Jordan Crawford

[montestewart]

But for the record.

He is playing as well at the starting SG of the LAC who are in 2nd place and the starting SG of the NYN who are in 5th play.

Opinions aside. Those are the facts.

If those are two of the top 5 team in the league, then he clearly could be starting in this league.

So the fact that we have him as a back up SG who can play PG when needed is a really nice thing to have. Specially at 1M a year.

Fact: Garrett Temple is statistically playing about as well as the starting PG for the 2012 World Champion Miami Heat.
Fact: Bradley Beal is statistically outplaying the starting SG on the 2011 World Champion Dallas Mavericks
Fact: Martell Webster is statistically outplaying the starting SF on the 2007 World Champion San Antonio Spurs
Fact: Nene is statistically outplaying the starting PF on the 2006 World Champion Miami Heat
Fact: Okafor is statistically outplaying the starting C on the 2008 World Champion Boston Celtics.

Opinions aside. These are facts. Clearly, the Wizards should be winning championships with this lineup.

Heat, Spurs, Mavs, Celts...man, the Wizards are loaded. Give it time, like a fine wine.

[hands11]

But for the record.

He is playing as well at the starting SG of the LAC who are in 2nd place and the starting SG of the NYN who are in 5th play.

Opinions aside. Those are the facts.

If those are two of the top 5 team in the league, then he clearly could be starting in this league.

So the fact that we have him as a back up SG who can play PG when needed is a really nice thing to have. Specially at 1M a year.

Fact: Garrett Temple is statistically playing about as well as the starting PG for the 2012 World Champion Miami Heat.
Fact: Bradley Beal is statistically outplaying the starting SG on the 2011 World Champion Dallas Mavericks
Fact: Martell Webster is statistically outplaying the starting SF on the 2007 World Champion San Antonio Spurs
Fact: Nene is statistically outplaying the starting PF on the 2006 World Champion Miami Heat
Fact: Okafor is statistically outplaying the starting C on the 2008 World Champion Boston Celtics.

Opinions aside. These are facts. Clearly, the Wizards should be winning championships with this lineup.

That is completely different from what I was saying.

Are you suggesting that you don't compare Crawford and other players against current peers when evaluating their worth or starter potential in the league. Because that is all I did. What you did was totally different.

Taking multiple players and comparing them against players in past years then putting that information together to say they should be the best in the league ? Yeah. ok. And you infer this is using the same logic as saying one play given his stats against his peer group shows he could start for one of the many teams in the league including some of the better ones ? Not even remotely the same thing.

[jivelikenice]

Crawford has improved a great deal, but I'd still shop him. I just don't feel comfortable having Jordan on our roster in a contract yr or giving him the extension he'll be looking for.

Also, while he is improved, I still view him as a sixth man type only. The longer he's on the floor, he'll hurt you like he did in basically losing the game in the first OT yesterday. And when he's not "on", just limit his minutes.....the problem I see is his lack of respect for those around him. I don't mean this as a slight but on this team he just won't view himself as anything other than the go to guy on this team. And one more ting about him....I'm just not sure the losing gets to him as long as he gets his touches and produces....I don't get the feeling that he's terribly disappointed by how this season has played out.

[Dat2U]

I love that Crawford is increasing his trade value. I wouldn't hesitate to include him in the right package though. Only assets that I'd likely hold onto is Wall, Beal, the 2013 & 2014 picks. We are so bereft of talent that I'm not feeling the idea of parting with a likely high lottery pick at this point. Plus the 2014 draft projects to be very strong. If anything, I'm trying to add picks, especially '14 1st rounders.

[80sballboy]

I love that Crawford is increasing his trade value. I wouldn't hesitate to include him in the right package though. Only assets that I'd likely hold onto is Wall, Beal, the 2013 & 2014 picks. We are so bereft of talent that I'm not feeling the idea of parting with a likely high lottery pick at this point. Plus the 2014 draft projects to be very strong. If anything, I'm trying to add picks, especially '14 1st rounders.

Not sure he has much trade value. Scouts don't look at stats. Just watch the games. He's an undersized two with vey ilttle inclination to defend or pass. He can make some incredible shots and heat up. Maybe with a better team, he'd be a more consistent 6th man type of scorer. We won 4 games with him as the number one option. Beal is the future and present. When Wall and Price return and if they keep Temple in the rotation or at leat around, his minutes will diminish since he's playing some 1.

[nate33]

I love that Crawford is increasing his trade value. I wouldn't hesitate to include him in the right package though. Only assets that I'd likely hold onto is Wall, Beal, the 2013 & 2014 picks. We are so bereft of talent that I'm not feeling the idea of parting with a likely high lottery pick at this point. Plus the 2014 draft projects to be very strong. If anything, I'm trying to add picks, especially '14 1st rounders.

Not sure he has much trade value. Scouts don't look at stats. Just watch the games. He's an undersized two with vey ilttle inclination to defend or pass. He can make some incredible shots and heat up. Maybe with a better team, he'd be a more consistent 6th man type of scorer. We won 4 games with him as the number one option. Beal is the future and present. When Wall and Price return and if they keep Temple in the rotation or at leat around, his minutes will diminish since he's playing some 1.

I disagree. If scouts and front office men have a weakness, it's that they overweigh the value of points per game even when accumulated without efficiency. There are lots of bad GMs in this league. Some will be intrigued by Crawford's recent production.

[FAH1223]

I disagree. If scouts and front office men have a weakness, it's that they overweigh the value of points per game even when accumulated without efficiency. There are lots of bad GMs in this league. Some will be intrigued by Crawford's recent production.

Unfortunately, we have one of those bad GMs.

[nate33]

I disagree. If scouts and front office men have a weakness, it's that they overweigh the value of points per game even when accumulated without efficiency. There are lots of bad GMs in this league. Some will be intrigued by Crawford's recent production.

Unfortunately, we have one of those bad GMs.

Indeed.

[Nivek]

Nate is correct. Scouts and GMs are unduly influenced by per game points, rebounds and assists. Something like 90% of player salary can be explained by these per game "glory stats."

[payitforward]

Nate is correct. Scouts and GMs are unduly influenced by per game points, rebounds and assists. Something like 90% of player salary can be explained by these per game "glory stats."

I don't take a back seat to anyone in criticizing Jordan Crawford. He was absolutely terrible in his first two years.

On the other hand, we now have 900 minutes this year -- a reasonable sample size -- and there is no question he is substantially improved over the guy we saw last year. Per 40 minutes, he has fewer fouls, better ball-possession stats (rebounds plus steals minus turnovers), more assists, a better FT%, higher 3pt%, higher 2pt%, and takes fewer shots.

Using WS40 (which does not overvalue points scored inefficiently, as PER does) to compare him to other 2 guards who play 20+ minutes a game, Crawford is now producing somewhere near an average rate -- certainly much much better than either of his first two seasons.

His shooting efficiency, however, is still his problem -- if you just look at 2 guards playing 20+ minutes, 2/3 of them are more efficient. Combine that with his being #6 in field goal attempts per 40 minutes, and you see the problem!

Still... no question he is a better player than at any previous point in his career. Improvement in the 3d year is a good sign for an NBA player.

[Nivek]

Yeah, no question that Crawford has been better. My stat -- which also does not overvalue scoring -- has him right at league average. Which is significant progress from where he was last year. Biggest issue with Crawford continues to be terrible shot selection. He works harder to get bad shots than any player I've ever seen. Next issue is consistency. In my last 3 stat updates, he's gone from an average rating to well below average back to average.

[nate33]

But for the record.

He is playing as well at the starting SG of the LAC who are in 2nd place and the starting SG of the NYN who are in 5th play.

Opinions aside. Those are the facts.

If those are two of the top 5 team in the league, then he clearly could be starting in this league.

So the fact that we have him as a back up SG who can play PG when needed is a really nice thing to have. Specially at 1M a year.

Fact: Garrett Temple is statistically playing about as well as the starting PG for the 2012 World Champion Miami Heat.
Fact: Bradley Beal is statistically outplaying the starting SG on the 2011 World Champion Dallas Mavericks
Fact: Martell Webster is statistically outplaying the starting SF on the 2007 World Champion San Antonio Spurs
Fact: Nene is statistically outplaying the starting PF on the 2006 World Champion Miami Heat
Fact: Okafor is statistically outplaying the starting C on the 2008 World Champion Boston Celtics.

Opinions aside. These are facts. Clearly, the Wizards should be winning championships with this lineup.

That is completely different from what I was saying.

Are you suggesting that you don't compare Crawford and other players against current peers when evaluating their worth or starter potential in the league. Because that is all I did. What you did was totally different.

Taking multiple players and comparing them against players in past years then putting that information together to say they should be the best in the league ? Yeah. ok. And you infer this is using the same logic as saying one play given his stats against his peer group shows he could start for one of the many teams in the league including some of the better ones ? Not even remotely the same thing.

It is not completely different. You cherry-picked two of the worst starting SG's in the league, both of whom aren't even among the top 5 players on their current team, and suggested that because Crawford is playing comparably to them, that he's a legit starter on a top team. I'm merely pointing out that it's pretty easy to cherry pick "facts" in that fashion to support any point. It doesn't make Crawford a starting caliber player. It just means that a few other team start players who shouldn't be starting. (Also, we need to remember that J.R. Smith, in particular is a much better defender than Crawford. And Willie Green gets far less minutes than the Clippers' backup SG, Jamal Crawford.)

[DCZards]

Crawford has indeed played better this year. No doubt about it. He still takes too many bad shots but I blame some of that on the fact that oftentimes Jordan is the ONLY player on the floor capable of scoring. (There are times I prefer a forced shot from JC than a wide open shot by the Zards stable of lousy shooters.)

Put a better team around Crawford and I believe you'll see fewer forced/bad shots. There's a role for Crawford as a valuable sixth man on the Zards...or some other NBA team.

[hands11]

Nate

Read what you just wrote.

You made exactly my point.

He is good enough to start in the league.

And you ignore that the list you posted before is totally different then comparing one player to his current peer on other existing teams.

You really think what you did was the same as what I did when what I did is the same thing you and others do here all the time ? Really ?

[nate33]

Whatever hands11

Fine. Crawford could conceivably start on a winning team provided that this hypothetical team had all-star caliber players at 3 or 4 other ,positions plus one or two bench players who happened to be better than Crawford.

If that's the criteria by which you would label Crawford a starting caliber player, then you are right.

Are you happy?