I. Don't. Get. It.
The Lakers have all the shots they need, Kemo Sabe, and they don't need Ron Artest taking them out of their offense, shooting shots he that should not, making it possible that more efficient players are unable to do their thing. Yes, Ron Artest shot 40 percent from behind the arc last season. But he also shot 40 percent inside of it, and that's ... awful. That's just not good. While taking fewer than four free throws a game.
The Rockets, though, could use a guy like Artest. Even at that low efficiency, with no salary-cap space and few trading options (I doubt any team will take on Tracy McGrady's(notes) expiring salary before the season; that's too much money to spend just for cap relief in 2010. Best to make the Rockets pay him until February), Houston needs all the shot creators it can get.
And as bad as Artest was for them in that area last year, at least he can get a good shot off sometimes. At least he can penetrate the defense, even with a miss.
Sure, Ariza's much younger, cost the same and might have a defensive edge on Artest at this point. I'm not saying this is a bad move for Houston. I just think signing Artest instead of Ariza might be the preferable move. Ariza is just not a creator. And even with increased chances to create, as will be the case with both Yao and T-Mac out (sigh) in Houston, it's just too hard to squeeze blood from a stone with a usage rate of 15.6.
"Ariza shot 35.7% in the Finals when Orlando collapsed on him."
"Artest shot "
Ariza Playoffs
0.611 0.611 0.556
0.500 0.409 0.522
0.581 0.500 0.636
0.357 0.417 0.500
Artest Playoffs
0.411 0.278 0.833
0.381 0.277 0.625
(yes, it's a bad, small sample size - the effect is still there in the regular season, but requires more than just shooting stats to demonstrate)
The problem with a guy who "can sometimes get off a good shot" when the play breaks down and at the end of games is that they're usually "offensively talented" and geared with a fitting mentality. As such, those guys aren't just taking shots when plays break down, but when they haven't. Frequently, when they haven't. At the same bad percentages, frequently, when they haven't.
In other words, you're losing ground the entire game by having these guys taking these shots that they have to "create". "Creating shots" is nothing more than jacking a ball at a hole. Anyone can do that at a bad percentage simply by being aware of the shot clock.
The opinion that someone has to do that job, as opposed to an entire team scoring as efficiently as possible, has sprung up slowly over the last 5 years (at least that I'm aware) in reactionary response to the increase in advanced stats analysis that's been happening over that same period. (In all likelihood, both of these have been around in inner circles for a lot longer than that and just haven't gotten any press coverage or been mainstream schools of thought).
Artest FORCED us to take lots of shots out of broken plays by... breaking them. It only stands to reason that someone would have to "save" the "broken" play at that point. Wouldn't it be easier to get rid of the guy that's breaking it? I can't see it possibly happening that being generally more efficient would not be able to outweigh that you can't get off "as good" of a low percentage shot with the clock winding down.
How, how, how is a bad shot not a bad shot when a "shot creator" takes it instead of a "role player" if they're both making them at a 35-40% clip? If you have 5 guys that command single coverage, instead of 3 guys that do with 1 that commands double teams and one who can be slacked off of, how are you not just as well off?
(I'm 99% positive that iggy will weigh in on this if he's checking the board)
