To Play or Not to Play?

[Ribalding]

Real Rockets fans (we few crazies on internet message boards) spent the past few years yelling and screaming about Gun-Gun's refusal to play young players.

"They can't develop on the pine", etc.

But from the perspective of an actual coach, 'playing young players = losses'. It's undeniable. Sure, rookies are going to have break out games once in a while. Aaron Brooks is going to drop 30 on the Knicks. Carl Landry is going to dunk on 3 guys if given enough tick. Hell, I remember Carl Herrera putting 24 on the Sonics one time.

It happens.

But for the most part, rookie playing time = losses.

The ever-loving point :

Adelman has gone out of his way to play the young guys. It has probably cost the Rox 3 or 4 games in a very tight western conference.

Was it worth it?

[fnasser]

it hasn't cost us any losses; landry gets put on the floor and if he doesnt perform he gets yanked quickly
brooks gets lots of playing time but we already gave time to francis and james and snyder and they did nothing with it. its not a hard decision at all to play these guys , its necessity

[Ribalding]

.....we already gave time to francis and james and snyder and they did nothing with it. its not a hard decision at all to play these guys , its necessity

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[BaYBaller]

You're way offbase here, we haven't given away any games playing the rookies. Adelman has played the rookies because they have produced (or you can think of it as the vets not producing).

If you've followed Adelman he has been known to not play rookies in the context of sacrificing wins for the sake of rookie development, like what is going on in SEA this season. Adelman is also infamous for using very small 7-man rotations, yet he's currently using a 9-man rotation. Again, this has also been out of necessity.

And throughout all the high expectations and inevitable disappointments, the recent bench play has been one of the highlights of this season. The bench is looking stronger than it ever has been in over a decade.

[King Roosk]

In my opinion, the rookies getting increased PT hasn't resulted in Rockets losses. At the beginning of the season we were playing the veterans, and while we started off hot, we soon sputtered. The reason we've gotten back on a winning track is because of the added athleticism and youth. Guys like Brooks and Landry have provided hustle, energy, and we're actually starting to run fast breaks now. I think increased PT for Landry and Brooks alongside the rest of our veterans will only translate into success for the Rockets.

[Ribalding]

You're way offbase here, we haven't given away any games playing the rookies. Adelman has played the rookies because they have produced (or you can think of it as the vets not producing).

If you've followed Adelman he has been known to not play rookies in the context of sacrificing wins for the sake of rookie development,....

Fair - if obvious- point. But that's not what I asked.

....the recent bench play has been one of the highlights of this season. The bench is looking stronger than it ever has been in over a decade.

It wouldn't look that way if they weren't playing. So again, I ask you.....

Answer the poll question. THEN nit-pick. (The poll question was a pretty loaded question, obviously. It was defined as such on purpose.)

Nice analysis.

[BaYBaller]

-= original quote snipped =-



It wouldn't look that way if they weren't playing. So again, I ask you.....

Answer the poll question. THEN nit-pick. (The poll question was a pretty loaded question, obviously. It was defined as such on purpose.)

Nice analysis.

Is it really a loaded question/poll? It seems like a trick poll, regardless of yes/no it assumes we've incurred some losses by playing the rookies, and that Adelman is "going out of his way" to do it. It's like asking someone to vote on a poll of "Do you think you're a homer?". Regardless of their vote it implies they are a homer.

The fact of the matter is the only vets not playing are Francis, James, and Deke. As it pertains to the question itself it depends on if you think if these 3 or some combination thereof would've produced more wins if they received the rookies PT. IMO the answer is no, especially considering Adelman only puts his rookies (with the exception of Scola) out there in match-ups he believes they can suceed. I've never felt Adelman was giving handouts to any of these rookies.

[Rocketsterps]

Real Rockets fans (we few crazies on internet message boards) spent the past few years yelling and screaming about Gun-Gun's refusal to play young players.

"They can't develop on the pine", etc.

But from the perspective of an actual coach, 'playing young players = losses'. It's undeniable. Sure, rookies are going to have break out games once in a while. Aaron Brooks is going to drop 30 on the Knicks. Carl Landry is going to dunk on 3 guys if given enough tick. Hell, I remember Carl Herrera putting 24 on the Sonics one time.

It happens.

But for the most part, rookie playing time = losses.

The ever-loving point :

Adelman has gone out of his way to play the young guys. It has probably cost the Rox 3 or 4 games in a very tight western conference.

Was it worth it?

Bonzi, Francis and Mike James may have cost us games. Scola, Brooks and Landry have done nothing but help.

[RaoulDuke79]

If anything it annoyed me that it took so long for him to finally start playing Brooks and Landry, and it annoys me further they don't play more minutes(especially in the 2nd half).

I can't tell you how pissed I was watching that Dallas game where Rafer was out and Brooks was recalled, only for him to sit on the bench the majority of the game while Steve played like crap.

[moofs]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Nam gens qui dicto qua lingua nullus, qui facultas... qui?

Obviously, I would be one of the prior mentioned.

Also nevermind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

So in response, I disagree. Of the three named, Francis actually played the best (however sad that may be). You named a logical fallacy as the reason his statement didn't work, then presented one of your own. "Because playing rookies results in losses, and we played rookies, we must have incurred losses from playing them." I would rephrase that as, "because we played the better players who happened to also fit better in our system, we incurred more losses."

Guys like Brooks and Landry have provided hustle, energy, and we're actually starting to run fast breaks now. I think increased PT for Landry and Brooks alongside the rest of our veterans will only translate into success for the Rockets.

Quid sicto dicto consortium et. al. ad infinitum.

[TMACFORMVP]

They've been the main reasons why we've played better the last 15 games or so. They bring quickness, attacking nature and players that can finish around the basket. Not like we have any better options either, James is the worst player in the league, Francis is washed up.

If James or Francis made better decisions that'd help us in the long run, then they'd be playing, but rather both are two of the worst decision makers in the league.

[dream34]

Playing rookies equals more losses because your veterans aren't stepping up and producing.

Adelman is not playing them simply because they are rookies, it's because they are outperforming their veteran counterparts. If Mike James and Steve Francis still had any game, Aaron Brooks would still be in the D-League.

We haven't lost any additional games because we played rookies, it's because the rest of the team isn't playing well. Therefore, it would be stupid to stop playing the rookies just because they are rookies. We need to get our veterans motivated enough to win back their playing time.

[Amel]

lol

are you saying we lost a few games because of rookies?

OMGZ!

[moofs]

Playing rookies equals more losses because your veterans aren't stepping up and producing.

Adelman is not playing them simply because they are rookies, it's because they are outperforming their veteran counterparts. If Mike James and Steve Francis still had any game, Aaron Brooks would still be in the D-League.

We haven't lost any additional games because we played rookies, it's because the rest of the team isn't playing well. Therefore, it would be stupid to stop playing the rookies just because they are rookies. We need to get our veterans motivated enough to win back their playing time.

Considering who our "veterans" are, it's unlikely "motivation" has anything to do with it.

[HTown_TMac]

Are you serious?

[moofs]

Are you serious?

Steve Francis, Mike James, and Kirk Snyder? Yes.

unless you were talking to ribalding, of course...

[HTown_TMac]

I meant ribalding

[Ribalding]

I meant ribalding

Ask Jeff Van Gundy or any other NBA coach what happens when you start giving rookies substantial tic. Then scroll back a few months in your mental Scooby-Mobile. Rockets rookies were getting minutes and wasting most of them. (Which is normal. I'm not faulting the guys.)

Sure they're playing well now. But, like a black man voting in Ohio or Florida, the process is trickier than it sounds.

[moofs]

Would you include 401k's and R&D in that grouping? I mean, you're right, you will take losses, but as has been pointed out, the non-rookie alternatives were providing plenty of losses themselves - and with no realistic room for improvement.

I was never in the "Play the rooks!!" camp last year as it was pretty obvious to anyone actually watching games that they sucked royally (I still have some hope for Novak as maybe a possession-sub or something, but last year was out of the question). Of the times I saw these rookies early in the season/preseason, AB was the one that looked most likely to be unable to harness his talent (not to be misconstrued as "unlikely". it was just much harder to tell with him). Scola and Landry had me jumping up and down gleefully from the start.

[HTown_TMac]

You should atleast always give them a try.. Like we did Landry in the Minnesota Game.. He EARNED his spots but you have to give them a chance..