82games.com's stats looking not at "five man units" instead of teams make for interesting reading. In particular, it seems like a good method of getting at the playoff odds of a team like Houston that's had injury problems but seems healthy these days. And, indeed, the exercise suggests that Alston / McGrady / Battier / Hayes / Yao is an incredibly effective lineup, one that simply hasn't played that many minutes over the course of the season because of injuries. I really, really wouldn't count Houston out as a strong chance for a second-round upset.
« Classic Propaganda | Main | Who's Who in Iraq Advising? »
Houston, We Have a Kick-Ass Starting Lineup
15 Apr 2007 03:02 pm
Comments (18)
of course, matthew, you seem like you care about who wins the second round; i don't. i'm interested in who wins the championship
But, of course, you gotta win the 2nd round to win the championship. It's not like a division championship or the best regular season record. If Houston can get by Dallas in the 2nd round, they would have as good a shot as any team to win the whole thing, dontcha think?
(PS - OT, but are you looking forward to ManU-Chelsea for the FA Cup, Champions League, AND Premiership this year? It's getting close to happening.)
"of course, matthew, you seem like you care about who wins the second round; i don't. i'm interested in who wins the championship."
Then howard, why not just turn off your TV for a couple months, or pick up the paper in September.
I will take what I can get. Mavs lose in the upper rounds, or even the 1st, well, it has been a great and fun season. Each series will have its drama and excitement.
There is not just one and only achiever and achievement in an NBA season. Not just The Championship Team, and then hundreds of nothing-but-losers.
How on earth does Bill Walton have Yao Ming behind Shaq and Amare for All-NBA? Yao gets about a half rebound a game less than Amare but five more points, and he kills Shaq. What gives?
Man, I have seen a lot, having watched the Cowboys since the Meredith Era. Staubach only won 2 Superbowls in 11 seasons, but I don't think that makes him a dog or Bradshaw's bitch. He lost more Superbowls than he wom tho, so I guess he is a loser.
And honestly, in retrospect, I kinda wish the "Hail Mary" pass hadn't worked, because Fran Tarkenton, tho ranking very high in stats and a great guy on a great team, is 59th best quarterback. I guess it takes one but only one.
It ain't only about the Rings.
"There is not just one and only achiever and achievement in an NBA season."
Yup.
I'd be pretty damn happy if my Powder Blues can go down to the San Antonio death star and return victorious, even if they don't go on to win a title this year.
After close to 40 years with the Cowboys I have heard "choker" and "can't win the big one" as often as I have tipped a Glass at the Cup. Now howard saw that inbound steal and looked into Larry Bird's soul and knows it is all about the:
WILL TO WIN.
The Green Lantern theory of basketball. The kind of thinking that got Commander Codpiece into Iraq, if I may make a very relevant comparison. Altho it may not be unique to America, it is I think part of our weird exceptionalism.
Everybody enjoy the playoffs. Shit happens, guaranteed. A better rule than Green Lantern thinking.
de gustibus non est disputandum! still, let me clarify: as a fan, i have only one goal for my team in every sport, every season: winning the title. now, as, for instance, a knicks fan, it's been a long time since that was a viable option, and certainly i'm happy with whatever level of success "my" team can achieve and i appreciate that there are lots of ways that someone's team can make someone happy short of winning the title.
but we weren't talking about matthew's team here: we were talking about whether or not houston can get through the second round. that's why they play 'em on the field, and i'll be as intrigued as anyone posting here how each and every playoff series turns out.
but i have no interest in sitting around and spending time speculating on who might win the second round: i only have an interest in sitting around and spending time speculating who might win it all. i'm not sure how that translates into calling people "losers" (as bob suggests, a term i never, ever use with respect to sports) or with acting like there is "one and only (one) achiever...in an NBA season" (as bob also suggests).
if matthew's posting were on the subject of "let's spend some time analyzing who surprised us on the upside and the downside in the nba this season," then fine, we could talk all day and night about various levels of achievment this season, and who surprised us, and which team's fans should feel good about their club, and so on.
but it wasn't: it was about whether houston can get through the second round, which is simply not interesting to me as a matter of speculation. (and yes, al, of course you're right that you can't win the title without winning each round, but my approach to title handicapping is very simple: what teams play championship-calbre basketball, which i define as strong team defense, good ball movement, strength on the offensive boards, low levels of turnovers, and an ability to execute the offense under pressure late in games. if a team can do those things, in my estimation, they have a good chance to win it all: i don't spend a lot of time sweating matchups: you gotta beat whomever you end up playing, end of story.)
this is, in a sense, simply a reprise of a similar discussion for which i took a lot of grief last year when i said that phoenix had zero chance to win the title without a healthy amare no matter how well they were playing down the stretch. that wasn't a knock on how good a year phoenix had without amare; it was simply calling it as i saw it relative to what i regard as the standards for a championship team.
PS. Al, i've been looking forward to the Man U - Chelsea trifecta ever since the FA Cup and Champ's League draws were announced. sadly, with the massive onslaught of injuries to the man u back 4, i have to give chelsea the slight edge, but as the demolition of roma this week showed, there is no team that man u can't score on, which certainly helps!
you know what, bob? while i was writing up my cheerful 6:36, you published your stupid 6:21. you have no frickin' clue.
i never, and i mean never, debase myself to ridiculous cliches like "will to win" or "choker." never. you have no basis for making that assumption. why doncha try and pay attention to what i actually said instead of placing words into my mouth, huh? sheesh.
PS bob: if you'd bothered to ask, i would have told you that what was impressive about the celtic win over the pistons that night wasn't the bird steal: that was simply a sign that bird competed for 48 minutes. what was impressive was dj's instant read of the situation and move to the hole and bird's spotting him and throwing the pass. this wasn't, after all, havlicek stealing the ball: the celts were trailing. stealing the pass wouldn't have won the game: it took dj's move to the basket and bird's on -the-money pass to him that produced the victory (there are many baseball people who, in a similar vein, will tell you that great as the '54 willie mays catch was, what was really impressive was his immediately whirling and throwing the ball in to keep the runner from advancing).
but you didn't bother to ask: you assumed you knew.
incorrectly.
Checkmate!
"but you didn't bother to ask: you assumed you knew"
Nah I was actually remembering the long previous argument thread about how overrated the 80s teams and players are and continuing the conversation.
You used anecdote as evidence there also.
bob, this is really getting tiresome: your memory sucks, to be perfectly blunt.
i don't use phrases like "will to win" in this context, i always describe the important component of that play as dj going to the hoop and bird hitting him, and if you are remembering it otherwise then you have my comments confused with other people's comments.
nor did i use "anecdote as evidence" in that discussion: i pointed out, quite accurately, that defense can be judged by a variety of factors, and that simply pointing out that scoring was higher in the '80s without discussing tempo is very ill-considered. that is not "anecdote as evidence." (in fact, i bothered to pull a bunch of evidence about opposition shooting percentage and similar matters, but since you know, without question, that the greatest defensive team in history must be one of those mike fratello teams with low opposition scoring, you seemed unable to compute. i also noted the actual evidence of nowitzki's standing in the mvp voting and a variety of other evidence. perhaps you don't know what "anecdote as evidence" means? after all, this discussion wasn't one subject to evidence in the first place: matthew thinks that houston can win the second round. i'm not much interested. where is the place for "evidence?").
regardless, none of this is in the slightest relevant to your leap of faith that i was calling anyone who didn't win the title a "loser" and that somehow i was dissing roger staubach to boot (i mean, christ almighty, where did that come from? i've been a staubach fan since navy beat army in a great, great game in 1963).
so, in short: wrong, wrong, wrong. face it bob: you misread me and you poured out some other angst in the process. not my problem.
"your leap of faith that i was calling anyone who didn't win the title a "loser""
OK Fine. Playoffs don't matter that much, and a title isn't required for greatness. We seem to agree.
The Mavericks are at 66 wins, and over the last 76 games (altho the first four certainly count in some sense); anyway over the last 76 games...which is a lot of games...are 66-10 for a pct of .868, 2nd only to the 95-96 Bulls. However, I am not yet saying the Mav's are the 2nd Best team in NBA history, altho over that 76 game stretch....
So which of these Teams get replaced by the 2006-07 Mavericks, and which of the players listed are inferior to players on the Mav's roster?
I read minds and I know what the answer will be. Damn right I am bitter.
The Mavericks have also won 126 in two seasons, and 184 in the last three. Anybody have a stat on teams that have averaged over 60 wins for three seasons?
Anybody been comparing the Mavericks to those kinds of teams?
Touche!
I just want to say that I was in downtown Houston for the city's first-ever victory parade in 1994 (it went right by One Shell Plaza, where I was paralegalling), and Matt Bullard was every bit as majestic as one would expect.
As for this year, I don't see them getting past the Mavericks, although I do hold out hope that they will beat Utah. The rest of the league can go to hell.
Yeah, I feel like a real idiot for betting MY that Utah would defeat Houston in the first round. Utah has been on a real slide - I dont' think they can defend themselves from the variety of things Houston can do.
Still, Utah has some great pieces too. I think the Western Conference playoffs will be great.
Comments closed April 29, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
assuming, of course, that mcgrady's back doesn't go out, or that they can really come together to championship calibre with the limited playing time.
of course, matthew, you seem like you care about who wins the second round; i don't. i'm interested in who wins the championship.
and while you can't rule houston out, the likely championship winners remain dallas, san antonio, phoenix, and detroit (i can't really convince myself that miami can come together in this short a time either anymore, although i included them in my list 6-8 weeks ago). there are other teams (like houston) with a shot, but not a "likely" shot.
Posted by howard | April 15, 2007 3:32 PM