It took Kobe 44 shots!!!!!

[chitownsports4ever]

-= original quote snipped =-



When it comes down to it. I would much rather have a PF take most of the shots and shoots at least 45% from the field than a SG who barely shoots 40% from the field. People complain that Zach takes 20 shots to score 20 points, but what about Crawford who takes 20 shots some night to only score 8 points?

when did that happen ? so far this year when Crawford takes 20+ shots he normally is at the 2-30 pt mark.

I personally have no problem with Zach being aggressive offensively I just think he needs to refine his game after a guy like Boozer who does the little things to the point that he is always open.

Boozer is always screening ,moving,cutting and so while hes not uber athletic(just like Randolph) he doesnt have to work as hard for his points trying to go one on five and and he also is able to help his teammates gets some easy baskets as well.

Zach easily loses focus when his shot isnt falling because he wants to shoot his way out of it instead of just playing and allowing the ball to finds its way back to him.

[PrecociousNeoph]

this thread fails

[KOA]

when did that happen ? so far this year when Crawford takes 20+ shots he normally is at the 2-30 pt mark.

I apologize because I over exaggerated, although you can't blame me because his stats look atrocious in some games.

On another note I hate all the talk of PPS and TS% because I really don't like the way they are calculated. When a person goes to the free throw line, the NBA does not include it as a FGA unless it is an "And 1". However, the player did take a shot at the basket didn't he? And as a result of that shot he was either able to get 0, 1, or 2 points.

However, since the NBA does not see it in the same sense, it makes players who live at the free throw line look extremely efficient even when they are terribly inefficient scoring the basketball without getting a trip to the line.

This is why I feel FG% is a much better indicator as to how efficient a player is scoring the basketball. All other statistics take into account FTs, yet they do not take them into account as another possession and another shot attempted by that player.

[JoeT]

-= original quote snipped =-



I apologize because I over exaggerated, although you can't blame me because his stats look atrocious in some games.

On another note I hate all the talk of PPS and TS% because I really don't like the way they are calculated. When a person goes to the free throw line, the NBA does not include it as a FGA unless it is an "And 1". However, the player did take a shot at the basket didn't he? And as a result of that shot he was either able to get 0, 1, or 2 points.

However, since the NBA does not see it in the same sense, it makes players who live at the free throw line look extremely efficient even when they are terribly inefficient scoring the basketball without getting a trip to the line.

This is why I feel FG% is a much better indicator as to how efficient a player is scoring the basketball. All other statistics take into account FTs, yet they do not take them into account as another possession and another shot attempted by that player.

TS% does count FTA's as possessions, actually. PPS does not, but I never mentioned PPS.

And FG% is generally a terrible indicator of efficiency in comparison to TS%, giving weight only to two-point field-goal attempts, which hardly encompass all aspects of scoring. Virtually any statistician would agree with that.

[KrAzY DeMoN]

what is this TS% percentage bull. Just look at FG% and the number of shots taken.

[JoeT]

what is this TS% percentage bull. Just look at FG% and the number of shots taken.

Well, that's not an accurate measure of efficiency. TS%, which accounts for three-pointers and free throws, is an accurate measure of efficiency. You can dismiss it as bull all you want, but it just makes you less informed about the facts, and will lead to you basing opinions on incomplete information, as FG% doesn't encompass scoring efficiency effectively. In all-encompassing statistics like TS%, Zach is abysmal, and Crawford is slightly better, though still below average.

[KOA]

Well, that's not an accurate measure of efficiency. TS%, which accounts for three-pointers and free throws, is an accurate measure of efficiency. You can dismiss it as bull all you want, but it just makes you less informed about the facts, and will lead to you basing opinions on incomplete information, as FG% doesn't encompass scoring efficiency effectively. In all-encompassing statistics like TS%, Zach is abysmal, and Crawford is slightly better, though still below average.

How does Crawford rank among guards?

[JoeT]

-= original quote snipped =-



How does Crawford rank among guards?

36th among shooting guards. Remove players with under 20mpg and he's at 29th. Combine point guards and shooting guards and he comes in at 65th. Take out all under 20mpg and he's at 52nd. Considerably better than Randolph.

All stats from ESPN Insider.

[KOA]

36th among shooting guards. Remove players with under 20mpg and he's at 29th. Combine point guards and shooting guards and he comes in at 65th. Take out all under 20mpg and he's at 52nd. Considerably better than Randolph.

All stats from ESPN Insider.

You said Randolph is 35th, so how is 36th considerably better? The more important statistic as I stated earlier is how many shot attempts do most of the PF/Cs on the list got over 10 shots per game. Many starting PF/Cs in the league do not get many shot attempts even though they play many minutes...

[JoeT]

-= original quote snipped =-



You said Randolph is 35th, so how is 36th considerably better? The more important statistic as I stated earlier is how many shot attempts do most of the PF/Cs on the list got over 10 shots per game. Many starting PF/Cs in the league do not get many shot attempts even though they play many minutes...

Randolph was 40th, but 35th among players with 20+ mpg. Crawford was 3th and 29th in those categories. And the margin grows further when you include PG/SG's and PF/C's. I'd have to look deeper at the stats to assess how many shots these guys are all taking, but most of the well-known starting power forwards are on the list ahead of Zach, a lot of guys who do take a good amount of shots.

And my main concern is devoting so many possessions to such an inefficient player. The fact is our team is built pretty much primarily around inefficient players with lackadaisical defense, and it's a complete recipe for failure. You can't devote the majority of your offense to guys who don't score at high efficiencies. It'd be the equivalent of running a mutual fund and investing 50-60% of it in three or four stocks that perform well below the average market. You're pretty much doomed from the start.

[StutterStep]

Every time I turn around there is some new measurement -- now it's TS%... oh, man just say you don't like the guy for X reason and keep it moving...

[mjhp911]

Every time I turn around there is some new measurement -- now it's TS%... oh, man just say you don't like the guy for X reason and keep it moving...

[e180th]

he shot 21-44, that is damn near 48%..

I will take that..

thank you...

...[/thread]

[Illuminati]

he shot 21-44, that is damn near 48%..

I will take that..

thank you...

So will I, even on Sunday.

[JoeT]

Every time I turn around there is some new measurement -- now it's TS%... oh, man just say you don't like the guy for X reason and keep it moving...

Why just use useless subjective distaste when you can objectively prove his inefficiency? Would we rather have a conversation with just random sentiments based on nothing but casual observation as opposed to one where someone really analyzes everything involved and looks to come to the most sensible conclusion?

[VinnyTheMick]

I seen Iverson,Arenas and Crawfordscore 50+ a few times.It took Iverson 32 shots,Arenas 34 shots and Crawford 30 shots,Kobe took 44 shots and had 48 pts?Wow Thats inconsistent if you ask me but no one says anything...I guess cause it's Kobe

Kobe > everyone you mentioned. Stop riding Jamal's nuts. Kobe dropped 48 points & shot almost 50%

[StutterStep]

-= original quote snipped =-

Why just use useless subjective distaste when you can objectively prove his inefficiency? Would we rather have a conversation with just random sentiments based on nothing but casual observation as opposed to one where someone really analyzes everything involved and looks to come to the most sensible conclusion?

No but everything that gets measure individually needs to then be consolidated on the aggregate, as well as for the team.

Wouldn't it make sense that players with better TS% tend to play on better/functioning teams?

EDIT: To clarify my point, what are Iverson's TS% in his last 2 years in Philly compared to his first 2 in Denver?

What are KG's in his last 2 years in Minny compared to this year?

[JoeT]

AI: Past four years, from present to past: 57.2, 54.0, 54.4, 53.2

KG: Past four years, from present to past: 60.2, 54.6, 58.9, 56.7

There's certainly a slight increase on a better functioning team, but players with this level of efficiency generally contribute to that functioning. When you have efficient players as your #1, #2, and #3 options, it makes it easier for one another as there's less of an individual burden on each player to shoulder a large load. When you have highly inefficient players such as we have here, with Crawford and Randolph as our 1-2 punch, it is a terrible situation and generally puts the team in a hole it cannot overcome. The primary problem on this team in regards to offense is these two players dominating our usage with inefficient play. Likewise, on defense, these two players along with Curry and Marbury at times playing major minutes is the major problem there. The supporting cast is a minor issue when your core is this inherently flawed. Players of this ineptitude in that large of a role is not something that's surmountable if you're talking about contending for a title. That may sound definitive and over the top, but I can guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no team in the modern NBA has won a championship with the focal points of their offense being that inefficient. It's quite frankly not possible, and even more so when the players are abysmal defenders.

These players contribute to poor functioning teams much more than they are the result of one. KG in Minny with garbage support and AI in Philly with garbage support both noticeably trump Randolph and Crawford in efficiency even still, while having higher or comparable usages in those seasons.

I think Crawford could be a solid #3 scorer in a Jason Terry type role (not identical players in skillset, but just speaking role in terms of number of touches and what position they play) with strong, efficient players as the #1 and #2 options a la Dirk and JHoward. Ideally I'd want my #3 guy to bring more to the table defensively, but I definitely think Crawford could be adequate as a third option with the right supporting cast.

Zach, on the other hand, is a terrible #1 option, a pretty bad #2 option, and I highly, highly, highly doubt he'd be content with ever being a #3 option, as his attitude severely worsens and his effort severely declines as he gets less touches on offense. Zach's quite frankly a player that will probably never contribute to a winning team, if you had to ask me, due to these issues. Never is a strong word, and I can say there's a very slim chance he can change, but based on everything I've seen, he is certainly not a player I would ever want to invest in if I was looking to build a legitimate contender.

I don't really think you can say that Crawford and Randolph are a product of a poor functioning team. As the players with the most number of possessions and largest roles in the offense, they set the tone and are the guys who you need to be efficient players considering they make up the bulk of your offense. I think they contribute to the problems much more so than they are a function of the problem.

[StutterStep]

AI: Past four years, from present to past: 57.2, 54.0, 54.4, 53.2

KG: Past four years, from present to past: 60.2, 54.6, 58.9, 56.7

There's certainly a slight increase on a better functioning team, but players with this level of efficiency generally contribute to that functioning.
:
:
:
I don't really think you can say that Crawford and Randolph are a product of a poor functioning team. As the players with the most number of possessions and largest roles in the offense, they set the tone and are the guys who you need to be efficient players considering they make up the bulk of your offense. I think they contribute to the problems much more so than they are a function of the problem.

Thanks for doing the research! I really do appreciate it.

You furthered your case, but also saw what I felt about those types of individual measurements. The only sport you can (to a certain degree) isolate numbers (statistics) is baseball and mainly for hitters.

I was never saying that Crawford and Randolph were as efficient as Kobe, KG and those types of players, BUT in the same token when you put these players in poorly functioning teams & in ill-fitting roles, their inefficies will show much quicker and more often.

[JoeT]

-= original quote snipped =-



Thanks for doing the research! I really do appreciate it.

You furthered your case, but also saw what I felt about those types of individual measurements. The only sport you can (to a certain degree) isolate numbers (statistics) is baseball and mainly for hitters.

I was never saying that Crawford and Randolph were as efficient as Kobe, KG and those types of players, BUT in the same token when you put these players in poorly functioning teams & in ill-fitting roles, their inefficies will show much quicker and more often.

Well I can adamantly agree with you about one thing, and that's that Jamal and Zach are in ill-fitting roles. Zach's in an ill-fitting role because he's ill-fit for every role, considering he's not efficient enough to be a #1 or #2 scorer and he's not motivated enough to play when he's not getting all his shot attempts. Jamal's in an ill-fitting role because he's simply not good enough to be the secondary focal point of an offense. Basically, they're both ill fits because they're both not good enough players, and the team in general does not have enough good players. It's really as simple as that. People try to make it about chemistry or whatever else, and while things like that certainly play a role, what it basically comes down to, is no matter how you cut it, we don't have top-end talent, and have very little opportunity to add it. We don't have a suitable #1 option, we don't have a suitable #2 option, we have an adequate potential #3 option, and when you get past that, we don't really have any great role players either. In terms of a starting lineup for a team I can see competing for a championship, the only player on this team who even would merit consideration in my opinion would be Jamal, and ideally I don't think he's a starter for a championship team either. If Lee makes some strides in his game in the future, he may have a chance as the #5 starter, but no more than that.

People talk about all this talent we have, but I don't see it. Maybe talent in terms of athleticism and a collection of some skills, but in terms of players who produce wins, it's not there. They may be "talented," in the broadest sense of the word, but they're not effective or efficient basketball players, not at a championship or even playoff level.

The team, in short, needs a considerable overhaul, especially with the core components. I don't really see any other options, as I see absolutely no potential for an ideal or even close to ideal #1 or #2 option on this team. It's just not there.