Post-Jordan SG's: Jerry Stackhouse v. Michael Finley v. Eddie Jones

[Quotatious]

PER is immediately irrelevant. Minutes and touches will often solve that problem, particularly at that usage.

I wouldn't necessarily agree, because I see no reason to assume that every player would be able to handle such high usage as Stackhouse did (only a few players ever had 35+ % USG for an entire season), on actually ABOVE average efficiency (he shot 52.1% TS, league average was 51.8 that year).

Meantime, he played on the 6th-worst offense in the league for 40 mpg.

2009 Wade played on the 20th best offense in the league (or, I should say "11th worst") for almost 39 mpg, so I don't think it's a good argument, unless you think that peak Wade wasn't a great offensive player.

Stuff like Win Shares and what-not were inevitable based on the involvement he had. The Pistons were a 32-win team, and we're talking about a 52.1%/104 ORTG guy in a league environment of 103.0 and 51.8%. Marginally above average on huge usage. That's a classic example of how not to arrange your offense, and his bulk usage at that threshold didn't do for the Pistons any serious good, because they still blew offensively. They were 8th on D, and that had comparatively little to do with Stackhouse, and much more with Ben Wallace.


Stackhouse had semi-alright individual numbers while volume scoring well below the threshold of utility. His impact doesn't compare to other guys in similar situations because he flatly wasn't a good choice in that role. Naturally, the team (composed of nothing special at all) was better with him on the floor, that's not surprising. But he wasn't the guy to handle that team in that role and was clearly inferior to players who actually were worth a team's time in that mode of usage.

Stackhouse was OK when he was permitted to be a lower-volume guy, but he was a proto-Harden with a less consistent three. 01 was his absolute apex, and he was barely above league average in offensive efficacy. That's not a sterling pro-Stackhouse argument, you know what I'm saying?

I know what you're saying, but we're comparing just three players here, one season for each player, so I don't care about any other players or seasons right now. I never said that Stackhouse was a great volume scorer - no, he certainly wasn't "great", not even close to that, but I think he was decent. Even just the fact that he averaged almost 30 ppg on slightly above average efficiency, and positive offensive impact, is fairly impressive. You know how many guys averaged at least 29.5 ppg, with at least 35% USG, and at least 52% TS? There are just 9 seasons - '82 Gervin, '85 King, '87 Jordan, '88 Wilkins, '01 Stackhouse, '03 McGrady, '06 Iverson, '06 Bryant and '09 Wade - sure Stack is by far the worst player on this list, but that's still elite company (we don't have USG% before the 1977-78 season, but that's still an impressive accomplishment, to me anyway.

Besides, I don't really understand the obsession some people have, that you should somehow penalize players who averaged over 40 mpg. It is a double-edged sword, because some players just don't have the stamina or durability to handle such heavy responsibilities for an extended or period of time (for example Manu was never able to do it - it was in part because of Pop's strategy to rest his starters, but there's no reason to believe that he was capable of that - hell, 35 minutes would probably be a heavy load for him, already).

Jones was a lot more useful because of his two-way play and range.

I totally agree, I actually said that I'd take Jones over the other two, easily (because of his all-around game and defense).

Finley, yeah, he wasn't a stunner himself, but he was a more productive and efficient individual...

I don't see how 2000 Finley was more productive or efficient than 2001 Stackhouse. 2000 Mavs weren't exactly a great team (finished 40-42 with a slightly negative SRS and missed the playoffs), Dirk wasn't really in his prime yet, Nash wasn't even a full-time starter, yet, so it's I don't think that Finley really had to sacrifice his own offensive production for the greater good. Also, his efficiency didn't really get better when the Mavs became a great team, and in 2000, he played even more minutes than 2001 Stackhouse, so I don't see much of an argument for him. Was he a better complementary player, 2nd/3rd option type guy, than Stackhouse was, in a similar role? Yeah, I think so, but since we're comparing two specific seasons here, I don't care about that.

and no one ever made the mistake of saying "yeah, you, go ahead and try for 30 per night!"

I actually think that getting 30 per night is an impressive feat per se, because few players ever get that opportunity for their coaches, and there's a reason for that - not everyone has the shot-creation abilities (you have to be able to create a lot on your own, to average 30) or stamina to be able to do it. So, even though one guy scoring 30 has no inherent value for his team (sometimes even the opposite), it's still an impressive accomplishment, in a certain way.

That was a stupid, stupid move on Detroit's behalf.

After Grant Hill left Detroit in the summer of 2000, it was clear that they going to rebuild, anyway. It was clear they were not going to be any good with the roster they had after Hill left (at least not yet in 2001 - they had to find good starters at PG, SF and PF, to improve as a team, and you can't really do it in one season). Basically every franchise has a bad year after their superstar leaves town, or goes down with a serious injury. So, I guess that Stackhouse chasing the scoring title was one thing the Pistons fans could be excited about, in terms of their (very) short-term future. Still better than nothing.

By the way - I'm wondering what makes 2001 Stackhouse worse than 2012 Kobe, for example. Their stats and impact were extremely similar (even their rating in NPI ORAPM was identical )

[CaliBullsFan]

Stack>Finley>>>Jones

Where the hell is all this Eddie Jones love coming from? He was no where near as talented and Stackhouse and Finely were. People must be interpreting this as who would you want as your third best player on a spread pick and roll 2015 NBA team. Eddie Jones was a guy who can't carry an offense and was a very overrated defender.

[Quotatious]

very overrated defender.

Why?

[tsherkin]

PER is immediately irrelevant. Minutes and touches will often solve that problem, particularly at that usage.

I wouldn't necessarily agree, because I see no reason to assume that every player would be able to handle such high usage as Stackhouse did (only a few players ever had 35+ % USG for an entire season), on actually ABOVE average efficiency (he shot 52.1% TS, league average was 51.8 that year).

This is a meaningless goalpost because it's a mostly substance-less situation. It didn't help their offense to a meaningful extent, and there aren't a ton of 35%+ USG seasons to begin with, so his presence on that list really doesn't say anything except that he was worse than anyone else who did it.

Meantime, he didn't handle it particularly well. He was explicitly using possessions at a rate that wasn't conducive to quality offense.

2009 Wade played on the 20th best offense in the league (or, I should say "11th worst") for almost 39 mpg, so I don't think it's a good argument, unless you think that peak Wade wasn't a great offensive player.

The 01 Pistons were -3.0 compared to league average. The 09 Heat were -0.5, and were considerably better than the 01 Pistons in terms of absolute offense per-100 anyhow. That's sort of a disingenuous comparison. Wade was way, way better than Stackhouse has ever been at any point of his career, and elevated his team offense more effectively. There's truth to the statement that there are limitations based on roster and coaching, of course. Even MJ and peak Kobe could only do so much at times, and they had more help than either Wade in 09 or Stackhouse in 01. But yeah, there are definitely degrees of utility here. The Heat were basically a league average team on offense; the marginal difference between their rank at actual league average really undermines the strength of your point here.

I know what you're saying, but we're comparing just three players here, one season for each player, so I don't care about any other players or seasons right now. I never said that Stackhouse was a great volume scorer - no, he certainly wasn't "great", not even close to that, but I think he was decent.

Right, but he wasn't. He was a bad option to shoulder that level of usage. That's pretty clear. That Detroit happened to blow hard enough that his fairly poor performance was able to elevate them is a condemnation of management, not praise of Stackhouse's ability.

Besides, I don't really understand the obsession some people have, that you should somehow penalize players who averaged over 40 mpg.

It's not penalization, it's explanation. When you're talking about someone taking up that many minutes, it impacts the value of some of these other stats you're referencing. Counting stats like win shares (as opposed to ws/48) will be over-representing their value, for example.

[quote
I don't see how 2000 Finley was more productive or efficient than 2001 Stackhouse. 2000 Mavs weren't exactly a great team (finished 40-42 with a slightly negative SRS and missed the playoffs), Dirk wasn't really in his prime yet, Nash wasn't even a full-time starter, yet, so it's I don't think that Finley really had to sacrifice his own offensive production for the greater good.
[/quote]

But again, you're talking about someone who was better than Stackhouse was before 01, during 01 and after 01. The volume at which he scored isn't a positive, it's representative of bad strategy that was prompted primarily by crap coaching and management. That's not laudable, that's just unfortunate.

Also, his efficiency didn't really get better when the Mavs became a great team, and in 2000, he played even more minutes than 2001 Stackhouse, so I don't see much of an argument for him. Was he a better complementary player, 2nd/3rd option type guy, than Stackhouse was, in a similar role? Yeah, I think so, but since we're comparing two specific seasons here, I don't care about that.

And yet, he was more valuable in almost any given season during his prime than Stackhouse was. The selected Finley season was 99-00, just before Stackhouse's fruitless peak.

That year, he led a team to a 7th-ranked offense, Some of that is roster differences, to be sure. Some of that is coaching. They weren't equatable situations. But he was the spear-head of a very effective offense, and was himself considerably more effective in his role than was Stackhouse. You can make up all kinds of "moral victory" nonsense about Stackhouse not being as bad as he could have been in that role, but the truth of it is that he was playing in a piss-poor offensive environment and producing at about the same efficiecy he did in any other season.

You're fond of WS, so let's look at seasons of 28+ ppg and .137 or better WS/48 (Stackhouse's 01 level), shall we? There are at least 113 player-seasons of 28+ ppg, .137 WS/48 and 1,000+ minutes played, did you know that? And for whatever reason, b-ref is being stupid at cutting it off at .140 instead of .137 as indicated. So there are likely even more seasons, because it doesn't even list Stackhouse's own entry. That's a lot of examples of guys who did a way, way better job. That's really not a grand proclamation of any "decency" on his behalf.

It's literally nothing more than a moral victory that he had that usage and performed at his customary level. He still had a crappy jumper under the arc. He had the only good 3pt shooting season he had in his career over an even moderately significant sample. Beyond that, he just increased his perimeter shooting volume. Perimeter shooting, at which he wasn't that good. Stackhouse's only real skill was getting to the line. He wasn't even a particularly impressive finisher around the rim. So yeah, he had a slightly-less-than-crap season in 01 on high usage... at his customary level of bleh efficiency and productivity.

That doesn't make him better than Finley at all. Finley was consistently more productive, consistently more of a spacing threat... and in his 99-00 season, STILL more productive per possession. Yes, he wasn't required to do what Stackhouse did, but who cares? He was more effective in his role and Stackhouse's production led to nothing.

I actually think that getting 30 per night is an impressive feat per se, because few players ever get that opportunity for their coaches, and there's a reason for that - not everyone has the shot-creation abilities (you have to be able to create a lot on your own, to average 30)

That's a fair misconception. It's not nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be, because you can do precisely what Stack did... chuck at levels that would have been considered inefficient in the eras on either side of his feat. That the league offensive environment was as depressed as it was made him slightly above-average is a coincidence of timing, not a feat worthy of laurels. He shot a lot of 2pt jumpers and some threes... and produced a fairly bad < 30 ppg season (since he didn't actually reach that average). That's not actually that special. He was given the opportunity to do so on a crap team, and he produced what was relatively crap offense in the process. Again, not that impressive.

That people aren't given the opportunity to do this often is the result of teams realizing that it's not that good an idea more than anything else, and coaches understanding that there are better ways to use more marginal players to greater effect.

[quote
After Grant Hill left Detroit in the summer of 2000, it was clear that they going to rebuild, anyway. It was clear they were not going to be any good with the roster they had after Hill left (at least not yet in 2001 - they had to find good starters at PG, SF and PF, to improve as a team, and you can't really do it in one season). Basically every franchise has a bad year after their superstar leaves town, or goes down with a serious injury. So, I guess that Stackhouse chasing the scoring title was one thing the Pistons fans could be excited about, in terms of their (very) short-term future. Still better than nothing.
[/quote]

Sure, from a narrative standpoint that makes sense. Not from a tactical basketball standpoint, though.

By the way - I'm wondering what makes 2001 Stackhouse worse than 2012 Kobe, for example. Their stats and impact were extremely similar (even their rating in NPI ORAPM was identical )

Well, for starters, you're looking at a lockout-and-injury-shortened Kobe season, so we're already starting on unsteady ground. Beyond that, Kobe had a crap year and really wasn't a lot better than Stackhouse. Of course, he was injured and 33, not healthy and 26, so that's another angle largely rendering that point moot.

So yeah, Stackhouse was about as good as a chuck-happy Kobe in his mid 30s with a buggered knee, messed hands and lacking the usual level of practice that comes with an NBA season.

Hooray, I guess?

[tsherkin]

Eddie Jones was a guy who can't carry an offense

This is about the least meaningful statement you could have made to defend Stackhouse, who was part of one of the worst offenses in the league during the given season. It's pretty clear that he didn't do this to a level superior to Eddie Jones, so why you would use this as a defense of his play is beyond me.