Josh Smith: Too Much Hype?

[NashtyNas]

Now, as much as I love Josh Smith's game and talent, I've been reading a lot and this guy gets way too much hype. First thing I want to say is this guy plays in the East. If LeBron looses credibility for his stats because he plays in the "easy" conference, then why shouldn't a much inferior player loose it too? Secondly, although the SF position is where he is fit, with that horrible jumpshot, he can't play it. Well, let me rephrase that, he can play it, just not as effectively as other SF's in the league. Im guessing around 80% of this leagues starting SF's shoot over 35% from 3PT, this guy shoots 25.3%. This means he cant spread the floor, AT ALL. He doesn't have a solid post game, but can play the PF because of his athleticism and anticipation on defense. To his credit, he is a solid post and perimeter defender, adding to his resume. But, is he worth the MAX CONTRACT he is looking for? In an age where people get overpaid like crazy, a guy that played nearly 36mpg and averaged 17Points, 8 boards, 3 assists, 1 steal and 3 blocks is asking for a 13-15mil/year contract. Diaw, if you remember, averaged 14-7-6-1block per game with nearly a steal in the same amount of time in 05-06, when he was given the starting job and was the THIRD option on offense. This really opened my eyes, and I'm hoping it will open a lot of other peoples eyes. Now, last year, Diaw averaged 9-6-4 with nearly a steal and half a block being like the 5th offensive option OFF THE BENCH in 27MPG. Do you not agree with me, that in another 9 minutes, he can't score 5 points, grab 3 rebounds, and give out 2 assists and make it 1block and steal per game? So, before complaining of his contract, look at what other teams are giving guys. Josh Smith, in my eyes, isnt worth a max contract. Yeah he can block shots, and get some highlight dunks, but is that worth paying 15million a year? Diaw is NOT the product of a run and gun offense as people think him to be. He will FLOURISH in any slow down, grind it out offense if he's given minutes at the SF/PF and a starting spot, just not with 2 guys that work the post just as well as he does. If he were to work with a more perimiter oriented PF / C like say Chris Bosh or Mehmet Okur, he would flourish. But if he were to work with Dwight Howard, then he'd just fail because there games are too similar.

If Josh Smith, for getting 4extra points and 2 extra blocks pergame (comparing numbers from 05-06) gets 15million a year, then I'd think Diaw, if he can go back to the 14-7-6-1-1 numbers, which HE CAN, is a steal at 9million a year. I HAD TO POST THIS. Jst HAD TO.

Take it for what you want, call me a Diaw homer, and I want to dump him as much as everyone else, for even 80 cents on the dollar, but if he's used properly, he WILL flourish...

[walkingart]

I don't think there is too much hype on Smith, unless you are counting his inflated ego as hype.

He is worth $9 Million a year, nothing more.

[Miklo]

You're right, he's not worth 13-15, yeah probably more like 9 range. Guess that's why Philly chose Brand over him, and he hasn't gotten much more serious interest. I still won't be surprised if the wack job Hawks pull the trigger, they are erratic as hell.

[NashtyNas]

Okay, so it isn't only me that thinks this guy isn't worth max money. Everywhere I go, I'm reading "Hawks need to lock him up, sign him for the max, 12-13mil/year." WHAT THE HELL? That's like, STOUDEMIRE money, or what LeBron makes right now. Clearly, Brand was a better option for any team looking for a PF, because Brand isn't necessarily a PF, but at SF, he would be one less shooter, and Philly already has a drought of shooting on their team (not even their PG is known for shooting 3's.) So, I guess I'm NOT the only one who thinks he's not worth what he is eventually likely to get (S&T or not, if he takes QO and goes to UFA next year, he's still going to look for max money). A similar case for Okafor. He's just a decent young F/C that puts up good numbers on a bad team. I dont ever see him becoming a dominating offensive player unless he takes the next step, which he hasnt for like 2 years.

[NashtyNas]

Okay, I have to be an idiot. Either that, or half the FO's in this league are (Please Use More Appropriate Word).
Since when does a scorer like Ellis, who is pretty damn one dimensional, get 11mil/year contracts? The Warriors are going to regret that, especially when they find out how much he sucks on defence and can't play PG. WOW. Did they not look at any Phoenix Suns tape of when Barbosa tried to run the offense? If Ellis does have that much value, then I guess Barbosa is the biggest steal of all time?

[eastsidecrossover]

Like I have said before, this is the nba, where most of the players get more money then what they are worth. Smith is not a max player, and Ellis is way overpaid. The problem with teams is that they seem to overreact to certain situations and overpay most players. They lost Davis, and needed to resign the kid as the future. They lost Arenas too. So they had to do something and overpaid.

Just like we did with Diaw. We lost JJ, and the suns FO did not want to take another black eye for letting a player who just had a career year go.

Smith is not even close to what Stat is worth.

[NashtyNas]

^ Yet, he is going to get payed the same or maybe even more money. Think about that. Hell, Ellis gets nearly as much as Nash. I just get a laugh out of these things. Nash must have REALLY been a steal for us then, RIGHT? (Although he is a steal, with the lack of defence, he shouldnt be anything more than 18mil/year guy, but Ellis getting anything near what Nash gets now is outrageous.)
I think Ellis is a 7-8m/year guy, Josh being a 9mil/year guy, and Okafor around 9mil/year. Over 10 for ANY of these guys is outrageous. If those are the prices these days, and Diaw goes back to his 05-06 self, we have a steal in EVERY one of our players except for SHAQ. Barbs is one of the most bargain players in the league though, other than Anthony Parker.

[Miklo]

I'd give Okafor a bit more than I'd give J-Smoove. But lets take a step back here. When we talk about paying these guys, we ARE looking at the Hawks who let Childress go by the wayside and now will grossly overpay Smith, and the Warriors, home of the 6 ft 4 small forwards with no shooting touch and little overall skill at all. So Monta Ellis looks pretty good in a field of weeds. As eastside said NBA contracts are just getting ridiculous. I mean, teams feel the need to throw twice as much money as they should at mid quality players and meanwhile Smith and Iggy are still sitting on the market collecting dust. Plus, you have plenty of min players who will probably not even be able to play in the NBA because teams are too stupid to cough up a few g's ,.

[tsherkin]

I just want to correct a small misconception;

Josh Smith does not play small forward for the Hawks; he plays primarily PF, no matter what 82games.com says. Marvin Williams is the 3. This is an error on the part of the guys at that site, and any other site that indicates otherwise (per the Atlanta fanbase and coaching staff, and the player himself).

Smith tries to score in the post fairly often and is usually found guarding the opposing 4.

His jumper is less of a concern, moreso because he goes to it more than he should than from lack of proficiency. A competent coach would have curbed that tendency a long time ago but Mike Woodson is as far from competent as humans are from FTL travel.

Next misconception:

Okafor hasn't done anything or improved on offense in Charlotte and is posting numbers on a bad team.

Nope. First deal, he's a great rebounder. Second deal, he's a good man defender. Third deal, he's a highly effective shot-blocker.

Fourth deal, after having shot under 45% in each of his first two seasons, Emeka has shot better than 53% in each of his last two seasons as he has continued to refine his offensive repertoire.

The big problem is that both Bernie Bickerstaff and Sam Vincent were incompetent offensive coaches content to let Raymond Felton, Adam Morrison, Gerald Wallace and others take shots ahead of Okafor, orienting the offense away from him to the frustration of all who observed. They were not good coaches. Bickerstaff was the interim coach while they looked for a real coach; Vincent was the MJ pick but he flopped badly. With Larry Brown around, MAYBE this team will finally have a decent offense going.

It's been unstructured and heavily over-reliant on low-percentage guys taking low-percentage shots, largely outside of their comfort zones. There's been weak structure and organization to the sets they run, if they can even be called that. Blaming Okafor for that is foolish.

Okafor is worth what he's asking. Smith is, whether you like him or not, a 17/8/3 guy who blocks 3 shots a game. If you put him on a team in an offense similar to what the Suns run (or even the Jazz, for that matter) with a competent point guard, his efficiency would skyrocket along with his scoring volume. He's got all of the aggression and physical talents required to fill the kind of role that does Amare for Phoenix: set screen, peel off, move hard to the basket and cram in someone's grill. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But Atlanta, like Charlotte, suffers from bad coaching (and worse, a terribly stupid and stubborn front office). If there were any brains between Woodson's head, Bibby and Smith would be pick-and-rolling the Hell out of opposition teams on as many possessions as was humanly possible. Too, he would actually let them RUN, instead of being a grinder-ball coach with a team full of transition athletes. Woodson is the worst coach in the league right now, that's hurting Smith (his development and his present level of production).

[/soapbox]

Just thought I'd add my $0.02 because of my familiarity with both teams.

[walkingart]

Poor coaching or not, if you believe Josh Smith to be in the same realm of talent as Amare you are either high or (Please Use More Appropriate Word). Could he lead the league in dunks and improve both his shooting % and PPG numbers, absolutely. Can he step out and hit a 20 foot jumper, like Amare, and put up the same numbers? Not a chance. When it comes to numbers salary wise, the league has killed itself, by overpaying guys. Is Smith worth the max, no. Are there other guys who have gotten the max that he is better than or has more potential than, yes. This is karma on the Hawks for the whole JJ debacle. The way the salary cap is structerd it is not feasable for EVERY team to have a max guy. There are only a few players in the league that bring enough to the table to take that large a chunk of the teams salary and still be able to remain competitive year in and year out. Look at the Suns and Mavs; they don't have the ability to go out and sign anyone of notable importance because they don't have the ability because of the cap. Hell, Kidd comes off the books next year and the Mavs are still going to be over the cap, with only a MLE to use. The Hawks are in a unique spot in that if they lock Smith up, it doesn't really hurt their cap number for the future. However, they are also in a unique spot inn that they don't sell out their arena and make the revenue necessary to go over the cap this year. They are in a tough spot with this one, if they could garner enough talent back in a two for one deal I would probably do a sign and trade. With or without him, they are a borderline playoff team especially with the improvement made by the Bucks, and the addition of Beasley to the Heat. Not to mention that Chicago was a playoff team with virtually the same team they have now just a few years ago. And I wouldn't count out the Knicks and their offensive guru either. And I haven't even hit the Bobcats yet.

Okafor is a little different to me, while he doesn't have a huge offensive repetoir, he is efficient at what he does do offensively. He also is great at all the intangibles, I don't know if he wants the max per say, but something closer to $12 to $13 million per season seams fair to me. With good coaching, the Bobcats should make huge strides this year.

All that said and it just hit me, if I were these teams I would dole out 3 year deals with a team option for a fourth. Give them the max, just don't commit to it for 6 years. If they don't live up to expectatioins, you are not left holding the bag.

[Miklo]

All that said and it just hit me, if I were these teams I would dole out 3 year deals with a team option for a fourth. Give them the max, just don't commit to it for 6 years. If they don't live up to expectatioins, you are not left holding the bag.

+1.

I agree with those who say Okafor is not overvalued; my hometown is in NC and I'll be the first to say the Bobcats system and organization as a whole has been an absolute nightmare (especially if you consider the terms on which the Hornets left, you have to come into Charlotte and put a good product out there with more community effort than just throwing a couple UNC coaches and players on the roster - but I digress). At this point in time, Okafor is easily worth 12-13 at the least. His potential isn't anywhere near tapped, and he already looks good even so.

tsherkin I agree JSmoove looks a lot better when you realize he is a PF than when you have the misconception that he is a SF. And I know you were just saying he could fill an Amare type role, not that he has Amare type talent but I just want to make sure that distinction is clear. Not worth more than 9.

[JohnVancouver]

^ ...we have a steal in EVERY one of our players except for SHAQ. Barbs is one of the most bargain players in the league though, other than Anthony Parker.

-Always glad to see some love for AP.

[tsherkin]

Poor coaching or not, if you believe Josh Smith to be in the same realm of talent as Amare you are either high or (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

I'll thank you to keep your insinuations of inebriation and intellectual deficiency to yourself, as I am neither under the influence of narcotics nor especially unintelligent.

Could he lead the league in dunks and improve both his shooting % and PPG numbers, absolutely. Can he step out and hit a 20 foot jumper, like Amare, and put up the same numbers? Not a chance.

Could Amare when he was drafted or in his first 20 ppg season?

Can Amare display the same kind of post footwork Smith has developed?

Not a chance.

Don't be so quick to dismiss Smith when you are clearly largely uninformed as to the basic nature of his off-season workouts these past years. Do remember that he's a four-year vet who is a markedly superior defender, a comparable rebounder and just as athletic.

Amare is a godawful waste of skin as a defender, and he is a comparatively average (but not mediocre) rebounder for the most part. He can explode for big rebounding numbers when he so desires in a playoff matchup but he is generally lazy on the glass and that's showcased primarily on the offensive end (defensively, the alternate presence of Shaq or Marion has certainly limited his chances there).

He took time to develop his jumper (it took two off-seasons dedicated explicitly to improving his jumper for him to get to the level he displayed in the 04-05 season, his third in the league) and that's time Smith has spent more on learning how to be a power forward who can score in the post and impact a game as a help defender (neither of which are Amare's strengths).

Could Smith, given time and a coach-led imperative to work on his J (which Smith loves to use anyway) improve his shooting ability? Absolutely.

So again, don't be so hasty with your broad generalizations about Josh's game; you don't know what you're talking about and it shows.

Okafor is a little different to me, while he doesn't have a huge offensive repetoir, he is efficient at what he does do offensively. He also is great at all the intangibles, I don't know if he wants the max per say, but something closer to $12 to $13 million per season seams fair to me. With good coaching, the Bobcats should make huge strides this year.

Actually, he has a fairly significant offensive repertoire that grows each offseason he spends training at Olajuwon's big man camp but when you're only given so many opportunities to shoot the ball, you don't see enough situations to warrant the use of your full array of offensive moves.

And yes, with Larry Brown around (presuming Brown decides to make use of Okafor instead of the comparatively inefficient perimeter scoring options), Emeka should take a step forward as an offensive force. I could see 18-20 ppg on about 48% FG if he was given enough shots and obviously, I'd expect a regression to the mean in his defensive abilities, probably over 2 blocks per game again.

All that said and it just hit me, if I were these teams I would dole out 3 year deals with a team option for a fourth. Give them the max, just don't commit to it for 6 years. If they don't live up to expectatioins, you are not left holding the bag.

And in a fantasy world, I'd like to return Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to prime physical form and throw him on the floor with Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Dennis Rodman and Michael Jordan but it's not going to happen. You're never going to get a player at that stage of his career with those resumes and physical abilities to commit to a deal like that unless the guy doesn't actually want to stay in the city that's signing him and it's an extension rather than a deal (or if you have major leverage, which is not the case with a team trying to draw a FA to their city).

[walkingart]

Saying Josh Smith is going to develop a jump shot is like saying Shaq is going to improve his free throw shooting, no matter how you look at it, its not going to happen. Post players who can rebound, defend and dunk are a dime a dozen. Where as PF's who can put up 30PPG without dunking or scoring inside come along once every twenty years.

You are right about one thing though, I am uninformed about Josh Smith's offseason workout. But that aside, name to me a player who was as poor a shooter after four seasons in the league as Josh Smith is, who was able to develop a jump shot from 20 feet.

Okafor, 48% from the field, quite the prediction; If he were a guard. If he really was an offensive hidden gem, he would be able to shoot better from the field.

And I never mentioned Narcotics, high could be any drug, from marijuana to caffeine. Maybe you are the type of guy who puts down 3 cups of starbucks coffee a day (nine times the recommended dose of caffeine) or maybe you are the guy who gets a little snippy without his cigarette break; who knows. To jump straight to narcotics is odd to say the least.

As far as your intelligence, that is relative. To call someone (Please Use More Appropriate Word) who is obviously not (Please Use More Appropriate Word), is not an attack on ones intelligence but rather one specific action. And it is my strong belief that anyone who compares Amare to Josh Smith is lacking clarity to say the least.

To argue that Josh Smith's strengths as a player make him as valuable as Amare is another thing all the same. Players excell at different aspects of the game, Amare's strength is putting the ball in the hole; Josh's strength is keeping the ball out of the hole. Unfortunately for both of them, there strengths are also translated to the [*]opposite[*] end of the court just as easily.

Who would think a player would ever sign a three year deal, hmm, I don't know where that would ever happen. Maybe we can ask Lebron, Dwayne Wade, or Derron Williams if they know anyone who do something like that.

[tsherkin]

Saying Josh Smith is going to develop a jump shot is like saying Shaq is going to improve his free throw shooting, no matter how you look at it, its not going to happen. Post players who can rebound, defend and dunk are a dime a dozen. Where as PF's who can put up 30PPG without dunking or scoring inside come along once every twenty years.

This is a confused statement.

1) Smith is a lot younger and a lot more perimeter-oriented than Shaq.
2) Amare's situation is considerably different than Smith's because of team talented, FO quality and coaching, so comparing them by raw statistical averages if not only inaccurate and non-rigorous but foolish

You are right about one thing though, I am uninformed about Josh Smith's offseason workout. But that aside, name to me a player who was as poor a shooter after four seasons in the league as Josh Smith is, who was able to develop a jump shot from 20 feet.

Sam Perkins... Magic Johnson was pretty shaky early on (strong at the line but shaky with his feet set past 15 feet and certainly while moving).

Okafor, 48% from the field, quite the prediction; If he were a guard. If he really was an offensive hidden gem, he would be able to shoot better from the field.

This is straight-up dumb; Garnett and Duncan have both shot that percentage (and worse, in Garnett's case); would you attack them for that as well? 48% is within the acceptable range for a post-scoring big man if he's a finesse player rather than a power-post player. Don't be silly. He's not Dwight Howard or Shaq and doesn't have the benefit of a Steve Nash. Even a guy like Ewing shot 48% (and lower, be times) while scoring 22+ ppg in a few years. It's a sound percentage and it's not at all poor of performance if the guy's taking a big leap in shot volume.

And I never mentioned Narcotics, high could be any drug, from marijuana to caffeine. Maybe you are the type of guy who puts down 3 cups of starbucks coffee a day (nine times the recommended dose of caffeine) or maybe you are the guy who gets a little snippy without his cigarette break; who knows. To jump straight to narcotics is odd to say the least.

I don't drink coffee and I don't smoke, actually. Implying that I am in anyway affected by some kind of drug, be it caffeine, marijuana or whatever, is insulting and indemnifying of your own person.

More to the point, narcotics are addictive drugs that reduce pain and/or alter mood and/or behavior; both caffeine and nicotine are that, so you're attempt to play the semantic angle failed.

As far as your intelligence, that is relative. To call someone (Please Use More Appropriate Word) who is obviously not (Please Use More Appropriate Word), is not an attack on ones intelligence but rather one specific action. And it is my strong belief that anyone who compares Amare to Josh Smith is lacking clarity to say the least.

Actually to call anyone '(Please Use More Appropriate Word)' outside of the initial meaning of the word (which means literally held back by some deficiency in intellectual capacity) is indicative of poor understanding of the word and a rather ironic usage in and of itself.

More importantly, whether you feel I 'lack clarity' or not is irrelevant in the face of certain immutable truths about the two players involved in the comparison and the situations in which they play basketball. It is exceedingly crass to insult another person's level of clarity simply because you disagree, especially when they are armed with objective information in tandem with qualitative data that supports their arugment, an argument they have presented in a coherent form.

To argue that Josh Smith's strengths as a player make him as valuable as Amare is another thing all the same. Players excell at different aspects of the game, Amare's strength is putting the ball in the hole; Josh's strength is keeping the ball out of the hole. Unfortunately for both of them, there strengths are also translated to the [*]opposite[*] end of the court just as easily.

Who would think a player would ever sign a three year deal, hmm, I don't know where that would ever happen. Maybe we can ask Lebron, Dwayne Wade, or Derron Williams if they know anyone who do something like that.

Paying attention is a fine thing, but since you didn't, I'll revist the portion of my comment where I talked about an EXTENSION rather than a deal. There is, of course, a typo in my comment where I used 'and' instead of 'or' and for that I apologize but I was at work on my lunch break and did not have a great length of time to examine my response in-depth.

Lebron, Wade and Deron are all examples of extensions. Smith is an RFA who will either get the contract he wants (from ATL for from a team that ATL decides not to match), will sign a QO or will take a S+T. There is no scenario where he will sacrifice security over the max length of the deal he is pursuing if his agent isn't a complete tool. It would make no sense.

Lebron and the others signed shorter extensions to give themselves room to leave their cities and pursue bigger deals. Smith is already looking to leave and wants the security of a long-term, lucrative deal and it's not an extension of his rookie deal.

Revisiting the earliest portion of the post, discussing Josh Smith as a man incapable of developing a jumper is blatantly ignorant of fact; this is not a guy who has spent time working on his jumper, he's been working on defense and turning himself into a power forward. No one is saying he is going to miraculously transform himself into Steve Nash but if you feel he is incapable of improving upon his jumper sufficiently to make himself a credible threat from the mid-range zones, then you are deluding yourself. Providing the work ethic is there, anyone can (at any age) develop a decent set jumper. Smith may always struggle with a jumper off the dribble but that can be worked around easily enough.

This is especially true because of the basic nature of the shots Smith would be taking.

You're talking about set jumpers popping on screens, catch-and-shoots at the elbows, along the baseline, at the foul line, top of the circle, then set shots from 3. All of these are primarily threes with his feet set or curling around a screen (where you plant and go up anyway), which means he's looking at the most comparatively easy types of jumpshots one can take in the NBA, the stuff you create off-ball.

These are simple shots, relatively speaking, compared to taking a shot off of a dribble move or pulling up from a slashing action to the hoop. You get to set your feet, square your shoulders and have an time-insulation against a defender closing out on you, which makes it easier to get into your proper shot motion.

This is basic stuff, man, really basic stuff.

If he puts in a couple of seasons of work on the J (even a single dedicated off-season is sufficient to begin development), then yes, absolutely, even after 4 years in the league (which is patently irrelevant to player development, certainly this kind), he will be able to noticeably improve his jumpshooting ability.

Remember that he's contending with increased shot volume, increased defensive attention and the pressure that goes along with being counted upon for a greater portion of the scoring load. It takes time to develop a skill and it's hard to do so while splitting time developing other skills.

The man's 22, 23 years old; at this stage of their lives, the bulk of NBA players of the past 6 decades were just finishing college, where they spent 4 years developing their games in one fashion or another... or they just finished their rookie seasons and have lots of work to do.

This is not the portrait of a player without the wherewithal to take advantage of his upside.

[walkingart]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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. The players you mentioned were known and are known to taking an abundance of jump shots, thus lowering there FG%. I 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. 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.

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.

[tsherkin]

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.

[Frank Lee]

[walkingart]

The odds are absolutely against him becoming a weapon of Amare's caliber.

I am glad you agree with me on the basis of my entire argument while still calling it ignorant.

I am looking at the statistics as far as it relates to the odds of Smith becoming Amare's equal offensively; not whether or not he has the physical ability to do so or not. That is where our ideology differs. While you think that he has the tools and work ethic to develop into a more diverse player, I see it as a long shot at best. I am not ignoring the basketball knowledge, I believe you are ignoring it.

I know there are many players who have become better shooters throuhgout their careers, ie. Magic, Jordan, Pippen. But for every Jordan and Magic, there are a million Josh Smith's. I also believe it is easier to develop defensive and low post skill for PF's than it is to develop specific skills such as shooting and passing which is why there are not many players of Amare's size and strength who can stretch the defense with their shot.

You act as if it is SO easy to develop an outside jump shot, yet there are far more center's and power forward's in the league who do not have a consistent shot than those who do. Magic Johnson's overall skill set, level of coordination and IMO drive are so far beyond Josh Smith it doesn't even deserve recognition. As far as Perkins, he is a good example of repition and practice, I can except that; but how many more PF/C have played the game that never became good outside shooters.

I must also add that when I have seen Duncan play, he has taken far more than 2 jumpshots per game(I am not excluding his mid range jumpers). Considering a 10 to 12 foot jumper with a hand in your face as Duncan takes regularly is not the easiest shot to make either. A matter of fact, I have seen Duncan go off numerous times against the Suns, putting up 30+ points and doing all of if with exceptional defense being played against him, regardless of where on the court he is taking his shots from, they are difficult shots with a lower chance of conversion. And the same would be said of Ewing. These are shots that if Okafor was taking them, I would not be happy about it, nor will Larry Brown, because he is not Duncan or Ewing. On a team with Wallace and JRich he should not be taking shots that are of a high difficulty, however, in the times I have watched the Bobcats play, he has been extremely under utilized and on the basis of getting more touches he will get more shots, and they should be good shots with a high degree of conversion. I see Okafor more in the mold of a Robert Parrish, than a Duncan or Ewing. I do not believe it takes stats to watch a guy play and say he is reminiscent of this player or that player, although you can look at stats of players gone by and compare them with the potential of the younger player.

I am not ignoring your points or analysis, I simply feel that the likely hood of them coming to fruition is not very good.

Now to narcotics, I don't really care to accept the average person's ignorance on the topic and therefore their inclusions of specific drugs which are not medically recognized as narcots. I acknowledge it exists, but just because a large percentage of people hold something to be true does not make it so. Does popular opinion determine truth?

[tsherkin]

I am glad you agree with me on the basis of my entire argument while still calling it ignorant.

I'm not calling the belief that it won't happen ignorant; I'm saying it is ignorant to categorically deny the possibility and to do so whilst ignoring the advantages enjoyed by Amare en route to his development into the player who's virtues you are extolling.

I am looking at the statistics as far as it relates to the odds of Smith becoming Amare's equal offensively; not whether or not he has the physical ability to do so or not. That is where our ideology differs. While you think that he has the tools and work ethic to develop into a more diverse player, I see it as a long shot at best. I am not ignoring the basketball knowledge, I believe you are ignoring it.

You're talking about a set jumper out to 17 feet or so, that's the major difference in their skill sets as far as scoring is concerned. The other major difference is that he is not involved in an up-tempo system with heavy emphasis on the high sidescreen in the secondary break, run by a point guard with astonishing three-point shooting ability and passing acumen. Mike Woodson is a terrible coach running a slow-paced team that doesn't take advantage of his athletes very well at all.

I know there are many players who have become better shooters throuhgout their careers, ie. Magic, Jordan, Pippen. But for every Jordan and Magic, there are a million Josh Smith's. I also believe it is easier to develop defensive and low post skill for PF's than it is to develop specific skills such as shooting and passing which is why there are not many players of Amare's size and strength who can stretch the defense with their shot.

*nod*

Smith is already a better passer than Amare will ever be, so I don't know why you brought that up. The shooting is a legitimate concern, of course, but it is not that hard to drill basic mid-range shooting skills into a player, it's basically just repetition and the watchful eye of someone who understands shooting mechanics. Even Magic managed to turn himself into a pretty nasty shooter using his fugly set-foot shotput. And low post skills (at least, of any kind of quality) are actually much harder to develop than a jump shot because they require read-and-react skills and the use of non-repetitive motions in many scenarios. A jumper of the type Amare uses is basically the same every time he takes it. Same motion, same set up, same mechanics. It doesn't involve worrying about different uses for each hand the same way, it doesn't require more than basic footwork, etc, etc.

You act as if it is SO easy to develop an outside jump shot, yet there are far more center's and power forward's in the league who do not have a consistent shot than those who do. Magic Johnson's overall skill set, level of coordination and IMO drive are so far beyond Josh Smith it doesn't even deserve recognition.

Yes, Magic's a top-5, top-6 player. But no, it is not a big issue to learn how to shoot from outside. It's why basically every European player learns to shoot out to around the international three with at least basic competence (competence obviously being a relative and subjective term, we're talking about "can make an open shot" versus "can stick a turnaround fallaway with a hand in his face").

It's all a matter of training and dedication. You don't have to be THAT dedicated; if you put up a couple hundred shots a day, you'll eventually turn yourself into a respectable mid-range set shooter and be capable of planting and elevating off of a screen to score on that jumper. It's one of the most basic elements of basketball fundamentals and not that hard to develop.

Now, an NBA three-point shot is an entirely different story, and that's fine. Many players who are outstanding mid-range shooters cannot effectively shoot the 3 at more than the high-20s or very low 30s (Wade, Grant Hill, etc). But you start with pocket threes, which are shorter (think Bruce Bowen, who can't hit FTs over 65.2% but shoots over 39% from downtown on his career) and move up from there to straightaway threes (which are generally the highest-percentage 3 for most players besides the shorter corner 3s) and see what happens. Reducing your attempts and trying to get better looks without rushing will help.

As far as Perkins, he is a good example of repition and practice, I can except that; but how many more PF/C have played the game that never became good outside shooters.

Clifford Robinson comes to mind; he wasn't any good from downtown until his 6th season.

And mind that Smith is a combo forward, not a forward/center.

You might conceivably even mention Dirk, who wasn't any good upon hitting the NBA as a shooter and developed over a few short years. He obviously had the mechanics and such pre-done, however, and was more at issue with age, physical preparation and confidence, so maybe he's a bad example.

Antawn Jamison's development into a three-point shooter of some skill, etc.

For every example of a PF who didn't shoot well from downtown, there is a comparable (and usually modern) example of a player who was discarded primarily because he spent too much time outside (Charlie V comes to mind). An outside shooting PF is actually not all that rare.

Horace Grant? Kurt Thomas? Not big-time range guys, certainly no three-point snipers, but capable out to around 17 feet. Karl Malone (and he sucked BIG-TIME as a shooter when he came into the league, though obviously his attention to training is fairly legendary).

Shawn Kemp, Detlef Schrempf to some extent, David Robinson, mid-range jump shooting is the easiest skill to pick up for in-game use besides perfunctory open passing.

I must also add that when I have seen Duncan play, he has taken far more than 2 jumpshots per game(I am not excluding his mid range jumpers). Considering a 10 to 12 foot jumper with a hand in your face as Duncan takes regularly is not the easiest shot to make either. A matter of fact, I have seen Duncan go off numerous times against the Suns, putting up 30+ points and doing all of if with exceptional defense being played against him, regardless of where on the court he is taking his shots from, they are difficult shots with a lower chance of conversion. And the same would be said of Ewing.

Yeah, he faces up a fair bit and I acknowledged that but again, you're talking about a guy who's shot selection but mind that I said he took 2 jumpers a game outside of 15 feet. I don't consider mid-range jumpers to really make a jump-shooting big, especially when he's primarily concerned with scoring down low. 82games.com records him having 55% of his attempts be jumpers and that actually includes hook shots and short jumpers as well as the longer stuff; that's a very low percentage. Not, you know, Shaq low but that's because Duncan isn't limited to 12 feet of scoring range.

These are shots that if Okafor was taking them, I would not be happy about it, nor will Larry Brown, because he is not Duncan or Ewing.

Sure, I agree, there are absolutely shots that Duncan or Ewing take or took that are outside of Okafor's skill range, but those are also guys who are consistently over 20 ppg because they are higher-caliber scorers. My point in raising their names was more that there are many shots within Okafor's range and under lesser defensive pressure that those guys take that are farther away from the basket, and that they are obliged to take them because of improved defensive attention not necessarily man-on but in terms of denial of sweet spots and defenders pinching in from the perimeter to crowd the post, so they make cross-cuts to other spots that leave them a step or three back, etc.

On a team with Wallace and JRich he should not be taking shots that are of a high difficulty, however, in the times I have watched the Bobcats play, he has been extremely under utilized and on the basis of getting more touches he will get more shots, and they should be good shots with a high degree of conversion.

I would much rather Okafor taking the difficult shots than Wallace, and certainly moreso than Richardson, who has a weak handle and is primarily a set shooter with underutilized athleticism.

I see Okafor more in the mold of a Robert Parrish, than a Duncan or Ewing. I do not believe it takes stats to watch a guy play and say he is reminiscent of this player or that player, although you can look at stats of players gone by and compare them with the potential of the younger player.

Parish was a fairly noted mid-range shooter, though. Most of his offense aside from put-backs came on short jumpers created for him by others; the Bobcats enjoy no such luxury, because Wallace and Richardson are not the shot-creator that was Bird or even DJ, and neither is a draw as significant as Kevin McHale. I know that's not your primary meaning, but Parish was considerably improved in efficiency in Boston over elsewhere in his career and in scoring volume, as well.

I don't think he's a very good example.

Now to narcotics, I don't really care to accept the average person's ignorance on the topic and therefore their inclusions of specific drugs which are not medically recognized as narcots. I acknowledge it exists, but just because a large percentage of people hold something to be true does not make it so. Does popular opinion determine truth?

It has nothing to do with popular opinion; you attempted to attack my usage of the word when I have full linguistic priviledge to use the word as it has been used historically and in the contemporary linguistic environment. The word 'narcotic' is not explicitly the invention of the United States or any Act associated with that nation. It's a word with a Greek root referring to benumbing or paralysis, thought to be invented by a man born in or around 129 AD, an ancient Greek physician.

Yes, the "U.S. legal definition" refers explicitly to those drugs you have named and yes, it is primarily used to refer to opium and its derivatives (in the legal context) but that definition does not hold precedence regarding the word's usage, it is merely one use of the word.

Outside of the United States of America, which is not the full expanse of human civilization, that legal definition is not the primary form of the word's usage. Instead, the definition I used is the most common form of the word. And since both caffeine and nicotine are capable of producing narcosis (blunting the senses) and are both clinically proven to be addictive substances ()though obviously not necessarily with the same potency of something like heroin), the usage stands.

It is not the "average person's ignorance on the topic," it is the usage of the word in its primary meaning across the globe.