Crawford Is Improving

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The past 4 games the Wizards played POR, SAS, NYK, and MIA.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... elog/2013/

Over those four games Jordan Crawford scored 19, 19, 17, and 22 points. He shot 30-63 FG (.476), 5-15 3PT (.333), 12-15 FT (.800). He had 13 AST and only 4 TO over 4 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... fjo02.html

Crawford's PER is 16.5, up from 12.5. Jordan Crawford's WS/48 is .60, roughly twice as good as last year. His rebounding and assist have improved. His eFG has also improved.

http://www.82games.com/1213/12WAS5.HTM

However, prior to last night's game, the Wizards were -13.1 points per 48 minutes worse with Jordan on the court than off.

I think he has improved and I will now evaluate him with a clean slate.

[Nivek]

PER is a waste of time because a player can improve his PER simply by shooting more frequently even if he's shooting less than 30% from the floor.

That said, I see symptoms of improvement from Crawford -- specifically rebounding and assists. He's not quite as shot-focused as he's previously been, although he's always been willing to pass.

THAT said, Crawford still is not a good defender.

He's better, but still solidly below average.

Also, we're still in Small Sample Size Theater with him -- just 373 minutes so far this season.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The Wizards give up quite a few more points per 100 possessions when Crawford is on the court. It could be from the quick shots. Also, they commit a lot more fouls with Jordan on the court.

In fairness, Crawford has been asked to play some of his minutes at PG. I have generally nothing good to say about Crawford but this season he has stepped up his game. What that means for the Wizards moving forward?

We will find out with more minutes for Crawford, barring a trade.

[Nivek]

I haven't seen anything from Crawford to fundamentally change the overall evaluation. He's still not a guy who's going to help a team win. He can get there, of course, but he needs to get better on defense and he needs to become a lot more efficient on offense.

"Better" in his case means he's above replacement level in my stuff, but still solidly below average. And that after a hot start. His offensive efficiency is at a career high for him, and he's below average.

[dandridge 10]

I think Crawford has improved (so far). I am not going to say he will ever be a starting caliber SG, but I have always thought he could develop into a nice 6-7 man if he reined in his shot jacking and improved his decisionmaking. I can understand why people have expressed concerns about him. However, I never quite understood why so many people were ready to write him off at such an early age, especially when they preached patience with almost every other young player the Wizards have had. I hope Crawford continues to improve. I like his confidence and moxy.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I wrote him off and now think I did so prematurely. Nivek is probably right, per usual.

Still, the last few games he's played with a different group of players and Jordan Crawford has added efficiency to his swagger. I'm looking to see if he can keep this up. His game scores are very erratic. Kind of Juan Dixon-esque. But the trend with him is creeping upward.

I know he should not be starting but his play off the bench has been pretty solid. I am going to wait and see with JC. I didn't think he had this much improvement in him. Let's see what else he does from here.

[GhostsOfGil]

Something I've noticed that seems to go unmentioned is Crawford's defensive intensity. He's relentless at fighting through picks. He may not have the physical tools to stop dribble penetration from bigger guards but his effort is consistently strong.

[dandridge 10]

I haven't seen anything from Crawford to fundamentally change the overall evaluation. He's still not a guy who's going to help a team win. He can get there, of course, but he needs to get better on defense and he needs to become a lot more efficient on offense.

"Better" in his case means he's above replacement level in my stuff, but still solidly below average. And that after a hot start. His offensive efficiency is at a career high for him, and he's below average.

Kevin, can you do the same kind of analysis that you did for Beal but for Crawford? I know Crawford is older than Beal, but Crawford also didn't get any real playing time in his rookie year. I am curious why you don't have any concerns about Beal improving but you seem to be skeptical that Crawford will continue to improve. Is it just based on age and draft position or are there other reasons why you seem skeptical on Crawford?

I think Crawford's two biggest problems are his decision-making and his defense. I don't see why these 2 aspects can't continue to improve with good coaching and more hard work.

[Nivek]

I'll do something on Crawford when I get a chance. I'm on an airplane first thing tomorrow so it might be next week before I can get to it.

[dandridge 10]

I'll do something on Crawford when I get a chance. I'm on an airplane first thing tomorrow so it might be next week before I can get to it.

Thanks! Have a safe flight.

Oh, also, have you blogged yet about the reasons why Grunfeld should be fired? I know you have stated your various reasons in several posts on realgm, but was wondering if I can find all of your empirical evidence demonstrating that EG is a bad GM in one spot. I am considering writing a letter to Leonsis as a long time season ticket holder regarding this issue and want to load it with examples of mismanagement. I thought you might be able to save me some time.

BTW, the last time I wrote Leonsis, he responded by calling me personally (it helps that I have been a season ticket holder for 18 years). While there is probably a small chance that he will call me again, writing the letter will at least make me feel good. Who knows, I might strike gold twice.

[jivelikenice]

He's been better at times. Stating the obvious, but his game comes down to shot slection. When he settles early for long jumpers or dominates the ball for 24 seconds he's going to be inefficient. Against the Heat, except for a few brain cramps, he played a more efficient game. When he attacks the hoop and works the mid-range game, I have no issue with him...When he plays "hero ball", he's a big negative.

His defense does stink though. He does not exert the energy on offense that he does on defense and he doesn't focus in on his man.

[Knighthonor]

PER is a waste of time because a player can improve his PER simply by shooting more frequently even if he's shooting less than 30% from the floor.

That said, I see symptoms of improvement from Crawford -- specifically rebounding and assists. He's not quite as shot-focused as he's previously been, although he's always been willing to pass.

THAT said, Crawford still is not a good defender.

He's better, but still solidly below average.

Also, we're still in Small Sample Size Theater with him -- just 373 minutes so far this season.

OH COME ON!!

People like you have an excuse for everything, anytime one of the wizard's players improves.

chill out on the JC hate pal.

[tontoz]

Assist rates among 2s

Wade 18.9
Iggy 18.8
Crawford 18.7
Joe Johnson/Harden 17.6

That is pretty good company, especially considering that Crawford plays on the worst shooting team in the league.

[Ed Wood]

OH COME ON!!

People like you have an excuse for everything, anytime one of the wizard's players improves.

chill out on the JC hate pal.

Other than having no idea what this is about I'm still concerned that while Jordan has made some apparent strides he hasn't really improved in ways that make him a much better fit with Wall. He's still very good at being active, which is unfortunately more valuable on this roster than it should be because this is the rare roster that actually does struggle to cobble together a high enough usage volume, but that's probably going to be less of an issue with Wall. That still seems to leave us then with a player who's good at doing things (taking shots most notably) but not all that good at the things that he does (converting shots, coincidentally).

So we're again left with a player who provides a similar bouquet of skills as does Wall, but isn't as good and who has basically no synergy with Wall. That would be okay if he could be used as a bench option to keep the team running at a competent level without Wall (we've seen this year the problems inherent in building a team entirely around a core player and entirely non-functional without him) but then we come back around to his not being all that good.

So basically, as Kev said, it's nice that Jordan seems to be improving, and I'll root for him to keep doing so, but it remains hard to see how he fits into a really successful roster.

[queridiculo]

He almost managed to shoot us out of the game against the Heat with his patented shot jacking, so no, I don't think he's improved where he need to - his shot selection.

[DCZards]

Both the stats and the eye test say Crawford has improved. He still needs to be smarter about shot selection and his D needs to get better, but JC has clearly improved. How much better Crawford gets, particularly in those areas where he is a liability, remains to be seen. But I'm willing to be patient with a young player who plays with the toughness, heart and competitiveness that Crawford does. Those are attributes that I deeply value, especially in a pro athlete.

I totally disagree with those who suggest that JC can't be a contributor to a winning situation or that he can't mesh well with Wall. I like Crawford's potential as an outstanding 6th man for the Zards.

[pcbothwel]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... fja01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... fjo02.html

i find it quite interesting when comparing these two. especially considering Jamal was 2 years younger when he was drafted. If you compare his last year with CHI and 1st year with NYK, i see a lot of similarities. I think JC is worth hanging onto as the guy catches fire in a pivotal game 5/6 and leads you to a win ala Jamal Crawford, Jason Terry, etc. Those moments are hard to measure because those 15 minutes of dominance are hard to measure with advanced analytics direct correlation to success on the playoffs versus consistency on the regular season..

[Ed Wood]

I think JC is worth hanging onto as the guy catches fire in a pivotal game 5/6 and leads you to a win ala Jamal Crawford, Jason Terry, etc. Those moments are hard to measure because those 15 minutes of dominance are hard to measure with advanced analytics direct correlation to success on the playoffs versus consistency on the regular season..

Depending on something so patently unreliable to put the team over the top doesn't appeal, honestly. Why would metrics fail to capture the value of a player simply because that player is inconsistent?

If anything I'd think it'd be less useful than less variable production because with the later you can construct your roster and rotations with a more definite understanding of what that player gives you, doubly so if that production is both consistent and efficient.

This isn't a call to exile Jordan immediately (though I imagine that's a pretty appealing sentence) but to ask why, granting that current metrics aren't a perfect encapsulation of a player's value in any case, he should be exempt from being judged based on those statistical merits?

[pcbothwel]

I think JC is worth hanging onto as the guy catches fire in a pivotal game 5/6 and leads you to a win ala Jamal Crawford, Jason Terry, etc. Those moments are hard to measure because those 15 minutes of dominance are hard to measure with advanced analytics direct correlation to success on the playoffs versus consistency on the regular season..

Depending on something so patently unreliable to put the team over the top doesn't appeal, honestly. Why would metrics fail to capture the value of a player simply because that player is inconsistent?

If anything I'd think it'd be less useful than less variable production because with the later you can construct your roster and rotations with a more definite understanding of what that player gives you, doubly so if that production is both consistent and efficient.

This isn't a call to exile Jordan immediately (though I imagine that's a pretty appealing sentence) but to ask why, granting that current metrics aren't a perfect encapsulation of a player's value in any case, he should be exempt from being judged based on those statistical merits?

Where did i say not to judge him based on those metrics. i am an advocate of such analysis. Thats why I posted the comparison to Jamal Crawford. I was simply stating that Jordan has a pair on him and it would not shock me if he was the kind of guy who would go off on hot streak in a key playoff game. Im not telling you we should keep him because he is a bad player who may go off for one game, Im telling you he is an average player who is 24 and may go off in a playoff game.

I also believe if we had a competent offense he would not be as much of a shot jacker. Listen to his interviews when they ask about his mindset coming into the bench off the game. he clearly acknowledges that the team goes scoreless for 4-5 minutes and we need points to get us rolling. Let's look at his positves for a second:
-Scorer. Say what you will about certain metrics, but he can score in a variety of ways. he does so on average size and athleticism so you can tell he is savvy.
-Passing: He shows very natural feel for finding guys. While some of his passes are highlight worthy, they are not without substance. He shows a keen sense of the floor and angles in that regard.
-Heart: The guy plays with a chip on his shoulder(going to dunk on LBJ) and will take any shot at anytime while also getting in your face on Defense(even though he is not a good defender i like the attitude and believe he can improve ala JJ Reddick)

He has his flaws but he is paid cheaply and i would not trade him to get rid of him. i value him as a late lotto/mid 1st in any trade. I do not mind packaging him with someone like Booker, Okafor/Ariza, protected 1st for another piece however.

[payitforward]

Crawford's numbers are better this year than last, no doubt. So far.

If you look at the 3 key ball possession stats (rebounds, steals, turnovers), he hasn't changed much (more boards but also more turnovers and fewer steals), but the change is in the right direction. He's also a bit more efficient as a scorer (TS% up .02 from last year), and his assists are up as well.

Even over a small sample, it's better to see the improvement in several areas rather than one. And if a young player improves, that increases somewhat the chance that he'll continue to improve. Somewhat

Is he an average SG in the league? No. Below average, and in his third year. Is he likely to be an average SG in the league in his future? No.