walkingart wrote:I don't really care much to discuss the potential of Josh Smith any longer, neither of us will be swayed one way or another from where we currently stand; I am fine knowing that in time, one of us will be proved wrong; from where I am sitting, I like my odds and would take that bet. We are debating potential and work ethic, whether it is there or not is irrelevant. The odds are against him in becoming an offensive weapon of the caliber of Amare Stoudemire.
The odds are absolutely against him becoming a weapon of Amare's caliber; how many point guards of Nash's caliber are there in the league? Amare benefits from playing in Phoenix alongside Nash; his astronomical efficiency is a product of playing in the Phoenix environment (especially now that he's alongside Shaq).
He is more than capable without Nash, especially since he developed his jumper, but he's more of a 23 ppg on 50% FG type in a
sans-Nash environment, which is not so far removed from where Smith might develop as to put Amare out of reach. Remember, Amare just scored 25 ppg on 15 FGA/g, on about 59% FG. Isolation players aside from power post guys and extremely limited-volume players generally do not shoot that kind of percentage because the effort of isolation does not allow for shots that are such high-percentage. Amare's peeling off of screens with Nash, receiving perfect passes and cramming. Especially this past season, Shaq was there for a chunk of the season radically improving his FG% by altering the court spacing the defense arrayed before him on account of the Diesel's threat to score at a comparable percentage and even higher DrawF.
Too, Amare is assisted on 70% of his baskets. Again, he is not a product of Nash as a general truth, but his efficiency most certainly is, it is the measurable impact Nash exerts on Amare.
Your conception of Amare's offensive value is inflated by his likewise inflated field goal efficiency. Smith is not, at present, at Amare's level offensively, that's true. But Amare is not advanced so far beyond Smith that the potential is not there. If Smith had been put in a similar situation as that into which Amare fell as a rookie, his developmental track would likely have been quite similar. He is extremely athletic, aggressive around the rim and high-percentage around the basket.
Semantics? I do not believe the definition of a word would fall into a category of something needing interpretation or study regarding its meaning. Narcotics are a specific set of drugs as classified by US Controlled Substances Act, they are included in Schedule Five of the Act. By original definition, narcotics are opium drugs or derivatives there of; whether natural or synthetic. There is no semantics involved with this definition. To say that both nicotine and caffeine are narcotics is ridiculous at best.
They are narcotics by the dictionary definition, not the federal definition. The separation between the definition of the word 'narcotics' as it is presented in an English dictionary and the usage of narcotics via the federal definition is definitively an issue of semantics.
There are competing definitions:
1. An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain.
2. A soothing, numbing agent or thing
3. More recently, any drug, synthetic or naturally occurring, with effects similar to those of opium and opium derivatives, including meperidine, fentanyl, and their derivatives.
The second definition, perfectly valid as it is, has nothing to do with Schedule Five of the Controlled Substances act because the word predates the existence of the United States of America and its usage continues even in the presence of said Act.
Then too there are the legal definitions of 'narcotic,' as defined within a book written by the people
here.1) techinically, drugs which dull the senses. 2) a popular generic term for drugs which cannot be legally possessed, sold, or transported except for medicinal uses for which a physician or dentist's prescription is required. Among these "controlled substances" are heroin, cocaine, L.S.D., opium, methamphetamine ("speed"), angel dust, hashish, and numereous chemically-designed hallucinagenics, as well as drugs with a legitimate medical use such as morphine. Dealing in any of these narcotics is a felony (subject to a prison term) under both state and federal laws, although mere use may be a misdemeanor. Marijuana is also an illicit narcotic, but possession of small amounts for personal use is a misdemeanor in most states.
While the term '(Please Use More Appropriate Word)' or the act of being '(Please Use More Appropriate Word)' are not politically correct, it is just a simple and efficent way to say that which you so effectively defined as being held back by some deficiency in intellectual capacity. Your armory of objective information is speculation, assumption, and wishful thinking; this is what is 'retarding' your ideology (which is according to you, a baseless opinion of which I hold).
And yet at the same time, you've done nothing to legitimately overturn the commentary I've made or to account for the information you've failed to consider. You asked for examples of players who have been in the league for several years and then improved their jumpers and I gave you a prominent one, an example to which you did not respond. You ignored the fact that Smith has focused on other aspects of his game to the detriment of his jumper and all the host of improvements he has made since entering the league. You've ignored the basic circumstances that allow Amare to shoot at the efficient rates he does and score high volumes with relatively few shots.
Etc. In short, you've ignored everything but your ill-structured opinion in favor of detracting my own.
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Josh never develops to the level of Amare Stoudemire as an offensive force. The point I am arguing is that the categorical denial of the possibility that Smith could improve his jumper and might display significant improvements in his efficiency if he were to play on a team of the same kinds of talent found on the Suns is ludicrous.
Amare took an abject lack of a jumper and turned it into a decent one in a single off-season; then he took his shaky jumper and turned it into a solid one in another off-season. He was only two years younger than Smith when he began this process. The notion that Smith cannot achieve similar results if he decides to work at it is monstrously ignorant of training techniques and possibilities, and that age and length of career are in fact no barrier to player development in many areas (the jumpshot most notable of these), a fact espoused not by me in expression of a personal opinion, but of NBA scouts and trainers.
Indemnifying of me in some way, might that be a slap at my character. Might I be compensating for some defect in my own personal nature. Nice try, but I don't smoke, I rarely consume caffeine (exedrin and the occasional soda), or drink alcohol very often for that matter (thanks to a genetics stomach condition). I am however a victim of my own speculation and assumption. But as I previously stated, time will be the solvent to wash away our standoff.
Generally, I suspect that the indemnification would be a protection against your own failure to see potential in certain respects. We're discussing hypotheticals, not set realities that will definitively come to pass. You've ignored basic truths about both players and your insulting responses seem a cover for your own lack of basic knowledge about the comparison.
And now to Okafor, if he shoots 48.5% from the field it will be a disappointment. Unlike Garnett, Duncan, and Ewing he should be taking the majority of his shots in and around the basket.
This is one of the more ridiculous things you've said; Duncan and Ewing did and DO take the bulk of their shots around the basket. Duncan takes about 2 shots a game outside of 15 feet, hardly worth mentioning. Ewing was known for his range, surely, but more because he faced up and shot short jumpers than because he was taking 20-foot shots.
Garnett, his FG% is understandably reduced by jump shots, that's perfectly fair.
The players you mentioned were known and are known to taking an abundance of jump shots, thus lowering there FG%.
Duncan? He's known for HAVING range, not for using it. Duncan is a classic low-post big man who spends the vast majority of his time around the rim. He faces up from time to time and uses the pick-and-roll (where he sometimes pops), but to give you an idea of how terribly wrong you are...
Duncan took 1,032 shots point-blank, from the right/left block and in the key this past season. He took 145 shots. He played 78 games. That means he was taking a hair under 1.9 shots a game from outside of those zones right at the rim and immediately contiguous thereto.
The man is not a jump shooter and this is not an atypical shot array for him; he's a low-post scorer, it's why he worked so well with David Robinson, who was a face-up scorer with a short jumper most of the time. Duncan has been a classic low post guy since Wake Forest.
Ewing's Georgetown Shuffle was a 4-step face-up attack on the rim that either lead to a slashing dunk or a short jumper... but not a long jumper. He didn't take an abundance of shots much beyond 15 feet at any point in his career.
agree with you that Okafor is a very good player, who has been under utilized in Charlotte thus far. He should be putting up close to 20PPG, and he should be getting more looks than he has in the past. But he should be getting those looks in and around the paint. If this is the case, his FG% will remain where it has been the past two years, above 50%.
I was not condeming your analysis but rather your "weak" prediction. His FG% should not lower from years past, it should remain the same or increase. If his numbers go down because he is taking a higher volume of shots, then, IMO, he shouldn't be taking those shots.
This, especially the bolded part, is fairly foolish and ignores basic principles of the way NBA offense and defense work.
First of all, in order to take more shots, Okafor is going to have to find new ways to get to those shots. He is not as athletic as was Hakeem Olajuwon, nor as physically imposing as Shaq. That means that he's going to be working for hook shots, short jumpers, layups/dunks, that sort of thing. But if he's to increase his shot volume, he's going to facing shots that are higher degree-of-difficulty and he's going to be facing increased defensive attention. If he's a featured component of the offense, then it is not at all uncommon to see a small dip in FG% as the player adjusts to a new offensive load. He doesn't have an athletic advantage to exploit, so it's pure finesse game and that means his efficiency might potentially suffer. Will it? It may not, or it may be as marginal as was Al Jefferson's adjustment from 12-17 FGA/g (about 1.5%), which would still leave him over 50%.
But ignoring the fact that there is a noted correlation between increasing shot volume and decreasing FG% is not wise.
Now this is an example of semantics, but regardless of your sematics or mine, we both agree that Okafor is better than he has been used in Charlotte and should improve his numbers under Larry Brown.
*nod*
Absolutely.
Perhaps in Larry Brown's system, Okafor will enjoy more isolation coverage because of improved floor balance and perhaps he will enjoy some success getting easy shots from Felton and the offensive sets themselves rather than feeling the pressure of having to create everything for himself.
In such an environment, it is possible that his FG% would remain largely unchanged.
To conclude my thought here, I am sorry I have so blatantly offended you. I will in the future attack your intelligence, knowledge and general character in a more cryptic and eloquent manner as you have mine.
