virtually impossible to pick back then.
Cassell for Howard straight up? Link? Even if it happened, it didn't affect our bench.
The Battier trade didn't affect our bench either, unless you consider Stro Swift a valuable bench piece.



> Wow he fits so well but hardly shows up to play in big games. Battier is hyped and not worth what we gave up for him. Considering how we were in "Win now" mode, this move was even more of a disaster since we didn't even get out of first round.


Your argument, in case you've forgotten, was that the Battier trade hurt our talent _right now_. It clearly didn't. You were wrong.



> Yao broke his leg but he was playing in playoffs. Amare came back from an even worse injury and he went farther than Yao did. pleae, stop making excuses.


Yao got injured and came back in the same season. Amare had over a year to recover, and still isn't the same player he was.
Bonzi acted completely unprofessionally. What he did was unconscionable. Van Gundy responded as many coaches would have. You don't normally tolerate that kind of conduct in a professional league.



> Yes, they are both losers when it comes to playoffs. Unless you are happy with one player making playoffs only 3 times in 13 seasons, and another player losing each and every first round playff series, they are losers.


Extremely simplistic. People call Kevin Garnett a loser. They called Hakeem Olajuwon a loser for nearly a decade. They called Shaq a loser for years. People are too stupid to realise that it takes more than one player to make it. These are the same ones who think Tim Duncan might be better than Shaq and Olajuwon and Karl Malone because his teams have been more successful. All it takes is a little bit of thinking.



> 4 Seasons.
> 3 First Round Exits.
> 2 Series Losses after going up 2-0


Simplistic, again. It doesn’t make sense to stop there and not consider the circumstances.



> No he couldn't. He cant judge talent. Thanks for making my point.


Cowardly sidestepping the issue. There were no players like Otis Thorpe etc. out there for the Rockets to pursue given their roster and cap situation.



> LOL! Stop pulling stuff out of your @ss again.


Not addressing the point.


> Yup. It means they are going to be FIRED!


Not addressing the point.



> Nope. The problem was Gundy. And the problem was fired.
> I am sure Yao expressed his feelings to management in that exit interview.


And again, not addressing the point.

Since you don’t seem to be making any effort to actually have a proper discussion on this, I may not go any further, depending on how I feel.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> OK, this is getting a bit ridiculous. You're hardly even addressing any of my points now. Repeating phrases like "Excuses, excuses" and "You're pulling stuff out of your ***" is simply lamely stating your opinion. Those statements aren't very convincing as arguments.


If you are going to use excuses I will point it out.

If you are going to pull stuff out of your @ss such as Gundy did not allow Yao to work with CD because he can only have one trainer at a time then I will point it out.

If you find it ridiculous then stop making excuses to make your point.



Hakeem said:


> It would be foolish for a coach to stay away from personnel decisions.


So then we finally agree that Gundy has to take the blame for this roster which is lacking in talent?



Hakeem said:


> Horry was little better than Battier. Similar offensive production (though he only had to play something like half Battier's minutes and thus would have had more energy to expend when he was on the floor), slightly inferior defense and superior rebounding. If you think Battier disappeared in these playoffs (10 ppg, 45% from the field, 44% from the arc), you don't remember Horry in 2001 (6 ppg, 37% from the field, 36% from the arc) or 2003 (6 ppg, 32% from the field, 5% from the arc).


This is so typical of you. You ignore the multiple number of years where Horry has been great in playoffs but concentrate on ONE where he was not so great.

Try this... Horry with MULTIPLE good showings in playoffs and 1 or 2 bad showings VS. Battier yet showing up for playoffs.

Battier is no where close to Horry. Horry's biggest advantage is tactical and that is that he is inter-changeable at 3/4. I will give you a history regarding this...

In 95 when Rockets traded Thorpe for Drexler, Rockets were left with a PF by committee of Horry/Chucky Brown/Pete Chilcutt. Brown/Chilcutt did best they could with limited minutes but they were such liabilities that Rudy inserted Horry as a PF as playoffs went on. That was actually a great move because Horry could defend the PFs (Barkley, Rodman) and on offense he spread the floor for Hakeem. Rodman was limited on boards because he actually had to come out and try to defend Horry on perimeter. And on the other end, Horry limited Rodamn from getting lots of offensive rebounds. Horry also was great against Horace Grant in finals t, while using similar tactics. In fact his performance in Finals were so good that Hakeem said he would give his Finals MVP trophy to Horry because he deserved it.

Both Lakers and Spurs have used Horry similarly in playoffs and SUCCESSFULLY I might add. Here's an interesting twist to this story. Gundy, this offseason, lobbied for a PF who could shoot 3s. He got Battier thinking he was the answer. If you recall, he used Battier at PF in the first game of the season. Battier was destroyed on the boards and could not defend the PF spot. So much for Gundy's theory on using Battier at PF. 

Besides this HUGE tactical advantage, Horry has a knack for hitting big shots while Battier fails to show up for big games.



Hakeem said:


> Horry has been hugely overrated for hitting several big shots over his career. People forget that he can be virtually nonexistent for the previous 47 minutes. It's not all redeemed by one basket at the end.


LOL!! This is what I am talking about. Pulling stuff out of your @ss. Did you even watch Horry play for Rockets in playoffs? If you had said that Horry does not care for regular season, that would have made sense. He is almost invisible during regular season. But when playoffs roll around, he will almost always show up. He was HUGE for the Rockets in their 2 championship run...

1)Perfect complementary role player to Hakeem/Thorpe and the guards. Was athletic and made high post passes/entry passes to Hakeem. Ran the fast break to perfection with Vernon/Kenny. Excellent at shot blocking and steals and was just a very high IQ basketball player.

2)I already gave you a history of Horry and PF/3 point shotting. If you think all he could do was shoot last second shots then I suggest you find tapes of his performance in 95 playoffs. 

3) He has also hit lots of big shots for Lakers/Spurs and they are not just last second shots. You might also want to look at all the subtle things he does on defense.

4) He has won 6 rings as an important role player on each team and may get his 7th this year. He must be doing something right....

5) "Horry has been hugely overrated for hitting several big shots over his career." Oh my!!! So overrated!!! Thank Goodness Battier doesn't hit several big shots in playoffs or he might be overrated too!! LOL!




Hakeem said:


> Rick Fox's PER in 2000 was worse than every single rotation player on the Rockets this season. The only guys he beat out are Spanoulis, Novak, Padgett and Bonzi. Even Tsakalidis and JLIII were better statistically. Derek Fisher's PER was even worse.
> Two man teams with a weak bench can win. Kobe back then was still developing and wasn't even as good as the current McGrady.


You really need to watch the game. Fisher and Rick Fox were tougher than any of our role players. These guys backed down from no one. Fox pretty much neutralized Peja all by his lonesome. Fisher was is a tough and borderline dirty/flopper but he backed down from no one. He, too has a history of making bug shots and is still doing it this year for Jazz. These players were tough and showed up for playoffs. Our role players are soft and fail to show up in playoffs.





Hakeem said:


> We were't a top-three team this season, but when healthy we weren't far off.


We had everyone back for playoffs and we got bounced in first round. Again, you put your hopes based on inflated regular season record and it got exposed in playoffs when going against a good team.




Hakeem said:


> To simply look at the fact that we lost in the first round and declare that we were far from contention is just lazy or disingenuous.


Huh?? You put too much importance on regular season my friend. Rings are won in playoffs. Regular season are where contenders get in shape to fight for the big prize. 

Yes we lost in first round while having HOME COURT. And we lost to a team which was ranked BELOW us while we were ranked only 4. Like it or not, that speaks volumes. You are delusional.




Hakeem said:


> What makes us special? It's the fact that our guys are second round draft picks with gaping holes in their games. You don't need playing time to improve your shot (Spanoulis) or bulk up (Novak).


Hmm I wonder what excuse you might use for Snyder.




Hakeem said:


> The Lakers in 2000 weren't very deep, yet they didn't try to groom Devean George or Travis Knight (both first round picks). You don't see the Spurs developing Jackie Butler (who is actually in his third season in the league). Isiah loves his young players, but Mardy Collins (a first rounder) only started getting playing time on the Knicks after the team was hit with several injuries. You don't play guys just because they're young and you have no bench. It requires a little more analysis than that.


Lakers critical lineup of Shaq/Horry/Fox/Kobe/Fisher >>>> Our best 5 lineup this year. Every single player on the Lakers has an advantage over our player. Add to this that PJ>>>> Gundy. We have two huge liabilities at PF and PG. That is why Lakers could get away with no bench while we paid dearly for it.

Spurs developed Tony Parker and Manu. Popovich went thru growing pains with them and Spurs were rewarded for it. Hell, Popovich wasn't afraid to work with Devin brown and another Euro backup PG.

I guess Sloan is really regretting developing that 2nd rounder on his team. You know...Millsap...the guy who gave Rockets fits in couple games this playoffs. Yeah..bad move Sloan. What were you thinking playing that second rounder? Now you have to pay for it by playing in Western Conference Finals. LOL!




Hakeem said:


> Furthermore, Van Gundy has a lot more information on these guys than we do.


Had. He is no longer the coach. 




Hakeem said:


> To you it may seem that Spanoulis and Novak have potential that just needs to be tapped. But JVG sees them play every other day in practice. He has a very good idea of how capable they are. To most of the world they appeared to be rookie second rounders with crippling weaknesses. Watching them train and play behind the scenes clearly affirmed that to Van Gundy.


Actually, it is widely known that Gundy is not a very good judge of talent. That is the reason he goes with older players who he knows what they can do. Oakley, Ward, Strickland, Weatherspoon, Battier for Gay....all these moves will tell you that. 

I never said that Span and Novak have potential that needs to be tapped. If you had cared to read my priginal post you would know exactly where I stand regarding them.




Hakeem said:


> What is the point of saying this? Just an utterly meaningless statement. Injuries occurred and they made our team worse. We were close to healthy for the playoffs. Why would you use our injured team as a basis of comparison instead of using our healthy team when discussing playoff performance?


Championships are won in playoffs. You play good teams in playoffs unlike regular season where you can inflate your record against bad teams. You are making a big issue about health when we had everyone playing. We failed in playoffs. 




Hakeem said:


> You're stating the obvious and once again shying away from actually addressing my point. Why would the Spurs whine when they're still in it?


I never heard them whine about matchup problems when they were not in it either. 




Hakeem said:


> They were lucky enough not to face a good team that they matched up badly with. The Spurs fans would definitely be complaining about matchups if they had been unfortunate enough to face the Mavs.


Huh? Did they whine about matchup last year? They lost because they got outplayed. 



Hakeem said:


> Remeber how what should have been a far inferior team in the Kings pushed them to 6 games last year?


Yes I remember them wining the series. They took care of the problem. Thats what good teams do. The win in spite of adversity.




Hakeem said:


> Matchups matter in the NBA. It's not an excuse. It's reality. The Rockets probably wouldn't have won a title in '94 had they met the Sonics in the Conference Finals. They probably would have won it all in '93 had they met anyone but the Sonics in the Second Round. It's just the way it is.


I can understand bringing matchup issue against a certain team. You bring it up against Suns, Warriors, and Jazz. Which means there's something wrong with our team and style.

The Jazz pretty much play a half court game like us. We are built for a half court game. But they won at our own style. You are looking at the advantages they had but no advantages that we had. We go out muscled, outworked, and out coached. It was a not a match up problem. This is only your theory and a flawed one at best. 




Hakeem said:


> Oh, and you still haven't answered the question: what adjustments did you expect Van Gundy to make against the Jazz?


You can try anything different. Double team, soft or hard double, zone. Show Boozer different looks. Keep him guessing. As the series wore on, Boozer had pretty much sized up Yao and knew exactly how to exploit him. Gundy failed to make an adjustment.

Now you can say that any of those different things would not have worked but here's the thing... considering we were getting ABSOLUTELY murrdered with what Gundy was sticking to, how WORSE OFF could it be??? At least it would have thrown off Bozzer for a lil while. 

This lack of adjustment was so bad on Gundy's part that Chronicle writer called him on it. I am paraphrasing him.....

If someone is beating me on the head with a stick, I am going to do one of two things...Move away or take his stick away...I am not going to stand while he keeps beating me..

DUH!




Hakeem said:


> You are once again not offering any argument. You're simply stating your opinion. Give me a reason why the Rockets' system is easier for a guy like James to put up numbers in than the Wolves' system.


1)It is easier because Yao/Tmac create more space for shooters than ANYONE on Timberwolves. More space and time = higher %FG

2) Mike James was a set rotation and knew exactly what to do the day he joined the Rockets. He was to come off the bench and be instant offense. He did that to near perfection in limited time he was here. Timberwolves were never sure how to use Mike James. They got him but then also drafted Foye who plays the same position. Hence the confusion. More and consistent playing time with Rockets = better performance

3) Mike James fit the Rockets system built around Tmac/Yao. He was to make open jumpers created by them. When they were not in, he was so create offense in limited time they sat on the bench. Mike James' # on the Rockets tell the whole story.




Hakeem said:


> Randy Foye getting his minutes is not good enough. He should play better playing 25 mpg as opposed to 35.


You have some of the most bizzare theories out there. And you accuse me of having opinions?? LOL!




Hakeem said:


> Except James wouldn't be as eager as Rafer to pass the ball to Yao or McGrady in the first place (or as effective at doing so), leading to fewer open shots for himself and his teammates. He'd also grab fewer rebounds and turn the ball over more.


Dude. Again. Please stop pulling stuff out of your @ss. I gave you examples of what Mike James DID when he was in Houston. Your argument is what he WOULD do. 




Hakeem said:


> The more shots you take, the lower your percentage is going to be. Craig Hodges is one of the best three point shooters ever, percentage-wise. But he only shot when no defenders where anywhere near him. If had been given a greater role in the offense and asked to shoot more, his percentage would have plummeted. Similarly, John Paxson shot a better percentage than Larry Bird from beyond the arc. That didn't make him a better three point shooter, though, because he usually only attempted perfect, wide open setups. That's why Rafer's feat is impressive.


So.....you are saying that Rafer should be shooting in 20s from 3 FG%? LOL! How exactly are you going to defend your point that others could not shoot better % that Rafer while taking same amount of shots??? 

BTW, Rafer was given that many wide open 3 pointers by other teams for a reason. They see him as a weak link. No one keeps leaving a good shooter wide open. 




Hakeem said:


> Inane, pointless response. If Luther Head had tried to squeeze in an extra 130 three pointers this season, his percentage would have crashed.


Another WOULD. You love that word WOULD. yet you have no evidence to say that it WOULD actually happen. Just because you think it WOULD...




Hakeem said:


> Why not? That was his role in the offense. You can't get much more pass first than Michael Adams, yet he attempted even more threes than Alston one season.


If that was his role on offense I am still befuddled by the countless 3s he took on his own off of pick and roll and the numbers of floaters he bricked while trying to beat the defense by himself. If he was pass first he would not have attempted those boneheaded shots.

In Rockets system, PG are best served by taking open shots created by Yao/Tmac. The most important thing is HIGH FG%. Rafer's FG% is absolutely terrible. That itself makes him a liability. Think Kenny Smith and Charlie Ward if you want to know what it should be like. Kenny Smith was just as bad as Rafer on defense but he made a high % of his shots so was a valuable piece on a championship team. 



Hakeem said:


> He makes 192 season for the season on 36% and suddenly he's a bad shooter?


How convenient of you to leave his low 30s overall FG%.

Yeah, if someone is shooting in mid-low 30s from field, I will call them a bad shooter. While you are suffering from lowered expectations, I am going to stick to reality.

BTW, you said he was impressive from 3 point land. Is 36% impressive to you??! 

I said 36% from 3 point is DECENT. Rockets system the way it is designed needs better than decent. Again, there is a reason why teams left Rafer wide open to attempt a 3 most of the time. They would rather double Yao/Tmac and let Rafer have those shots at decent only rate.



Hakeem said:


> Also, Alston's PER in the season before we got him was 16.5. That’s about where Andre Miller, Lamar Odom and Tayshaun Prince were this season. He passed the ball well, rebounded very well for a PG, did not turn the ball over much, and scored 17 points per 40 minutes. It was a very good season for a standard starting point guard.


You can try to justify it all you want but most people know Rafer is just a bad fit for the system that Gundy built. He is miserable at one aspect which is MOST important in the system. Making wide open shots. That itself makes him miserable.



Hakeem said:


> Hayes masks Yao's deficiencies? How?


Hayes masks Yao's slow footedness on defense. How many time have you seen Hayes take a charge? How many times have you seen Hayes commit a foul to protect Yao. This does 2 things...

1) It saves Yao's fouls, keeping him longer in game.
2) It actually protects the lane better because a lot of times Yao is too slow to recover.
3) Hayes actually attempts and gets a decent number of block shots.

Juwan amplifies the problem. He is just another slow guy who never blocks the shots and failes to shut down the lane. 

If you still dont believe me that hayes is a better pairing with Yao, you might want to check out the quotes by your own man, Gundy. 



Hakeem said:


> Is it when his man leaves him and double teams Yao? Or when he gets wide open 12 feet from the hoop but doesn't attempt the shot because he can't make mid-range jumpers. Hayes rebounds and defends well.


This is the only advantage Juwan has over Hayes. The ability to make a jumper. Problem is he is too inconsistent with it. And when Juwan's jumper is not falling, he is a liability. You can watch games 1,2,3,4,6,7 against Utah to get a very good idea of this.

Hayes is also a better slasher/cutter than Juwan.

Hayes is not great. He is a liability too. But he is the lesser of two evils when you are looking for a PF to pair up with Juwan. Numbers were looked at on clutchfans and Yao/Juwan pairing almost always resulted in bad +/- for Rockets. Gundy realized this himself after a year, and thus the move to start Hayes with Yao.



Hakeem said:


> That does not cover Yao's deficiencies since Yao is a good rebounder and defender.


LOL!! Is that why Yao was having trouble grabbing a defensive rebound in last minute of game 7?? :lol: 

Yao is not very good at rebounding. Why? Because he is not quick. Hayes is quick so its a better pairing with him. You dont pair slow with slow.

Yao is a good defender but Hayes protects him when Yao cannot get to it if he is slow to recover. Juwan exposes Yao. When was the last time you saw Juwan in foul trouble? 



Hakeem said:


> Of these, only the Nachbar trade negatively affected our bench. James only came off our bench because we had Bob Sura. If Sura were healthy, he'd start over Alston, and we'd have Alston as our backup point guard instead of Head/JLIII.


IF and WOULD. Your two favoutite words.

Who is to say Gundy wouldnt use James as a 6th man similar to how he used with Sura for offense off the bench?

The reason for Alston trade was given as injury to Sura. If anything, it says that he was brought in for Sura's position.

Do you seriouly see Alston coming off the bench to score points??? At his FG%?? Oh my!!!!



Hakeem said:


> Van Gundy gave Nachbar more minutes per game than Rudy T did. He played like crap. He also played like crap in New Orleans (where he got plenty of minutes) and the next year in New Jersey. It's only now that he came out of nowhere to break out. Virtually impossible to pick back then.


That's why it's called "developing" players. It is not instant gratification process. 

Thank Goodness Adelman has a history to working with young players.... Jason Williants, Martin, Hedo...



Hakeem said:


> Cassell for Howard straight up? Link? Even if it happened, it didn't affect our bench.


It was reported in one of the papers and we had a discussion about it on clutchfans. It wasnt a big headlines in papers because it never materialized.

I believe the word you are looking for is WOULD not, not didn't. And again, you can try to be as technical as you want but Cassell >>>>> Juwan. The guy is clutch performer and a smart player. If he was a starting PG, then he would instantly raise our talent level. If he was used as bench player as instant offense then again he would raise our talent level.

Again, Gundy had man crush on Juwan and Rafer and they were one of the big reasons for his downfall.



Hakeem said:


> The Battier trade didn't affect our bench either, unless you consider Stro Swift a valuable bench piece.


Does not have to be bench. It affected our talent level. In a negative way that is. We still dont have a 3rd scoring option, and Battier is not lottery worth. 



Hakeem said:


> Your argument, in case you've forgotten, was that the Battier trade hurt our talent _right now_. It clearly didn't. You were wrong.


Do you even know what talent means? Battier is a smart and hard working player. That does not make him talented, especially if you are talking about sacrificing a lottery pick. He is very limited in creating his own offense. That right there is a limiting factor in talent. Gay is raw but he is TALENTED. And if you had watched Gay progress last year you would know why Battier trade was such a big mistake.

Rockets sacrificed Talent for a role player who would play smart/safe/hard with Yao and Tmac to win now. This is how THEY defended the trade during and after draft day. Considering they did not even manage to get out of first round, now, not only do they not have the talent, but they did not even Win anything. It's really perplexing that this is so hard for you to understand.



Hakeem said:


> Yao got injured and came back in the same season. Amare had over a year to recover, and still isn't the same player he was.


Yep, but still managed to play better than Yao. Soft players make excuses or have their fans make excuse for them. Tough players play thru injuries.



Hakeem said:


> Bonzi acted completely unprofessionally. What he did was unconscionable. Van Gundy responded as many coaches would have. You don't normally tolerate that kind of conduct in a professional league.


This is what you are saying now.....

This is what you said couple of days ago when the discussion began...



Hakeem said:


> Not integrating Bonzi was a huge mistake. I don't know if it was stubborness and ego, or if it was simply because he was incapable of fitting him into a system. Either way, it was criminal.


Which tells me that either

1) You like to change your stance to win an argument

or

2) You do not know what you are talking about.


Good coaches put their teams in front of their egos...

Bob Hill of the Spurs got into it with Rodman. He could not tame him. It cost him series against Rockets.

Phil Jackson knew how to handle Rodman. He tamed him and used him to win 3 rings.

Had Gundy realized that the team needed Bonzi more than it needed his ego, he might have still been coaching the playoffs and the Rockets.



Hakeem said:


> Extremely simplistic. People call Kevin Garnett a loser. They called Hakeem Olajuwon a loser for nearly a decade. They called Shaq a loser for years. People are too stupid to realise that it takes more than one player to make it. These are the same ones who think Tim Duncan might be better than Shaq and Olajuwon and Karl Malone because his teams have been more successful. All it takes is a little bit of thinking.


I find it quiet amusing that you would be using those names with Juwan Howard. :lol: 

Juwan Howard only making 3 playoffs in 13 seasons and performing absolutely horrendously in 2 showings does not equal loser? I am simplifying? LOL!

When players grow and perform they are known as winners. If they do not they are known as losers. That's how world of sports is. Almost everyone will agree by now that Juwan is a hopless case Tracy still has time. As of right now though, no one is calling him a winner. He is well known for one thing...failing to get out of first round after multiple tries. You can call it simplistic or whatever, but that's how he is portrayed. 



Hakeem said:


> Simplistic, again. It doesn’t make sense to stop there and not consider the circumstances.


You mean excuses?

4 years is a long time. Gundy failed to take the Rockets past 1st round in 4 years DESPITE

1)Having a big say on who gets to come and play on the team
2)Having 2 of the best players in the league for 3 of those years.

You can sit here and look at circumstances and make 'excuses' for each of those seasons but the management is going to want results. Gundy failed to provide results and that is why he was fired. 



Hakeem said:


> Cowardly sidestepping the issue. There were no players like Otis Thorpe etc. out there for the Rockets to pursue given their roster and cap situation.


And you would know this how?? Rockets inform you of every offer they get? Based on what has been revealed most of the moves have diluted their talent.

Rockets had a good fit in Mike James and they let him go for a worse fit.

Rockets had a chance to get Roy but Gundy wanted to win meaningless games and cost us 2 spots in draft postition.

Rockets had a chance to grab Gay but Gundy wanted a safer pick.

I already pointed out the Nachbar scenario...

I also pointed out the Cassell scenario...

Sorry bud. No one is sidestepping. It is you who fail to see thru your Gundy glasses.



Hakeem said:


> Not addressing the point.


You missed the point. Not my fault.



Hakeem said:


> Since you don’t seem to be making any effort to actually have a proper discussion on this, I may not go any further, depending on how I feel.


Since you seem to be having comprehension issues and like to live in a WOULD world filled with excuses, while ignoring reality, I can see why you might feel that way. 

Add to the fact that you are already caught changing your stance on an issue for the sake of argument, I am beginning to wonder why I am even taking you as someone I can have honest discussion with.


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

wow, sorry, I'm too tired to be reading all that now... but props to u guys sticking to the argument while feeling so tempted to go personal at each other


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

This is riddled with pretty much every bad NBA General cliche I can think of, from "Toughness and clutchness over production and consistency" to "Yao is soft and T-Mac is a loser" to "Stop making excuses" as a response to any argument that can't be countered. And, of course, focusing solely on the outcome of an event without studying the reasons for it. I've already wasted too much time on these sorts of discussions before, and after the point at which I become bored and it's clear the other guy is not open to or capable of understanding and accepting an opposing argument, there's absolutely no good reason to go on.

However, I do think you made two points in your last post that are worth addressing:


> 1)It is easier because Yao/Tmac create more space for shooters than ANYONE on Timberwolves. More space and time = higher %FG


Mike James on the Rockets is reduced to being a spot-up shooter and passive distributor. He is a good shooter and a poor distributor. His main strength on the offensive end is his ability to create his own shot. He would not get to do this nearly as much on the Rockets as he would on other teams (yes, I used the word "would". Twice. Deal with it.), since so much of the offense goes through Yao and T-Mac. This is why he flourished on the Raptors. Although there was no one drawing regular double teams to give him open shots on the perimeter, he had the freedom to dominate the ball and use up many possessions for himself. This allowed him to take full advantage of his strengths. It also didn't hurt that he was in a contract year. It's a similar situation for him in Minnesota. He has freedom there, too. There is only one superstar, and he doesn't carry the offense as much as T-Mac or Yao do. Randy Foye's presence is not very relevant. All players play better in less minutes. There is less need to conserve energy during their time on the floor. Anyone who has played the game will tell you that the effect of this far outweighs any of the negatives of playing fewer minutes.



> This is what you said couple of days ago when the discussion began...
> Which tells me that either
> 1) You like to change your stance to win an argument
> or
> 2) You do not know what you are talking about.


Yes, I do think not integrating Bonzi was a bad mistake. No, I don't know exactly why JVG didn't do it. And yes, I think that sort of behavior from players is not normally tolerated and that many coaches would have reacted the same way Van Gundy did.

Also, I'm a big fan of some of those '90s Rockets sides, so I feel I need to respond to this bit:



> Try this... Horry with MULTIPLE good showings in playoffs and 1 or 2 bad showings VS. Battier yet showing up for playoffs.
> Battier is no where close to Horry. Horry's biggest advantage is tactical and that is that he is inter-changeable at 3/4. I will give you a history regarding this...
> Brown/Chilcutt did best they could with limited minutes but they were such liabilities that Rudy inserted Horry as a PF as playoffs went on. That was actually a great move because Horry could defend the PFs (Barkley, Rodman) and on offense he spread the floor for Hakeem. Rodman was limited on boards because he actually had to come out and try to defend Horry on perimeter. And on the other end, Horry limited Rodamn from getting lots of offensive rebounds. Horry also was great against Horace Grant in finals t, while using similar tactics. In fact his performance in Finals were so good that Hakeem said he would give his Finals MVP trophy to Horry because he deserved it....


I pointed out two particularly bad playoffs. But Horry has had many very ordinary playoffs. People remember him for a few big shots, but if you actually look at the numbers over the course of entire postseasons, you'll see that for the vast majority of them he was nothing special at all. But people only remember the few well-timed plays, and not the entire games of infuriating listlessness.

You're also incorrect about Horry guarding Barkley in the playoffs. Horry only started playing PF midway through the Conference Finals, and a big reason for that was the matchups (yes, they matter a lot and greatly affect the outcomes of games). While you don't need a post defender to guard Rodman (almost no scoring game) or Horace Grant (mainly scored on putbacks and mid-range jumpers), you do need one to guard Charles Barkley (devestating force in the post). 

You see, what you kindly call Horry's biggest advantage was actually one of his biggest weaknesses. He was not quick enough to guard small forwards, yet he was too weak to guard most good offensive power forwards. He was stuck in between, which is why Rudy T was forced to guard Charles Barkley with 37-year old benchwarmer Charles Jones. So, while Horry was an excellent team defender, he was not a great man defender as he could be exploited on bad matchups. It's actually Battier who should get praised for defensive versatility. He is genuinely able to guard small forwards and shooting guards. Even Wade with his phenomenal quickness was not able to do a lot. Kobe did get 50, but most of that was on Snyder etc, and Battier actually covered him one-on-one. Horry was a good player -- excellent team defender and finisher, very good passer, good shooter -- but there's always a bad tendency to overrate players whose teams have had a lot of playoff success, especially when your own team is involved.

As a power forward, Horry was (and still is) a very poor rebounder. Saying that he was mainly responsible for Rodman's poor showing on the boards in the WCF is giving him too much credit. Rodman had a much-publicized meltdown that series. While he should have gone out to guard Horry on the perimeter, he instead mostly stayed inside and doubled Olajuwon. A similar thing happened with Grant in the Finals. The Magic double-teamed Olajuwon a ridiculous amount (which is why his 33 ppg in that series is so amazing), leaving Horry very open. He capitalized. And btw, Hakeem also said that Kenny Smith and Clyde Drexler deserved MVPs, and after the '94 Finals said that he did not expect to win it. He is known for being outrageously humble. His words here don't mean much.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> This is riddled with pretty much every bad NBA General cliche I can think of, from "Toughness and clutchness over production and consistency" to "Yao is soft and T-Mac is a loser" to "Stop making excuses" as a response to any argument that can't be countered. And, of course, focusing solely on the outcome of an event without studying the reasons for it. I've already wasted too much time on these sorts of discussions before, and after the point at which I become bored and it's clear the other guy is not open to or capable of understanding and accepting an opposing argument, there's absolutely no good reason to go on.


I dont have a problem with accepting opposing arguments if you make a good case for it. Most of your cases have been purely speculative on your part. Your heavy use of "IFs" and "WOULDs" taint most of your arguments. In a nutshell, you are asking me to accept that certain things happened/will happen because you believe they will happen. 

I have given lots of examples from the past for my arguments. Anyone who cares to look for them can find them in this thread.



Hakeem said:


> However, I do think you made two points in your last post that are worth addressing:


There were more but I will work with ya on these two alone. 



Hakeem said:


> Mike James on the Rockets is reduced to being a spot-up shooter and passive distributor. He is a good shooter and a poor distributor. His main strength on the offensive end is his ability to create his own shot. He would not get to do this nearly as much on the Rockets as he would on other teams (yes, I used the word "would". Twice. Deal with it.), since so much of the offense goes through Yao and T-Mac. This is why he flourished on the Raptors.


Again, I will go back and look at how Mike James was used on the Rockets while you speculate on how he WOULD be used.

Mike James was used here in 2 different ways (under Gundy and his system):

1) When he was on the floor with Yao/Tmac he was used as a spot up shooter/cutter. He spread the floor for our stars and shot a high % when left open. Good fit for the Rockets.

2) When our stars were resting he was asked to create offense. He was also an energy guy/instant offense off the bench. This took the pressure off our stars. Again, a good match.

I will even give you examples. In playoffs against the Dallas, his offense kept the lead for us in Game 1 while Tmac was resting in 2nd half. His offense (making open shots off of double teams) was critical for us in game 6. There were other cases too but if you watch just these 2 games, you will get a good idea of how he could be switched in between two roles and he did.



Hakeem said:


> Yes, I do think not integrating Bonzi was a bad mistake. No, I don't know exactly why JVG didn't do it. And yes, I think that sort of behavior from players is not normally tolerated and that many coaches would have reacted the same way Van Gundy did.


You can try to justify it however you want now but I have already quoted your two statements and if you want I can quote them again. Anyone can see that you held Gundy partly responsible, if not mostly, for the Bonzi situation when the discussion began. However, later on you became completely defensive and freed Gundy from blame.

I dont know your reason for doing it. But based on your dishonesty you will have to forgive me, if in future, I get suspicious when you take a stance.



Hakeem said:


> Also, I'm a big fan of some of those '90s Rockets sides, so I feel I need to respond to this bit:


That is what's surprising. If what you say is true then you should especially know who said the famous words, "Always look at the big picture." This guy was not a big fan of short-sightedness. =p 



Hakeem said:


> I pointed out two particularly bad playoffs. But Horry has had many very ordinary playoffs. People remember him for a few big shots, but if you actually look at the numbers over the course of entire postseasons, you'll see that for the vast majority of them he was nothing special at all. But people only remember the few well-timed plays, and not the entire games of infuriating listlessness.


You are talking about casual fans. Since you claim to know Rockets history then you should know better than the casual fans. You claimed that Horry was useless for 47 minutes and only made a few big shots in last minute. I can quote you on that too. Anyone who sees the entire game can see that is absolutely not true. Horry is an excellent help defender, blocks shots, steals. On offense he is an excellent post entry passer to big men (Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan). He also spaces the floor for them to operate and has made big shots in games other than just last minute shots. I thought you said you hate being simplistic but this is as simplistic as you could have made it to be. 



Hakeem said:


> You're also incorrect about Horry guarding Barkley in the playoffs. Horry only started playing PF midway through the Conference Finals, and a big reason for that was the matchups (yes, they matter a lot and greatly affect the outcomes of games). While you don't need a post defender to guard Rodman (almost no scoring game) or Horace Grant (mainly scored on putbacks and mid-range jumpers), you do need one to guard Charles Barkley (devestating force in the post).


Actually I have all the games on tape. If you were to go back and look at the games again, you will know that I am correct. Perhaps your memory is failing you.

Horry was used against Barkely. A lot more as the series went on. Pete Chilcutt, although he got to see good amount of action against Malone, was nearly non-existent in Suns series. At the beginning of Suns series Chucky Brown got to stay with Barkley but later on, it was mostly Horry. If you dont believe me, please get your hands on Game 5,6,7. Not only will you enjoy those classic games but you will also see what I am alluding to.

Back to the original discussion. You missed the point. Horry was not very good defending against small forwards but he was more than adequate against power forwards. He is not an excellent stand alone but when you pair him with other bigs he holds his position long enough to get help from weak side. 

While he does a good enough job on defense, he excels at opening up space for big men on offense. He has been used similarly by 3 different teams and won championships with all of them.



Hakeem said:


> You see, what you kindly call Horry's biggest advantage was actually one of his biggest weaknesses. He was not quick enough to guard small forwards, yet he was too weak to guard most good offensive power forwards.


I have already adressed this. Please look above.



Hakeem said:


> He was stuck in between, which is why Rudy T was forced to guard Charles Barkley with 37-year old benchwarmer Charles Jones.


Again, please do your self a favor. Stop continually pulling stuff out of @ss to win an argument. This is getting sad.

Charles Jones averaged right at 10 minutes per game in those playoffs. On top of that he was used more against Malone and Shaq. "Forced to" guard Barkley?!?!

Charles Jones was used as a breather for Hakeem. He hardly saw any playing time during Sun's series and when he did it was to give Hakeem some rest. Rudy would usually bring him in during end of quarter situations to give Hakeem a breather. His job was basically to close down the lanes for few minutes a game. Charles Jones was used more on Malone and Shaq.




Hakeem said:


> So, while Horry was an excellent team defender, he was not a great man defender as he could be exploited on bad matchups.


He could be but he was hardly. I cant think of many examples where he was exploited. If anything i know of many cases where he exploited on the other side by forcing the opposing team's PF in no man's land and draining 3s.



Hakeem said:


> It's actually Battier who should get praised for defensive versatility. He is genuinely able to guard small forwards and shooting guards. Even Wade with his phenomenal quickness was not able to do a lot. Kobe did get 50, but most of that was on Snyder etc, and Battier actually covered him one-on-one. Horry was a good player -- excellent team defender and finisher, very good passer, good shooter -- but there's always a bad tendency to overrate players whose teams have had a lot of playoff success, especially when your own team is involved.


Oh the irony!!! Accusing me of overrating Horry, who has had success where he has gone, after you profusely overrate Battier right above.

Horry is/was just as good a defender as Battier but much better on offense (better post entry passer, makes shots under pressure 9not just last second shots)) Battier is also a very good team defender but not great one on one defender. He works hard but he is not gifted. His one-on-one defense is overrated. And in the end, it just does not help his case that he disappears to show up for playoffs. Remember..."big picture"



Hakeem said:


> As a power forward, Horry was (and still is) a very poor rebounder. Saying that he was mainly responsible for Rodman's poor showing on the boards in the WCF is giving him too much credit. Rodman had a much-publicized meltdown that series. While he should have gone out to guard Horry on the perimeter, he instead mostly stayed inside and doubled Olajuwon.


And thus the advantage of having Horry on your team. He has always done this while playing against big men. The other PF stays with Horry and Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq have space to operate one on one. The other PF helps on big men and Horry drains the open 3. That is what I meant by spreading the floor. Add to it that most PFs don't like coming out too far, which leaves lot more space for Horry to drain long bombs.



Hakeem said:


> A similar thing happened with Grant in the Finals. The Magic double-teamed Olajuwon a ridiculous amount (which is why his 33 ppg in that series is so amazing), leaving Horry very open. He capitalized.


Exactly!! He capitalized!!! If Battier had capitalized on similar opportunities given to him we would not be having this discussion now, would we??

You are discrediting Horry's success for capitalizing on the opportunities given to him yet you are crediting Battier for failing to capitalize on ones given to him. Perplexing!

Fact: Horry is second on ALL-TIME list of 3 pointers made in playoffs. Do you think he can make that many in just last minute of the game as you claim?

Fact: Horry holds the record with 53 3-pointers made in Finals. He might get to increase that margin. Next on the list? Jordan with 42.




Hakeem said:


> And btw, Hakeem also said that Kenny Smith and Clyde Drexler deserved MVPs, and after the '94 Finals said that he did not expect to win it. He is known for being outrageously humble. His words here don't mean much.


I specifically read about Hakeem offering the Finals MVP trophy to Horry after the Orlando series. The point wasn't that he would give him the trophy literally. I doubt he ever did. My point was that Hakeem noted how important Horry's performance was and not just some last minute show up guy as you made him out to be.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Ah, I got sucked into another post. The Horry stuff is enjoyable. But on the whole, I shouldn't be doing this.



nanoBeast said:


> I dont have a problem with accepting opposing arguments if you make a good case for it. Most of your cases have been purely speculative on your part. Your heavy use of "IFs" and "WOULDs" taint most of your arguments. In a nutshell, you are asking me to accept that certain things happened/will happen because you believe they will happen.


Nearly everything in discussions about sports are "ifs" and "woulds". "How would Mike James do on the Rockets right now?" "If the Rockets had faced the Mavs in the First Round, how far would they have gone?" "How would Rudy T have done coaching this Rockets team". That's the whole point. What's the sense in repeating outcomes over and over again? We have to look for the underlying causes. That's where the ifs and woulds come in. It's not just basketball. This is how it is for everything. Business, science, philosophy... To point out my use of ifs and woulds as a negative is absurd. It sounds like something from the schoolyard.



> Mike James was used here in 2 different ways (under Gundy and his system):
> 1) When he was on the floor with Yao/Tmac he was used as a spot up shooter/cutter. He spread the floor for our stars and shot a high % when left open. Good fit for the Rockets.
> 2) When our stars were resting he was asked to create offense. He was also an energy guy/instant offense off the bench. This took the pressure off our stars. Again, a good match.
> I will even give you examples. In playoffs against the Dallas, his offense kept the lead for us in Game 1 while Tmac was resting in 2nd half. His offense (making open shots off of double teams) was critical for us in game 6. There were other cases too but if you watch just these 2 games, you will get a good idea of how he could be switched in between two roles and he did.


Mike James can score and that's about it. He averaged 11/2/2 against the Mavs and did not make a single three pointer. And his defense (which is good overall but inconsistent) wasn't there. He only showed up in three of the seven games, which, funnily enough, seems to be your criticism of Battier against the Jazz.
And you still haven't really addressed the point that on the Rockets he is mostly reduced to a spot up shooter (only getting a few minutes of free reign when both T-Mac and Yao are on the bench), while he gets to do what he wants a lot more in Minnesota (just as he did so well in Toronto, with the difference being that he has declined and has guaranteed money now).



> You can try to justify it however you want now but I have already quoted your two statements and if you want I can quote them again. Anyone can see that you held Gundy partly responsible, if not mostly, for the Bonzi situation when the discussion began. However, later on you became completely defensive and freed Gundy from blame.


Anyone who has read my posts here over the course of the season will tell you that I've always held Bonzi a lot more responsible than Van Gundy for this. But what Bonzi did didn't really surprise me. Players aren't usually as responsible and coaches, and Bonzi is known to be a headcase. And, as I pointed out in my last post, I never absolved JVG of blame. I meant exactly what I said: that that sort of conduct is not normally tolerated and that many coaches would have reacted in the same way. 


> You are talking about casual fans. Since you claim to know Rockets history then you should know better than the casual fans. You claimed that Horry was useless for 47 minutes and only made a few big shots in last minute. I can quote you on that too. Anyone who sees the entire game can see that is absolutely not true. Horry is an excellent help defender, blocks shots, steals. On offense he is an excellent post entry passer to big men (Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan). He also spaces the floor for them to operate and has made big shots in games other than just last minute shots. I thought you said you hate being simplistic but this is as simplistic as you could have made it to be.


I never said that Horry is useless for 47 minutes and only made big shots at the end. You're again putting words in my mouth. I said that Horry _can be_ useless for 47 minutes before hitting the big shot that everyone remembers. Which is true. I also credited Horry for his team defense and passing and finishing and shooting ability. Which is why, in a discussion in NBA General a week or two before, I and some others were wondering why he wasn't better than a mere roleplayer. He has the skills in individual aspects of the game. But he rarely puts it together for long stretches.



> Horry was used against Barkely. A lot more as the series went on. Pete Chilcutt, although he got to see good amount of action against Malone, was nearly non-existent in Suns series. At the beginning of Suns series Chucky Brown got to stay with Barkley but later on, it was mostly Horry. If you dont believe me, please get your hands on Game 5,6,7. Not only will you enjoy those classic games but you will also see what I am alluding to.


Horry was used for more than a few possessions at a time in one game of that series, and very little in Game 7. It was Chucky Brown, Charles Jones, Pete Chilcutt, Hakeem and him rotating. Yes, Horry's inability to consistently guard good post players did force Rudy T to mostly guard a superstar PF with his center and three guys who should otherwise have been watching from the bench.



> Back to the original discussion. You missed the point. Horry was not very good defending against small forwards but he was more than adequate against power forwards.


I didn't miss the point. You said Horry's biggest strength is his interchangability at the 3 and 4 spots. This isn't true. He began his career almost exclusively a 3, then became almost exclusively a 4. He had weaknesses at both positions.



> Horry is/was just as good a defender as Battier but much better on offense (better post entry passer, makes shots under pressure 9not just last second shots)) Battier is also a very good team defender but not great one on one defender. He works hard but he is not gifted. His one-on-one defense is overrated. And in the end, it just does not help his case that he disappears to show up for playoffs. Remember..."big picture"


Funny how despite supposedly being much better on offense, Battier has a higher career PER despite having a significantly lower rebound rate. The difference can only be explained by Battier's greater offensive production. Horry is the better post entry passer (and slightly better passer overall) and better finisher and slightly better team defender, but Battier is the significantly better man defender and shooter. Also remember that with Battier's man defense on the perimeter, the JVG Rockets pack the paint but don't double a whole lot outside. He did very well defensively on the perimeter this season without getting very much help there (though he Rockets' interior defense did allow him to be a bit more aggressive than most). And, unlike Horry, he can legitimately defend two positions.

You're focusing all this time on one good (but hardly spectacular -- it's easy to point out great games and ignore the bad ones) playoffs that Horry had early in his career, while forgetting that we're actually discussing Horry on the Lakers. Over the course of his career, Horry has not been particularly good in the playoffs. He averages 9/6/3 on 42%.



> And thus the advantage of having Horry on your team. He has always done this while playing against big men. The other PF stays with Horry and Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq have space to operate one on one. The other PF helps on big men and Horry drains the open 3. That is what I meant by spreading the floor. Add to it that most PFs don't like coming out too far, which leaves lot more space for Horry to drain long bombs.


Yes, and this contributed to his production, which, despite the offensive advantage he has at the 4 spot, has been pretty ordinary throughout his career, regular season and postseason.



> Exactly!! He capitalized!!! If Battier had capitalized on similar opportunities given to him we would not be having this discussion now, would we??
> 
> You are discrediting Horry's success for capitalizing on the opportunities given to him yet you are crediting Battier for failing to capitalize on ones given to him. Perplexing!


Horry contributed to his big man getting doubled more and his team getting hurt on the boards, in order to take open threes. But that's his skill, so it was wise. But despite capitalizing, he's only a 34% career three point shooter (36% in the playoffs). If I remember correctly, you called 36% "decent" earlier, before labeling it "miserable". Horry hit 40% of his threes in the '95 playoffs (probably the single best postseason of his career), yet Battier, who supposedly disappeared against the Jazz, hit 44%. We are going by a small sample size for Battier, but he is a considerbly better three point shooter in the regular season, too.



> I specifically read about Hakeem offering the Finals MVP trophy to Horry after the Orlando series. The point wasn't that he would give him the trophy literally. I doubt he ever did. My point was that Hakeem noted how important Horry's performance was and not just some last minute show up guy as you made him out to be.


Again, in the best playoffs of his long career. Also, Hakeem said repeatedly that he battled Ewing to a standstill in the '94 Finals, and that he was surprised that he won Finals MVP. He went overboard in praising teammates and opponenets many, many times.


----------



## nanoBeast (Oct 16, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Nearly everything in discussions about sports are "ifs" and "woulds". "How would Mike James do on the Rockets right now?" "If the Rockets had faced the Mavs in the First Round, how far would they have gone?" "How would Rudy T have done coaching this Rockets team". That's the whole point. What's the sense in repeating outcomes over and over again? We have to look for the underlying causes. That's where the ifs and woulds come in. It's not just basketball. This is how it is for everything. Business, science, philosophy... To point out my use of ifs and woulds as a negative is absurd. It sounds like something from the schoolyard.


Sure you can look at different scenarios on ifs and woulds but you make it out like your ifs and woulds are the definite scenarios. I like to look at what happened in past/patterns and make conclusions from that. You are mostly living in your fantasy land with your IFs.



Hakeem said:


> Mike James can score and that's about it.


And you accuse others of over simplistic statements? *laugh*

Mike James is a good scorer, penetrator, finisher. He is also a better on the ball defender. Oh, and he is also mentally tougher and has the pit bull mentality that Gundy was talking about. He performed well for Rockets in playoffs and even performed well for Pistons in playoffs in limited time he got. We need more players of his fearless attitude.




Hakeem said:


> He averaged 11/2/2 against the Mavs and did not make a single three pointer.


Again, you are doing what you accuse others of: oversimplification.

Mike James in that series attempted 62 shots and made 29.
Rafer attempted 74 shots and made 25.
So, Rafer attempted MORE but made less.

Mike James averaged about 1.5 attempts at 3 pointers/game.
Rafer averaged about 8 attempts at 3 pointers /game!!!!!
8 attempts is ok if you are making a good % but Rafer was mostly bricking from there!

Which means Jazz kept giving Rafer wide open looks and Rafer kept getting sucked into the trap.

Mike James made close to 50% of his shots and attempted just about 1.5 3-pointers/game. Which means he is efficient and has better shot selection. 

Remember, primary goal for guard on this system is to score when left wide open and create offense when Yao/Tmac sit on bench. Mike James excelled at both and took some pressure off of our superstars. Rafer with that horrendous shooting % adds to the burden and other teams are able to send more help defenders off of Rafer. Bad bad bad.....




Hakeem said:


> And his defense (which is good overall but inconsistent) wasn't there.


If you go back and look at those games you will notice his defense was just fine. He hounded Devin Harris and took advantage of that matchup when given chance. I am not sure anyone who is supporting Rafer can criticize Mike james' defense of all things.




Hakeem said:


> He only showed up in three of the seven games, which, funnily enough, seems to be your criticism of Battier against the Jazz.


Actually he showed up in 4 games. He didnt show up in 3 games. Mike James has also performed very well in playoffs when he was with Pistons. Battier's playoff performance has been dismal. It looks even worse if you take into consideration what the price and expectation for both were.

Mike James was a cheap pick at trading deadline. 

We traded a Lottery pick for Battier!! He was brought in as the third piece to yao/Tmac to "win now". 

The fact that you are comparing the two and Mike James' contribution was better in playoffs for us tells the whole story. If you compare him to Rafer it gets downright pitiful.



Hakeem said:


> And you still haven't really addressed the point that on the Rockets he is mostly reduced to a spot up shooter (only getting a few minutes of free reign when both T-Mac and Yao are on the bench), while he gets to do what he wants a lot more in Minnesota (just as he did so well in Toronto, with the difference being that he has declined and has guaranteed money now).


Rockets system is designed to facilitate spot up shooters. That is why he excelled when he was here and that is why he would excel again if brought in. In addition he can be used to create offense for short spurts when Yao/Tmac are resting. That is why Rockets tried to get him twice this season. Your question has been answered, you just don't seem to get it.

I am saying James would do good on Rockets because he has PROVEN he can while playing on the Rockets with Yao/Tmac and playing with same coach.

You are saying James would not do good on Rockets because he was bad on Timberwolves.

I am sure Rockets were looking at the first scenraio when continually trying to get him on this team.




Hakeem said:


> Anyone who has read my posts here over the course of the season will tell you that I've always held Bonzi a lot more responsible than Van Gundy for this.


The point was you changed your stance in this thread regarding Bonzi. Anyone who sees your 2 quotes from before and after can see that. Just stick to one opinion and if you change it then give a reason for it. Going back and forth to suit your argument is not the proper way of going about it. 




Hakeem said:


> I never said that Horry is useless for 47 minutes and only made big shots at the end. You're again putting words in my mouth. I said that Horry _can be_ useless for 47 minutes before hitting the big shot that everyone remembers. Which is true.


Well if you want to be that technical, I guess it can be true for most people then. Anyone can have games where they have have completely disappeared. Heck, you will find games where Horry has not just disappeared for 47 minutes but all 48 minutes. But then you will find games where he has been superb entire game. What's the complaint with having a roleplayer on your team who USALLY comes to play in big games and does not back down from taking big shots? Oh and he isnt just some stiff you camps for open shots. He plays good in other areas too. Give me a player like that on Rockets anytime....again.





Hakeem said:


> I also credited Horry for his team defense and passing and finishing and shooting ability. Which is why, in a discussion in NBA General a week or two before, I and some others were wondering why he wasn't better than a mere roleplayer. He has the skills in individual aspects of the game. But he rarely puts it together for long stretches.


He is a roleplayer. That's who he is. You are expecting him to be better than a roleplayer and he is not. As a Rockets fan you should know better. After those championships with Rockets wanted him him to be Pippen. Well he is not. He is what he is, a very good role player who, most of the time, shows up in big games.

*hint hint* On a side note, no one ever wonders why Battier isnt more than a role player. Maybe because its quite clear that is that he will ever be. The difference is that he has a history of NOT showing up for big games. *bummer*




Hakeem said:


> Horry was used for more than a few possessions at a time in one game of that series, and very little in Game 7. It was Chucky Brown, Charles Jones, Pete Chilcutt, Hakeem and him rotating.


You really need to watch those games again. After the first 2 losses in Phoenix, Horry was used more and more against Barkley. 

Pete Chilcutt and Charles Jones hardly saw playing time against the Suns!!! You are saying Horry got little time on Barkley compared to those 2 when the other 2 hardly sniffed time that series?!? Wow! I already pointed out how Jones was used while you claimed erroneously that Rudy was using him on Barkley.

As I said, Brown started out primarily on Barkley but as series went deeper, Rudy started going with Horry on him. Houston Chronicle even credited Horry for his work. 

In relation to Hakeem, Hakeem would usually switch to best post player during last couple of minutes in playoff game. He had done this even when Otis Thorpe was on team. Against the Jazz the year before, Thorpe would guard Malone most of the game but in last couple of minutes Hakeem would take over sometime. Simply because he was one of the best defenders of all time. Same thing happened against Sonics when we had Barkley. Hakeem took the responsibility of guarding Kemp on last shot situations over Barkley. Of course in one of those games, he blocked Kemp's last minute shot. So just because Hakeem switched over at end of games did not take away anything from Horry.




Hakeem said:


> Yes, Horry's inability to consistently guard good post players did force Rudy T to mostly guard a superstar PF with his center and three guys who should otherwise have been watching from the bench.


The suns series was the one where Rudy started to shift in usage of Horry. He was almost never used against Malone, the series before. Rudy started using him at PF as the Suns series wore on. Horry gradually started getting more and more minutes at PF. His PT at PF had increases by end of Suns series. For next 2 series and there after, he was the primary PF for the Rockets. By then Rudy has learned that although Horry was not a banger, he was decent enough defender that he could get away with it. 



Hakeem said:


> I didn't miss the point. You said Horry's biggest strength is his interchangability at the 3 and 4 spots. This isn't true. He began his career almost exclusively a 3, then became almost exclusively a 4. He had weaknesses at both positions.


He may have weaknesses but he was more than adequate. Rockets won a ring with him at 3 in 94 and then they won a ring with him at the 4 in 95. He could have been been used at either position earlier in his career. He wouldn't be top notch at either but he wasn't a liability like you make him out to be. His defense was adequate but not spectacular. His help defense has always been very good. 

If you are talking nowadays Horry, he is absolutely useless on defensive end at the 3 and serviceable at 4. He has lost a lot of quickness and leaping ability but most people forget how athletic he used to be.

The main point I was trying to make was how his shift from 3 to 4 on the offensive end spread the floor for his teams and gave his teams a different look. It was a huge tactical advantage that Rudy created using Horry in 95. It was used by Lakers when they won 3 rings...and it is still being used by Spurs.

I even pointed it out to you how Gundy envisioned using Battier in a similar way early in the season but he quickly realized Battier is absolutely too small to play PF. A defensive and rebounding liability. He quickly abandoned the plan.

That was the main jist. Horry brings a huge tactical advantage to the table while Battier does not.




Hakeem said:


> Funny how despite supposedly being much better on offense, Battier has a higher career PER despite having a significantly lower rebound rate. The difference can only be explained by Battier's greater offensive production. Horry is the better post entry passer (and slightly better passer overall) and better finisher and slightly better team defender, but Battier is the significantly better man defender and shooter.


I will give you that Battier is a better man defender. 

I will even give you that bBttier is a better shooter in regular season. 

But in big games it is Horry who you would want to be shooting for your team. Would you seriously take Battier over Horry in playoff games? Even at this old age, I would trust Horry with his shooting and ability to spread the floor. If you compare young Horry to young Battier, it becomes an even easier choice.




Hakeem said:


> Also remember that with Battier's man defense on the perimeter, the JVG Rockets pack the paint but don't double a whole lot outside. He did very well defensively on the perimeter this season without getting very much help there (though he Rockets' interior defense did allow him to be a bit more aggressive than most). And, unlike Horry, he can legitimately defend two positions.


JVG Rockets pack the paint either ways, with or without Battier's perimeter defense. Gundy's defensive philosophy has always been to close down the paint. Yao gets more credit for that than anything.

I am sorry but we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. I am not impressed with Battier's defense. IMO, it's good but not great as you are making it out to be. Battier's on ball defense is better than Horry's. I already said that. But it's not enough to offset the other things that Horry brings to the table in playoffs. And it just does not help Battier's case at all that he disappears offensively in playoffs.

As for Battier being able to guard 2 positions, I would even go further and say that he could guard 3 positions. He could even play some decent defense on big point guards. But his defense at all those 3 positions is not terrific. He is smart, plays good position defense, and works hard but is just not quick enough or athletic enough to be a shut down defender.




Hakeem said:


> You're focusing all this time on one good (but hardly spectacular -- it's easy to point out great games and ignore the bad ones) playoffs that Horry had early in his career, while forgetting that we're actually discussing Horry on the Lakers. Over the course of his career, Horry has not been particularly good in the playoffs. He averages 9/6/3 on 42%.


When were we focusing Horry on just Lakers? Why are you nitpicking at one particular series/teams to fit your argument?? I would rather look at the history. I included his analysis for Rockets. Lakers, and Spurs. I even said yeah he will have bad games just like any player. But when it comes to big games, history has shown that most of the time you can count on Horry.

Battier's history hasn't shown anything of such sort. It is leaning in quiet the opposite direction. I guess, if you are a big time optimist, you can say that Battier has had 2 bad playoff runs (the only ones he has been in so far), and he will run away with great showings for next few. But if you are talking about realistic odds, things aren't looking very good. I guess we can also hope for the best in Battier in Adelman's system. Perhaps he can thrive in Rick's offense and carry it over to playoffs finally.




Hakeem said:


> Yes, and this contributed to his production, which, despite the offensive advantage he has at the 4 spot, has been pretty ordinary throughout his career, regular season and postseason.


It's a tactical advantage. It wont have a huge impact on stats sheet for him. If teams leave Horry open, he will usually make them pay especially during crunch time. If they dont leave Horry open then he wont get his points but his big man will. Either way, dont expect Horry to CREATE offense. And as for regular season, you might as well leave Horry home. I already told you that Horry is useless during regular season. 




Hakeem said:


> Horry contributed to his big man getting doubled more and his team getting hurt on the boards, in order to take open threes. But that's his skill, so it was wise. But despite capitalizing, he's only a 34% career three point shooter (36% in the playoffs). If I remember correctly, you called 36% "decent" earlier, before labeling it "miserable". Horry hit 40% of his threes in the '95 playoffs (probably the single best postseason of his career), yet Battier, who supposedly disappeared against the Jazz, hit 44%. We are going by a small sample size for Battier, but he is a considerbly better three point shooter in the regular season, too.


That last sentence of your's is the key...

"...he is a considerable better three point shooter in the regular season."

Batter has a history of declining form his regular season playoffs once playoffs start. Memphis fans used to complain about this. Now we have 1 season under the belt with him and complaint still holds.

Against the Jazz, Battier shot well from out there in 2 out of 7 games. In those 2 games he shot 4/7 and 5/7. In 6 other games he went 2/6, 2/6, 3/7, 2/5, 1/5. And I am not even including the terrible outings he has had with Memphis. Because of 2 games, his overall stats look acceptable. But then you have to ask yourself. 

Was this worth a lottery pick after such a terrible season?

Would you rather have a player on your team who shows up for big games or a player who declines in playoffs

You can fall back on small sample theory for this. Perhaps Rick's system will be welcome change for Battier. But from what Shane has shown so far in playoffs, you cant fault other people for being disappointed in his performance. I and quiet a few others I know were afraid that he might disappear in playoffs and he once again did. He was supposed to be a big piece of the puzzle for us in playoffs but he wasn't so. At least not this year. Let's see what Adelman has in store for us.


----------

