<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There are a few obvious choices: By trading for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, the Celtics quickly grew from a young rebuilding club to an Eastern contender. Both the Blazers and the Sonics have new hope thanks to the arrival of ballyhooed rookies Greg Oden and Kevin Durant, respectively. And by trading for the controversial Zach Randolph, the Knicks acquired a 20-10 player who could help carry New York back to the postseason if he can stay out of trouble. All of these were subpar clubs that finished last season well out of the playoff picture, however. As far as the league's top teams are concerned, few made any significant changes this summer. In fact, look over the list of seven teams that won 50 or more games in 2006-07 and only one squad stands out as a franchise that made major improvements this offseason. Only the Houston Rockets had the gumption to add a new coach, two new point guards and a new starting power forward to a 52-win team. What makes these drastic changes even more improbable is that this summer was Houston's first under new general manager Daryl Morey. And even more remarkable still? The Rockets GM is all of 35 years old.</div> </p> link</p> There's been a lot of hype over the Celtics' offseason, and I think what the Rockets have done gone somewhat overlooked by the national media. </p>
The only move of Morey's that I've liked is the trade for Scola. Otherwise, I find him to a bumbling idiot that is way too caught up in his statistical analysis and too proud of his MIT background.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>The only move of Morey's that I've liked is the trade for Scola. Otherwise, I find him to a bumbling idiot that is way too caught up in his statistical analysis and too proud of his MIT background.</div> Based on what? He doesn't come off as proud or overly obsessed with stats in any of the interviews I've heard since he's been a Rockets GM.</p> Look at what we've gained and what we've lost this offseason:</p> Gained: Luis Scola, Mike James, Steve Francis, Aaron Brooks, Jackie Butler</p> Lost: Juwan Howard, Vassilis Spanoulis</p> Plus, Bonzi should be a far more effective player for us next year under Adelman (assuming he's staying in shape this time), and Spanoulis wasn't going to play for us anyways so that probably shouldn't even count as a loss.</p> </p> </p> </p>
I don't consider Mike James, Steve Francis and Aaron Brooks as anything to write home about. Plus, Brooks was a bad pick. The only thing that makes the James trade look decent is the fact that Rafer got into trouble with the law.</p> Morey simply thinks he is smarter than everybody else and it shows in his moves.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> I don't consider Mike James, Steve Francis and Aaron Brooks as anything to write home about. Plus, Brooks was a bad pick. The only thing that makes the James trade look decent is the fact that Rafer got into trouble with the law. </p> Morey simply thinks he is smarter than everybody else and it shows in his moves. </p> </div></p> Why do you think Brooks (summer league MVP, got great reviews while playing with the US reserve team), was a bad 26th pick? I mean, late first round, how much more would you expect?</p> If you followed the Rockets last season, you'd know that our biggest weakness was a lack of players who create shots for themselves and others. We had T-Mac, and that's about it. We chose to stockpile on talented offensive players who could create shots, and it makes perfect sense to me.</p> And how is Morey pretentious based on his moves? Because he got a bunch of talent while giving up almost nothing? </p> </p>
6-1 SG's in the first round are bad picks. Mike James, Steve Francis and Aaron Brooks are players that can create for themselves, but they are all poor at creating for others. Putting 3 me first players with TMac isn't good basketball. Granted, Adelman can make silk out of a sow's ear, but that is still too many me first chuckers.</p> Morey thought he was smarter than the rest of the NBA when he traded for Battier and then again with the 3 guards we are talking about. Take away Scola, and his record is poor.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>6-1 SG's in the first round are bad picks. Mike James, Steve Francis and Aaron Brooks are players that can create for themselves, but they are all poor at creating for others. Putting 3 me first players with TMac isn't good basketball. Granted, Adelman can make silk out of a sow's ear, but that is still too many me first chuckers.</div></p> Fair enough. I don't agree, but we'll see how that pans out. </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Morey thought he was smarter than the rest of the NBA when he traded for Battier and then again with the 3 guards we are talking about. Take away Scola, and his record is poor.</div></p> How do you infer from those moves that Morey thought he was being smarter than the rest of the NBA? Are you saying that because you don't like the moves, or you think only a very pretentious person would make such moves? And, if its the latter, why? I'm really confused here. </p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> 6-1 SG's in the first round are bad picks. Mike James, Steve Francis and Aaron Brooks are players that can create for themselves, but they are all poor at creating for others. Putting 3 me first players with TMac isn't good basketball. Granted, Adelman can make silk out of a sow's ear, but that is still too many me first chuckers.</p> Morey thought he was smarter than the rest of the NBA when he traded for Battier and then again with the 3 guards we are talking about. Take away Scola, and his record is poor. </p></div> What moves should he have made instead, that were available to the Rockets? Who should he have drafted instead of Aaron Brooks?</p> </p>
The Battier trade was based upon his statistical analysis. I know that he told a group of Houston area MIT alumni that (paraphrasing here) he had Battier rated very highly in several "winning" (how players contribute to winning games) scenarios and that he wanted him on the team because of that.</p> Look, I believe in statistical analysis, but I don't believe it trumps scouting and basketball knowledge. When I look at the James and Brooks transactions, they both appear very numbers driven instead of scouting and basketball driven.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shapecity)</div><div class='quotemain'> What moves should he have made instead, that were available to the Rockets? Who should he have drafted instead of Aaron Brooks?</p> </p></div> Instead of Brooks : Splitter, Koponen, Pruitt, Marcus Williams, Byars and McGuire off the top of my head.</p> The Mike James trade by itself was ok, but adding redundant players such as Brooks and Francis after making that trade were poor moves even overlooking taking Brooks too early. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> The Battier trade was based upon his statistical analysis. I know that he told a group of Houston area MIT alumni that (paraphrasing here) he had Battier rated very highly in several "winning" (how players contribute to winning games) scenarios and that he wanted him on the team because of that.</div></p> Stats isn't the only thing that went into that decision, though. Like Morey said in the posted article, the stats corroborated what traditional basketball scouting/understanding of the game would tell you -- Battier is a very effective player who is undervalued by the traditional box-score stats. And it wasn't only stats people who liked that move -- Carol Dawson was widely praised for the decision to trade for Battier by the media and other NBA executives. I believe he was one of the Executive of the Year candidates, and that was mostly based on the Battier trade. </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Look, I believe in statistical analysis, but I don't believe it trumps scouting and basketball knowledge. When I look at the James and Brooks transactions, they both appear very numbers driven instead of scouting and basketball driven.</div></p> I think they were driven by team need, the coaching philosophy, and, yes, in part by the numbers. Look at the successful PGs Adelman has had in the past -- Bibby, Bobby Jackson, Terry Porter. All of them were scorers -- much closer to James/Francis/Brooks than, say, Rafer Alston. Actually, Adelman himself was very high on Aaron Brooks and it was as much his decision to bring the kid in as it was Morey's. Does that mean Adelman is overly preoccupied by numbers? I doubt it.</p> </p>
The Rockets were widely panned, not praised for the Battier move. There is a lot of rewriting history on that trade, but it was driven by statistical analysis.</p> What an insult to Terry Porter to compare James and Francis to him. Porter averaged 8 or more APG for 5 consecutive seasons and wasn't a chucker. Heck for that matter, when the Kings were NBA Finals contenders, Bibby shot a lot less than Francis ever did. Yes, Alston is hot garbage and needed to be replaced, but not by me first chuckers.</p> I'm curious as to your source that Adelman liked Brooks. On one hand I'm not surprised, but is it just media reports where every coach is going to positive about the teams draft picks or do you have a better source. </p> </p> </p>
I think this team needs a more athletic power forward to go along with Yao. I think if they get a real tough defender at the PF spot, and make sure Francis, James, and McGrady are each getting at least 4-5 assists a game, then Houston will be a serious contender. A lot of that depends on Addelmen though. I think Houston has potential to be a 55 win team, or a 30-40 win team. Its hard to tell.
[quote name='cpawfan']The Rockets were widely panned, not praised for the Battier move. There is a lot of rewriting history on that trade, but it was driven by statistical analysis.[/quote] Widely panned by who? It wasn't panned by actual NBA people (scouts, general managers). You don't have to be a stats-junky to appreciate Battier's game. </p> </p> In 92 and 93, he average 18 and 5.5. That, in itself, doesn't make him a chucker, but it indicates that he was a scoring PG. BTW, I do vaguely remember Phil Jackson or Michael Jordan commenting that Terry Porter was reluctant to pass the ball during the 1992 NBA Finals. I think it was in that 2nd Bulls championship video (I saw it on ESPN or NBA TV a while ago). </p> </p> I guess you're talking about the 01/02 season, where Bibby averaged 13.7 ppg, 5.0 apg, and 12.3 FGA/g in 33.2 mpg. Remember, he was also playing alongside two prolific scorers in Chris Webber and Peja Stojakovic. Francis, in his last season as a Rocket, averaged 16.6 ppg, 6.2 apg, and 14.0 FGA/g in 40.4 mpg. </p> On a per 40-minutes basis, that's:</p><table border="0" width="232" height="76"><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Mike Bibby </td><td>Steve Francis </td></tr><tr><td> points</td><td> 16.5</td><td> 16.4</td></tr><tr><td> assists</td><td> 6.1</td><td> 6.2</td></tr><tr><td> FGA</td><td> 14.8</td><td> 14.0</td></tr></tbody></table> And the last two seasons, Francis's FGA/minute have been even lower. Steve's big problem isn't shot chucking, it's turnovers. The hope is that with Rick Adelman he'll be playing off the ball more instead of running down the shot clock with the ball in his hands. In Adelman's offense, everyone is a decision maker which hopefully will relieve some pressure off him. </p> </p> Well, Rick Adelman lives in Oregon and he said he watched Aaron Brooks a ton last year and really liked what he could bring the team (source). All indications are that he was fully behind the pick. The Rockets also said that they received intel that Phoenix would have taken Aaron Brooks if he was available -- they were very high on him. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think this team needs a more athletic power forward to go along with Yao. I think if they get a real tough defender at the PF spot, and make sure Francis, James, and McGrady are each getting at least 4-5 assists a game, then Houston will be a serious contender. A lot of that depends on Addelmen though. I think Houston has potential to be a 55 win team, or a 30-40 win team. Its hard to tell.</div> The only way the Rockets end up with less than 40 wins is if Yao and McGrady each miss more than half the season. Unfortunately, the way our luck has been, that's always a possibility. I think we'll win 52-55 games, and hopefully we'll match up better against the elite teams (last season, we fattened up on the bad teams). </p>
[quote name='durvasa'][quote name='cpawfan']The Rockets were widely panned, not praised for the Battier move. There is a lot of rewriting history on that trade, but it was driven by statistical analysis.[/quote] Widely panned by who? It wasn't panned by actual NBA people (scouts, general managers). You don't have to be a stats-junky to appreciate Battier's game. [/quote]</p> The majority of the blind comments (eg. according to one Eastern Conference executive) were negative about the deal. </p> </p> Porter had 7 seasons as a starter. 5 of those seasons were with 8+ APG. Yes, the last two his APG did drop down as the team switched to playing more off of Clyde. Porter's useage rate never went above 22.9 while Francis was always above that mark prior to JVG and then had a 27.0 in Orlando. </p> </p> Talking about the last few seasons of Francis' career is a pretty poor argument. For starters, his last season in Houston was under JVG which is a ridiculous comparison to Bibby under Adelman. Francis has a career FGA of 14.5 per game (including the last 2 seasons where his playing time was cut way down because he has sucked) and Bibby has only been above that two times in his career. Bibby's usage rate never went above 21.6 until the season Webber was traded.</p> Francis played so poorly that the Knicks were going to buy him out. The only reason he wasn't bought out last season was because of the multiple injuries the Knicks suffered in the backcourt. </p> That is just like the Knicks saying they took Balkman because they heard the Suns were going to take him. The article you cited makes for a nice story, but that falls under everybody has a nice story about their draft picks. </p>
[quote name='cpawfan'][quote name='durvasa'][quote name='cpawfan']The Rockets were widely panned, not praised for the Battier move. There is a lot of rewriting history on that trade, but it was driven by statistical analysis.[/quote] Widely panned by who? It wasn't panned by actual NBA people (scouts, general managers). You don't have to be a stats-junky to appreciate Battier's game. [/quote]</p> The majority of the blind comments (eg. according to one Eastern Conference executive) were negative about the deal.[/quote]</p> I never heard that. Dawson said in an interview that he was getting calls from a bunch of GMs congratulating him on the deal. And he was second in Executive of the Year voting -- primarily for the Battier deal. </p> And see here (click Offseason moves): http://www.nba.com/preview2006/gmsurvey_moves.html</p> In a GM survey before the 06/07 season, the Battier trade got the most votes as the most underrated player acquisition. Are all the GMs who made that vote unabashed statheads like Morey? </p> </p> Porter had 7 seasons as a starter. 5 of those seasons were with 8+ APG. Yes, the last two his APG did drop down as the team switched to playing more off of Clyde. Porter's useage rate never went above 22.9 while Francis was always above that mark prior to JVG and then had a 27.0 in Orlando.[/quote]</p> Yes Steve had a high usage rate while starring for the Rockets and the Magic. But he wasn't brought in to be a star, and he's not going to be a star with Yao and Tracy and a host of other competant offensive players on the team. His usage rate should be around 20, and hopefully that should also result in improved efficiency. </p> One stat to look at to guage their role as distributors on their respective teams is Assist%. It estimates the percentage of made field goals by teammates that the player assisted while on the floor., I calculated it for Porter and Bibby while playing under Adelman, and I compare it to Francis and Mike James the last several seasons:</p> Terry Porter</p><table border="3" cellpadding="2" align="left"><tbody><tr><td> Yr</td><td>Ast% </td></tr><tr><td>89</td><td>32.8% </td></tr><tr><td>90 </td><td>35.4% </td></tr><tr><td>91 </td><td>34.0% </td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>24.9% </td></tr><tr><td>93 </td><td>21.7% </td></tr><tr><td>94 </td><td>28.2% </td></tr></tbody></table> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> Mike Bibby</p><table border="2" cellpadding="2"><tbody><tr><td> Yr</td><td>Ast% </td></tr><tr><td>02 </td><td>23.0%</td></tr><tr><td>03 </td><td>24.3% </td></tr><tr><td>04 </td><td>24.5% </td></tr><tr><td>05 </td><td>28.1% </td></tr><tr><td>06 </td><td>25.2% </td></tr></tbody></table> </p> Steve Francis</p><table border="2" cellpadding="2"><tbody><tr><td> Yr</td><td> Ast%</td></tr><tr><td> 01 </td><td> 28.4%</td></tr><tr><td> 02</td><td> 29.1%</td></tr><tr><td> 03</td><td> 28.0%</td></tr><tr><td> 04</td><td> 28.3%</td></tr><tr><td> 05</td><td> 31.6%</td></tr><tr><td> 06</td><td> 24.8%</td></tr><tr><td> 07</td><td> 23.6%</td></tr></tbody></table> </p> Mike James </p><table border="2" cellpadding="2"><tbody><tr><td>Yr </td><td>Ast% </td></tr><tr><td> 05</td><td> 31.4% </td></tr><tr><td> 06</td><td> 28.2%</td></tr><tr><td> 07</td><td> 23.7%</td></tr></tbody></table> </p> In Adelman's first 3 years with the Blazers, Porter's Assist% was up there. But other than that, it looks to me that Francis and James's Assist% compares to Porter's and Bibby's. I'm not say that they're as good as two, but considering the paucity of competant PGs available this offseason, they were both good gets for the Rockets. </p> </p> Why wouldn't I look at his last couple seasons? If we wanted to project Francis's performance for next season, shouldn't we look at his most recent performance first? And Francis's last season with Yao is relevant because that's the only season he's played with Yao as a first option. </p> And the Knicks wanted to buy out Francis because, for the money he was earning, they could have used that salary much better. We aren't paying Francis 15+ million a year, and I think he fits much better on our roster than he did with the Knicks. </p> </p> Well, you asked for a source, and I gave it. I don't know what you were expecting, a signed affidavit from Adelman, perhaps? Adelman was especially familiar with Brooks; Rockets had received intel that Brooks was going to be picked later in the first round. It's not just hearsay, if you search you'll find that Brooks was extremely impressive in his workouts with the Suns. </p> I don't know what else to say. You assert that Brooks was purely a stats-based pick, but you have nothing to support that. Morey mentioned his ability to play up-tempo and create shots and use his quickness to his advantage. I don't recall any of Brooks's stats and how they'd translate ever being brought up by him. </p> </p>
I watched Aaron Brooks play from time to time in the PAC-10, and I think it's selling him short to refer to him as a 6-1 SG. While he does have the tools to be a very capable offensive force, he does have the proper mentality and desire to play a point guard role, and in fact I think he might be the ideal kind of of point for a team like Houston. Francis, Alston, and James are all exiting their athletic primes anyhow.</p> I can understand that you might have reservations about leaving the bulk of the team's distributing to a young guy like Brooks, but perhaps you might see some of Rick Adelman'sstandard trickery, here? High post passing from the 4/5 positions, maybe usingMcGrady as a point forward now and again? There'sat least enough options for the Rockets to where I wouldn't lament the Brookspick asa bad thing, certainly not at this point.</p> As far as Francis likely wanting to get more shots than would be availible... I'm sure he realized the point guard glut when he signed. If he'sso determined to be a nuisance as to complain about not getting enough shots off (which, for the record, I suspect he won't be), then he'll just play his way off the team for the second time in his career.</p>
[quote name='durvasa'][quote name='cpawfan'][quote name='durvasa'][quote name='cpawfan']The Rockets were widely panned, not praised for the Battier move. There is a lot of rewriting history on that trade, but it was driven by statistical analysis.[/quote] Widely panned by who? It wasn't panned by actual NBA people (scouts, general managers). You don't have to be a stats-junky to appreciate Battier's game. [/quote]</p> The majority of the blind comments (eg. according to one Eastern Conference executive) were negative about the deal.[/quote]</p> I never heard that. Dawson said in an interview that he was getting calls from a bunch of GMs congratulating him on the deal. And he was second in Executive of the Year voting -- primarily for the Battier deal. </p> And see here (click Offseason moves): http://www.nba.com/preview2006/gmsurvey_moves.html</p> In a GM survey before the 06/07 season, the Battier trade got the most votes as the most underrated player acquisition. Are all the GMs who made that vote unabashed statheads like Morey? [/quote]</p> It isn't about hearing that, it is about reading that. Reading articles from all across NBA cities, the deal was panned. </p> The problem with that survey question, is it only focuses on the addition of Battier, not what was given up to get him. Yes, getting anything including a bag of flaming poop for Swift was an improvement, but giving up Gay was a huge price to pay and a serious drop off in talent. With a healthy TMac and Yao, Houston was a playoff team. Adding Battier didn't take them any further than they would have been without him. </p> </p> I don't want to get into a huge discussion, at least in this thread, about the value of one stat over another, but I much prefer bb-r.com's AsR #'s. </p> That said, the reason I was brining up useage instead of AsR is because of the me first nature of the players. Marbury is the classic case of a me first PG that still manages to get pretty look assist numbers and rates. </p> </p> Money doesn't matter to the Knicks and they weren't going to be saving more than 5 million over 2 years in buying out Francis. They wanted him gone because he was a problem.</p> The season under JVG is pointless because Adelman is such a different coach. Besides, if you are going to consider that in your analysis, than you need to look at James's performance playing under JVG. </p> Look at what he did when he went to Orlando, he went back to me first play. I'm talking about the nature of these players. If you look at how Francis played on the court the last two seasons, you will see more of the me first play and very few games in which he was a bench player. There are 24 games over the past two season in which Francsis didn't start. </p> I was looking to see if you had another sources besides newspaper articles. Beat writers are often given certain information because it is what the team wants people to believe. </p> The comments about Brooks just aren't about stats, it is about Morey thinking he is smarter than everyone else. Morey is a slave to his models. Any player he drafts is going to be run through his models based upon his projections. Obviously, the Rockets thought highly of him as he projected well enough in the models to be drafted by them. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Montaman)</div><div class='quotemain'> I watched Aaron Brooks play from time to time in the PAC-10, and I think it's selling him short to refer to him as a 6-1 SG. While he does have the tools to be a very capable offensive force, he does have the proper mentality and desire to play a point guard role, and in fact I think he might be the ideal kind of of point for a team like Houston. Francis, Alston, and James are all exiting their athletic primes anyhow.</p> I can understand that you might have reservations about leaving the bulk of the team's distributing to a young guy like Brooks, but perhaps you might see some of Rick Adelman's standard trickery, here? High post passing from the 4/5 positions, maybe using McGrady as a point forward now and again? There's at least enough options for the Rockets to where I wouldn't lament the Brooks pick as a bad thing, certainly not at this point. </p> As far as Francis likely wanting to get more shots than would be availible... I'm sure he realized the point guard glut when he signed. If he's so determined to be a nuisance as to complain about not getting enough shots off (which, for the record, I suspect he won't be), then he'll just play his way off the team for the second time in his career.</p></div> Actually, I was selling him tall to call him 6-1 </p> I don't see the decision making ability to be a real PG in the NBA. If I had to guess what Adelman sees, it is somebody that he can groom to be in the Tony Delk / Bobby Jackson role. The problem with that is that you can find more experienced players to do that (see Mike James & Steve Francis) fairly easily. Heck look at what Eddie House did in 11 MPG for Adelman.</p> Brooks wasn't the BPA at his draft spot.</p>
