Re: Houston, we have a problem?

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

>     I like Allan Houston a lot because he's strong, he's tough, he's
playoff
> hardened and he's clutch. But one thing that always surprised me about him
> though, is that his key non-scoring stats (assists, rebounding and steals)
are
> pretty prosaic by starting NBA shooting standards. To wit, he averaged
just 2.7
> assists, 3.3 boards, 0.79 steals last season in a whopping 38.6 minutes
per
> game. All three numbers were actually considerably above his career
averages.
> This apparent lack of well-roundedness compares less with his fellow Y2K
Dream
> Teamers than with the bottom half of starting NBA shooting guards last
year.

Hey Joe,

You raise a very interesting point. I've had to ponder this question a
while. Thanks for raising this question and in answering it I'll also
explain why I think Houston for Walker actually favors the Cs.

Certainly, Twon is more versatile than most players out there. (If I were
preparing to play a game of two-on-two I'd want Twon, 'cause he could do all
the things I can't!)

But you have to stop and think about how his talents mesh on a team with
four other players. I don't mean this as a knock, just an honest question
about whether it might be better to have either: a) one player who can do
many things fairly well, or b) another player who can do one thing
outstandingly well. Obviously, we'd all much rather have one player who can
do many things outstandingly well, "but Larry Bird is not going to walk
through that door. . ." ;?)

Twon can dribble, rebound, score and pass fairly well (sorry to disagree
with Michael Griffin but as impressive as this is, it simply is not good
enough for "top 5" in my book) but he is not exceptional in any one area
(unless measured against other PFs, and even then only in his ballhandling -
but then who needs your PF to bring up the ball?). Houston can shoot, score,
and shoot some more. He can also take your last shot, something that I'm not
that confident having Twon do.

Who is the better player? Twon is the more well rounded, but Houston is more
polished. If Bball were simply a game of one-on-one then it would be easy:
Twon is your man.

But on a team of five players the question is not necessarily so easy -
Bball is a team sport so when we analyze a player's skills we have to take
into account that there will be others on the team that can compensate for
certain "deficiencies" (excepting perhaps defense). Under such circumstances
the better player is usually the one who has one exceptional skill rather
than several above-average skills. (This is especially true in the NBA since
the players have a much higher level of over-all skills in general).

Here's an analogy that makes sense for me: would you trade several
above-average players for one exceptional player? Most people would, because
that one exceptional is more difficult to replace than the number of
above-average players.

Stated another way: you have ask yourself if you really need one player to
do all those things Twon can do for you fairly well OR would you be better
off taking other players' abilities into account and having several players,
each with a specialty. For example: if we were to evaluate a swap of Twon
for Houston we have to evaluate the trade not simply as one player with
several above average skills for another with only one exceptional skill.
This is true of course (and enough in my mind to justify the trade - for the
basic reason that - IMHO - Houston is simply a better SG than Twon is PF),
but it is not the whole story.

We should also think in terms of the overall team impact. Yes, Houston
cannot duplicate Twon's rebounding. But which is more difficult to replace -
Twon's above-average rebounding or Houston's excellent shooting? If such a
swap occurred we should then be able to retain Fortson for rebounding
(another player with one really exceptional skill). Houston can shoot/score
better than Twon, Fortson can rebound better than Twon, Childs can dribble
and pass better than Twon. . . you get the picture. (BTW, FWIW I only saw
Childs as a temporary stop-gap - his one great advantage over Ward is the
relative shortness of his contract). Each of Twon's above-average
multi-tasking skills is easier to replace than Houston's excellent shooting
simply because Houston is a much more polished shooter/scorer than Twon is
rebounder or scorer or dribbler or passer etc.

Note that this analysis doesn't even begin to address the harder to quantify
aspects of Bball such as defense, leadership or "referee rapport".

So while I agree with you Joe that multiskilled players are to be
preferred - if all things are equal - in this situation all things are not
equal. Sure, we'd all like Houston to have better numbers in those areas you
cited. Regardless, none of Twon's skills are as polished as Houston's one
skill and that alone makes Houston a more valuable NBA commodity. (Yes, Twon
has more potential, a key to NY making such a deal, but as a friend of mine
likes to say "you can't eat potential"). I think this is yet one more
difference between the NBA and college that Pitino has yet to clue in on -
the value of specialization in a league where each and every player has a
much higher baseline of skills than one finds in college.

Add to the above analysis the sore need that Boston has for shooting and I
think the deal looks even better. Shooting seems to be one skill that some
people are born with and others not. As much as Twon or Jason Kidd or Bo
Outlaw practice they will never have the stroke of natural shooters like
Bird or Rice or Houston. It really seems to be one skill that is hard to
develop beyond a certain point. The Cs currently don't really have a shooter
(Pierce is really much better mixing it up). Also realize that Houston has
never really been able to fully demonstrate his scoring abilities in the
pros as he would here in Boston. He's always had to play second-fiddle to
someone - Grant Hill, Ewing - and even when Ewing was out injured he had to
contend with Sprewell. Here, I suspect that he'd be able to fully exploit
his offensive skills, with Pierce and V as valuable offensive contributors
rather than competitors.

Houston would not only bring an exceptional ability in an area in which we
are sorely lacking, he would enable two other players to return to their
natural positions (Pierce and Fortson/Battie). This would go a long way to
getting people back to doing what they do best rather than having them try
(and fail) to do something for which they are not well suited - a key reason
why I believe this team "underachieved" relative to their level of talent.
(This problem - also related to the value of specialization - highlights
once again Pitino's inadequacies as an NBA coach). As you noted before, the
coaching staff is the source of our worst difficulties.

So, to sum up, Houston would not only represent a mature, focused, playoff
hardened vet and clutch go-to guy, but his acquisition would go a long ways
towards working out the kinks in the rest of the starting lineup - all in
exchange for our two biggest contracts and two worst defensive players.
Gosh, the more I think about it, the better this deal sounds - a sure sign
it's bound not to happen!

Cheers - TomM