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

ItsThatEasy · Post #1 » by **ItsThatEasy** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:40 pm

The SG boom of the 90's/00's has always been cool to me and these 3 had some pretty great all star years between them.

2000-2001 Jerry Stackhouse: 29.8 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 5.1 APG, 1.2 SPG, 40 FG%, 35 3P%

1999-2000 Michael Finley: 22.6 PPG, 6.3 RPG, 5.3 APG, 1.3 SPG, 45 FG%, 40 3P%

1999-2000 Eddie Jones: 20.1 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 4.2 APG, 2.7 SPG, 42 FG%, 37 3P%

Which of these SG's would you rather have on your team?
Do you think you could successfully build around any of them?

SHAQ32 · Post #2 » by **SHAQ32** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:45 pm

1. Eddie Jones
2. Michael Finley
3. Jerry Stackhouse

EJ was the closest to being a guy you could build around. He was the best player on the 2000 Hornets and they came within a game of winning 50 games. Teams must have saw him as one at the time because he got that huge contract that summer. I remember thinking I wouldn't be mad if the Magic struck out on Hill (ankle) and McGrady and ended up with Eddie Jones. I was a big fan of his.

ronnymac2 · Post #3 » by **ronnymac2** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:48 pm

They all suck as the man. Jones is clearly the best player overall. Great as a 3rd scorer, unselfish, excellent defense. Stackhouse is great at putting up shiny garbage stats. Finley was solid but wasn't the defender Jones was. More creative scorer though, I'll give him that.

Jones
Finley
Stack

ItsThatEasy · Post #4 » by **ItsThatEasy** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:54 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:They all suck as the man. Jones is clearly the best player overall. Great as a 3rd scorer, unselfish, excellent defense. Stackhouse is great at putting up shiny garbage stats. Finley was solid but wasn't the defender Jones was. More creative scorer though, I'll give him that.

Jones
Finley
Stack

Any player you would replace Stack with to make for a more competitive group? Allan Houston? Sprewell?

justinian · Post #5 » by **justinian** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:57 pm

You should include: Ray Allen, Vince Carter

ItsThatEasy · Post #6 » by **ItsThatEasy** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:00 pm

justinian wrote:You should include: Ray Allen, Vince Carter

This is more of the middle of the road guys who had their moments. Vince and Ray are both going to end up as Hall of Famers more than likely.

ronnymac2 · Post #7 » by **ronnymac2** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:00 pm

ItsThatEasy wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:They all suck as the man. Jones is clearly the best player overall. Great as a 3rd scorer, unselfish, excellent defense. Stackhouse is great at putting up shiny garbage stats. Finley was solid but wasn't the defender Jones was. More creative scorer though, I'll give him that.

Jones
Finley
Stack

Any player you would replace Stack with to make for a more competitive group? Allan Houston? Sprewell?

I think Stack belongs with this group, and I bet he ends up being first on some lists. He's just not what I would want from my shooting guard if I wanted to win a title.

Post #8 » by **Quotatious** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:11 pm

2000 Jones
2001 Stackhouse
2000 Finley

Like ronnymac said, all of them suck as "the man", but EJ is by far the best complementary player. He was an elite defender, the other two clearly weren't. Stackhouse over Finley because his numbers were simply better (raw stats, boxscore metrics and RAPM are all in Stack's favor).

justinian wrote:You should include: Ray Allen, Vince Carter

No, Allen and Carter are much better than any of these guys. They were legitimate superstars at their peaks, the other three were just all-stars. I actually rank Allen and Carter as the 4th and 5th best players in the league in 2001 (both IMO peaked in '01), after Shaq, Duncan and Kobe. Carter's regular season was great (better than Kobe's, IMO, especially taking missed games into account - VC played 7 more games than KB, but Bryant more than makes up for it in the playoffs). Allen had a fantastic playoff run, improved his numbers across the board (it may be the most underrated playoff run of the 2000s).

ItsThatEasy · Post #9 » by **ItsThatEasy** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:50 pm

Quotatious wrote:2000 Jones
2001 Stackhouse
2000 Finley

Like ronnymac said, all of them suck as "the man", but EJ is by far the best complementary player. He was an elite defender, the other two clearly weren't. Stackhouse over Finley because his numbers were simply better (raw stats, boxscore metrics and RAPM are all in Stack's favor).

Interesting, I really didn't expect EJ to get so much love. I was a huge fan when EJ, Van Exel and Kobe were running up and down floor together.

Post #10 » by **Timmaytime** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:52 pm

ItsThatEasy wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote:They all suck as the man. Jones is clearly the best player overall. Great as a 3rd scorer, unselfish, excellent defense. Stackhouse is great at putting up shiny garbage stats. Finley was solid but wasn't the defender Jones was. More creative scorer though, I'll give him that.

Jones
Finley
Stack

Any player you would replace Stack with to make for a more competitive group? Allan Houston? Sprewell?

Rip Hamilton maybe?

etopn23 · Post #11 » by **etopn23** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:42 pm

Finley IMO was the best of the three. He took a step back so that Dirk and Nash could shine but he would have been a perennial all-star on pretty much every other team. The thing I never could understand about Finley was what in the world happened to his handles? He was actually a great slasher in his early years - then he just fell off a cliff after '03 I think?

GYK · Post #12 » by **GYK** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:12 pm

These particular seasons
Eddie
Jerry
Finely

Careers
Jerry/Finely
Eddie(looked on more favorable in retrospect as a elite 3D. He and Glen kinda personify what you want from the position.)

Post #13 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:39 pm

etopn23 wrote:Finley IMO was the best of the three. He took a step back so that Dirk and Nash could shine but he would have been a perennial all-star on pretty much every other team. The thing I never could understand about Finley was what in the world happened to his handles? He was actually a great slasher in his early years - then he just fell off a cliff after '03 I think?

Fin was great at putting up big counting numbers on some bad Dallas teams, but if he was your best player you were never going anywhere. Dallas improved when Nash and Dirk took primacy and improved even more when it was all about Dirk. Fin was a very good player, but his lack of perimeter defense makes him even a tough choice as a 3rd best guy on a contender.

Heck of a guy and a pretty nice offensive player. But not a guy you could build around. Neither were Stack or Jones, but if I could have one of them to be a 3rd banana I'd take Jones then Fin, and I wouldn't want Stack at all. Just doesn't do enough outside of inefficient volume scoring and his lack of shooting makes it impossible to slide him into even being a useful role player. Just a very overrated player based on being on some bad teams.

Post #14 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:49 am

I know jones will pretty much be the consensus here, and he was certainly underrated back then, but I'd put finley ahead of stackhouse easily. I think slighting him for putting up good #s on a bad team is a little overstated. When Nash and dirk started to hit their stride, Finley was closer to the end of his prime. If they came around a few yrs earlier, those mavs teams would've been even more dangerous. And with regards to stackhouse, Finley on average was just a smarter player and better defender.

Biddy77 · Post #15 » by **Biddy77** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:50 am

You could build a defense around EJ, but no winning offense around any guy in this group.

If I had to have one of these guys as my go to, I'd take EJ and hope to catch a top tier scorer in the draft or free agency. I'd rather grow with him than with anyone else in that group.

Post #16 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:36 am

In terms of career value, Stackhouse is more competitive with Jim Jackson; I agree that Rip would be a closer comp to Eddie Jones or Michael Finley. Of course, my team traded a young Hamilton for a mid career Stackhouse because Michael Jordan's ego wanted to win now (and of course, like so many Bullets/Wiz trades, Rip was better than Stack pretty close to immediately and for a long time thereafter).

Post #17 » by **tsherkin** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:42 pm

Stackhouse is clearly the worst player here. His peak is a classic example of low-impact volume.

Post #18 » by **Quotatious** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:51 pm

tsherkin wrote:Stackhouse is clearly the worst player here. His peak is a classic example of low-impact volume.

His advanced stats for 2001 weren't that bad. 21.8 PER, 13.7 WS/48, 3.7 BPM (including +5.3 on offense, top 10 in the league), 4.6 VORP are pretty decent numbers, and he was a positive impact player according to RAPM (+1.3 on offense in NPI). His team's ORtg was much higher with him on the floor (101.2 with him, 94.6 without him).

He clearly wasn't the absolute crap that you think he was.

Finley's numbers are clearly worse than Stack's.

Post #19 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:08 pm

Quotatious wrote:
tsherkin wrote:Stackhouse is clearly the worst player here. His peak is a classic example of low-impact volume.

His advanced stats for 2001 weren't that bad. 21.8 PER, 13.7 WS/48, 3.7 BPM (including +5.3 on offense, top 10 in the league), 4.6 VORP are pretty decent numbers, and he was a positive impact player according to RAPM (+1.3 on offense in NPI). His team's ORtg was much higher with him on the floor (101.2 with him, 94.6 without him).

He clearly wasn't the absolute crap that you think he was.

Finley's numbers are clearly worse than Stack's.

I think what a lot of us are saying is that Finley fits into a good team better than Stackhouse and that we don't see much value in him being slightly more effective statistically (advanced or boxscore) on a bad team.

Because I agree Stackhouse has better 1st option skills than Jones or Finley have--I mean in this season you are touting he took almost 2000 shots at 40% shooting while leading the league in turnovers. I mean really how useful is this?

Post #20 » by **tsherkin** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:09 pm

Quotatious wrote:
tsherkin wrote:Stackhouse is clearly the worst player here. His peak is a classic example of low-impact volume.

His advanced stats for 2001 weren't that bad. 21.8 PER, 13.7 WS/48, 3.7 BPM (including +5.3 on offense, top 10 in the league), 4.6 VORP are pretty decent numbers, and he was a positive impact player according to RAPM (+1.3 on offense in NPI). His team's ORtg was much higher with him on the floor (101.2 with him, 94.6 without him).

He clearly wasn't the absolute crap that you think he was.

Finley's numbers are clearly worse than Stack's.

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

Meantime, he played on the 6th-worst offense in the league for 40 mpg. Stuff like Win Shares and what-not were inevitable based on the involvement he had. The Pistons were a 32-win team, and we're talking about a 52.1%/104 ORTG guy in a league environment of 103.0 and 51.8%. Marginally above average on huge usage. That's a classic example of how not to arrange your offense, and his bulk usage at that threshold didn't do for the Pistons any serious good, because they still blew offensively. They were 8th on D, and that had comparatively little to do with Stackhouse, and much more with Ben Wallace.

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

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

Jones was a lot more useful because of his two-way play and range. Finley, yeah, he wasn't a stunner himself, but he was a more productive and efficient individual... and no one ever made the mistake of saying "yeah, you, go ahead and try for 30 per night!"

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