We all heard the preseason nonsense about both Harden and CP3 being ball-dominant guards who need the ball in their hands to be at their best and to be happy. From ESPN's player rankings: "It was an incredibly efficient week for Harden, as he posted 38.5 PPG while cracking 50-40-90 and averaging just 80 touches per game -- his fewest in any week this season, according to Second Spectrum." Harden and CP3 are so deliriously giddy that their team is kicking ass all over the league that they're more than happy to sit back some plays and watch the other one work his magic. And in case anyone doesn't believe that Harden is having another historically great season, there's also this gem from the same article: "For the season, Harden’s average game score now sits at 25.6, which is higher than any guard over the past 30 seasons not named Michael Jordan. That includes Stephen Curry from his unanimous MVP campaign in 2015-16."
"We(media) gotta stop fighting this. This brothas on another level" Stephen A. Smith talking about acknowledging the beard.
If Harden's proving ESPN wrong, they sure don't know about it. At least not in the article linked in the OP. They admit he accomplished a rare feat last week not done since MJ (38.5 ppg on 50/40/90 on only 80 possessions) -- yet they still rank him THIRD (lol) on player ranking behind Giannis because the 'Greek Freak'... wait for it... led the league in *dunks* last week with 12, including the 'dunk of the week' on Gobert! You literally can't make this stuff up. Hilarious.
The skepticism I heard was more centered around Paul than Harden. Paul has always been a dribble down the shot clock kinda guy (or at least has that reputation; I don't know his stats on holding the ball). I did hear someone - can't remember if it was an ESPNer or TNTer - talked about how CP3 would just stand in the corner and watch Harden once he returned from injury. So far both versions of the "that guy likes to hold on to the ball" narratives look incorrect.
I recorded everything on ESPN thinking it was going to be wall-to-wall coverage of how amazing the Rockets are doing, especially after these last two games.. Nothing. Beadle was clowning us of course, but not even The Jump had a segment talking about Houston. The Jump had Houston's own, Chiney Ogwumike on the show, and they couldn't even muster up a segment on the Rockets.. A lot of talk about Thunder's struggles though.
Meh. Lou Williams is ranked 7th this week so that tells me all I need to know about this nonsense ESPN ranking.
My dream scenario: We get Beadle's Spurms in round 2 and trounce them, then go to the WCF and humiliate the Worriers. And then mow down whoever gets in the ring with us for the finals. Watching Beadle throw up in her mouth a little for an entire year every time she has to say "NBA champion Rockets" would be life-affirming.
My dream scenario is the warriors meet the spurs round 2. Steph gets injured, but the warriors play a seven game series and win. The rockets have dispatched the blazers in round 2, and await well rested. Then the rockets sweep. Durant goes on his five Twitter accounts and cries about how he couldn't win with that roster. We play the Celtics and then avenge Dream and Sampson.
My dream scenario too, except no one gets hurt. WE kill everyone while they are at full strength, I'm greedy that way. Afterward winning championship, LeBron signs with Rockets in off-season at a discount!
The media's anti-Harden, anti-Rockets narrative will never let up until we beat both the Spurs and the Warriors in the playoffs. I feel like this is our year to shut those a-holes up.
I wouldn't mind Steph landing on Zaza's fat foot and crying all the way to the training room. Could be now or deep in the playoffs. I'm not picky on the when for this season. For some reason, I'm into that kind of karma.
Is "game score" kind of like ESPN's real RPM +/- or whatever their stat is that they post for all players then fail to publish how the number is derived? This sounds like another 'our personal stat we use to show player x is better than y but don't care to explain why we put this number in front of you' stat. Game score... I want to be impressed but it would help if I knew what a game score meant? Anyone else? Edit: I clicked around looking for ESPN's actual explanation of their rankings and it provides some details mixed with generalizations that leave you wondering what it actually all means. They essentially say, 'we take a box score, weight those stats however we feel like adjusting those numbers and then give you rankings. If you want to know more, follow this.' -> I followed this and find on this is a John Hollinger stat who is the ex-VP of the Grizzlies. What do we know about the Grizzlies? I don't know... maybe their coach once said "Take that for data!". So this is not a team who cares about stats and a VP that's a big player in that think-tank that's tasked with evaluating people across all times. Then I click Johnny boy's link for 'even further explanation' and it says he weighs in things like whether or not MJ had the flu, if Magic had aids etc... it essentially added nothing about an equation. It just says essentially, 'Trust me guys! I work for good ole ESPN and they're never wrong about their opinions!'. That excerpt the OP laid out wasn't a bad thing, but the specific data in it means nothing. It's someone's opinion once again and they're unwilling to share how they come up with it.
