Jamal Crawford

[Dupp]

He’s one of the guys in the league that lebron and draymond were talking about when they said there were guys in the nba that don’t know how to play basketball.

Pretty dribble and pull up. Extremely ineffective and low iq player.

[abark]

I'm speaking of +/- metrics adjusted for quality of teammates and competition, like RPM and RAPM. Base +/- has Crawford as a much bigger net negative.

Can’t stand people like you. Your only response is analytics. Probably can’t even shoot a free throw. If your only come back is analytics then u shouldnt speak. Any body can google search some stats.

What the hell does his personal basketball skill have to do with what he values in basketball analysis?

I shoot ~85% from the line, and I value advanced metrics. Sometimes I get the feeling some dumb jocks just get threatened that a basketball nerd's metric based analysis might be more accurate than their eye test.

[Gooner]

Can’t stand people like you. Your only response is analytics. Probably can’t even shoot a free throw. If your only come back is analytics then u shouldnt speak. Any body can google search some stats.

Yeah, and I bet you played in the NBA.

How about you actually argue why Jamal Crawford is good? Also, you're literally making yourself look like a dumb jock if you did not notice.

Never said he was great. I just hate people who come in just to post some "Advanced metrics" And then contribute no other input or opinion besides their advanced stats.


Crawford is a player who can score 1 on 1 against anybody. He is a bench player who can bring a spark and instant offense when he comes into the game. Has elite ball handling ability still at his age and being able to handle the ball and break the Defense down is a skill that metrics dont measure.

The fact that he is 39 and still contributing in the league, says more then some advance stats do. There is a reason why he still has a job. Hes not a starter...Hes a liability on defense... Can be streaky... But when hes on, hes instant offense and can carry the offense.

You are absoulutely right. They post those adavanced metrics like it's the perfect way of player evaluation, but then you see those metrics and most of the stuff there doesn't make any sense. They are just cherry picking those stats that support their narrative, and ignore those that don't make any sense.

[giberish]

In his prime, Crawford balanced above-average offense with below-average defense making him roughly a league-average player (which has significant value). IMO advanced stats and general opinion agreed here.

It's hardly shocking that he's much worse at 39 (or even 36) then he was in his prime. That's really just common sense (sure it's supported by advanced stats but it's really an extremely expected result by any reasoning). Now he's average at best on offense and a huge liability on defense - and has been for several years. Sure, as he shoots a lot he'll score at a decent rate. And like every other player in the league he'll have games where he shoots better then his average so he'll look better on offense in those games (this would also be true of any G-league or Big-3 player given those minutes).

[Gooner]

I'm speaking of +/- metrics adjusted for quality of teammates and competition, like RPM and RAPM. Base +/- has Crawford as a much bigger net negative.

Can’t stand people like you. Your only response is analytics. Probably can’t even shoot a free throw. If your only come back is analytics then u shouldnt speak. Any body can google search some stats.

What the hell does his personal basketball skill have to do with what he values in basketball analysis?

I shoot ~85% from the line, and I value advanced metrics. Sometimes I get the feeling some dumb jocks just get threatened that a basketball nerd's metric based analysis might be more accurate than their eye test.

You are calling him dumb, but what makes you smart, the ability to read off of stat sheet? A first grade kid can do that.

[udfa]

Can’t stand people like you. Your only response is analytics. Probably can’t even shoot a free throw. If your only come back is analytics then u shouldnt speak. Any body can google search some stats.

What the hell does his personal basketball skill have to do with what he values in basketball analysis?

I shoot ~85% from the line, and I value advanced metrics. Sometimes I get the feeling some dumb jocks just get threatened that a basketball nerd's metric based analysis might be more accurate than their eye test.

You are calling him dumb, but what makes you smart, the ability to read off of stat sheet? A first grade kid can do that.

Yes, but the first grade kid probably can't understand what he's reading and why it matters. That's why he's in first grade and doesn't get paid for finding value in statistics like millions of grown ups in a vast many fields do.

[RakimAbdulJabar]

Gotta love the nonsense people talk on here

He’s one of the guys in the league that lebron and draymond were talking about when they said there were guys in the nba that don’t know how to play basketball.

Reality...
In a recent interview with The Star Tribune, Crawford admitted that LeBron James attempted to recruit him to Cleveland

Link
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/jamal-crawford-explains-why-he-didnt-go-warriors-or-cavs-if-i-went-there

[Mylie10]

Eye test says he sucks.....and the advanced stats back that up.

One on one chuckers don't win you ball games over the long haul.

[HomoSapien]

A few years ago he admitted that he trained in the summer for the first time in his career. He loves playing pickup ball but unfortunately never had the same excitement for training.

[IAMZOOTED2]

Dude gots handles like a mofo, but he's a matador on defense. Hard to slot him anywhere other than versus opposing teams' benches.

[chitownsports4ever]

Eye test says he sucks.....and the advanced stats back that up.

One on one chuckers don't win you ball games over the long haul.

yeah eye test says you can score 19,000 points by sucking and that advance stats back that up.

[HomoSapien]

I'm surprised by the level of hate he's getting. He carved out a really nice and long career. Ended up being one of the best players of his draft class, was a lot of fun to watch with his ball-handling and 3pt And 1's, and was a legitimate 6th man in his prime.

[Knicksfan20]

I'm speaking of +/- metrics adjusted for quality of teammates and competition, like RPM and RAPM. Base +/- has Crawford as a much bigger net negative.

Can’t stand people like you. Your only response is analytics. Probably can’t even shoot a free throw. If your only come back is analytics then u shouldnt speak. Any body can google search some stats.

What the hell does his personal basketball skill have to do with what he values in basketball analysis?

I shoot ~85% from the line, and I value advanced metrics. Sometimes I get the feeling some dumb jocks just get threatened that a basketball nerd's metric based analysis might be more accurate than their eye test.

cool story. I never said i dont value metrics, i just hate when people only use metrics for their opinion.

[abark]

Can’t stand people like you. Your only response is analytics. Probably can’t even shoot a free throw. If your only come back is analytics then u shouldnt speak. Any body can google search some stats.

What the hell does his personal basketball skill have to do with what he values in basketball analysis?

I shoot ~85% from the line, and I value advanced metrics. Sometimes I get the feeling some dumb jocks just get threatened that a basketball nerd's metric based analysis might be more accurate than their eye test.

You are calling him dumb, but what makes you smart, the ability to read off of stat sheet? A first grade kid can do that.

I didn't specifically call him dumb. I don't know him. Leave out the word dumb and my statement still stands.

It's more about the attitude the way many anti-analytics posters come off. Especially when they are talking down to someone about their ability to play basketball, like this poster was.

And just using advanced stats doesn't make you smart at all. You can use them in a very ignorant way. If you simply want to use PER to say Enes Kanter is about as good as Paul George, you're doing it wrong.

But you can use them productively. For example, I think Westbrook is overrated because he's the only top 45 scorer with a TS% below 53 (his is 50), he has a contested rebound % of 16 (same as Devin Booker and Dion Waiters), and has the worst pass to assist ratio in the league.

These types of numbers help paint a better picture of how a player puts up the traditional box score numbers we are accustomed to.

[Najee12]

Never said he was great. I just hate people who come in just to post some "Advanced metrics" And then contribute no other input or opinion besides their advanced stats.

Crawford is a player who can score 1 on 1 against anybody. He is a bench player who can bring a spark and instant offense when he comes into the game. Has elite ball handling ability still at his age and being able to handle the ball and break the Defense down is a skill that metrics dont measure.

The fact that he is 39 and still contributing in the league, says more then some advance stats do. There is a reason why he still has a job. Hes not a starter...Hes a liability on defense... Can be streaky... But when hes on, hes instant offense and can carry the offense.

You are absoulutely right. They post those adavanced metrics like it's the perfect way of player evaluation, but then you see those metrics and most of the stuff there doesn't make any sense. They are just cherry picking those stats that support their narrative, and ignore those that don't make any sense.

I believe a lot of people on this board don't understand you have to use all methods of research techniques to get a full evaluation of a player. Primary visual research (such as watching games) and secondary visual research (such as league honors and historian references) are as equally important as primary factual research (such as counting statistics, scouting reports and journalistic stories) and secondary factual research (advanced metrics).

This is why you get such dumbfounding hot takes that try to reinvent history (I've seen where people try to argue Markelle Fultz was a decent player and Kevin Johnson was a "superstar") solely based on arbitrarily using aspects without a full context of all evaluative measures.

You have to evaluate Jamal Crawford for what he is -- the sixth man scorer. Like many classic sixth men, Crawford has weaknesses that prohibited him from being an effective starter (namely, defense and shot selection) but as the first player off the bench, he excelled in the role (which is why he was the Sixth Man of the Year three times). He was basically a taller version of what Lou Williams is today. He and Williams' counting averages and advanced numbers are very similar.

[abark]

Never said he was great. I just hate people who come in just to post some "Advanced metrics" And then contribute no other input or opinion besides their advanced stats.

Crawford is a player who can score 1 on 1 against anybody. He is a bench player who can bring a spark and instant offense when he comes into the game. Has elite ball handling ability still at his age and being able to handle the ball and break the Defense down is a skill that metrics dont measure.

The fact that he is 39 and still contributing in the league, says more then some advance stats do. There is a reason why he still has a job. Hes not a starter...Hes a liability on defense... Can be streaky... But when hes on, hes instant offense and can carry the offense.

You are absoulutely right. They post those adavanced metrics like it's the perfect way of player evaluation, but then you see those metrics and most of the stuff there doesn't make any sense. They are just cherry picking those stats that support their narrative, and ignore those that don't make any sense.

I believe a lot of people on this board don't understand you have to use all methods of research techniques to get a full evaluation of a player. Primary visual research (such as watching games) and secondary visual research (such as league honors and historian references) are as equally important as primary factual research (such as counting statistics, scouting reports and journalistic stories) and secondary factual research (advanced metrics).

This is why you get such dumbfounding hot takes that try to reinvent history (I've seen where people try to argue Markelle Fultz was a decent player and Kevin Johnson was a "superstar") solely based on arbitrarily using aspects without a full context of all evaluative measures.

You have to evaluate Jamal Crawford for what he is -- the sixth man scorer. Like many classic sixth men, Crawford has weaknesses that prohibited him from being an effective starter (namely, defense and shot selection) but as the first player off the bench, he excelled in the role (which is why he was the Sixth Man of the Year three times). He was basically a taller version of what Lou Williams is today. He and Williams' counting averages and advanced numbers are very similar.

Everything you said outside of counting stats and metrics was just watching games and listening to other people's opinions of watching games.

These experts that vote on league honors are the same geniuses that never voted Duncan DPOY. They also voted Chandler DPOY, but left him off both All Defensive teams. They vote based on media narrative more than anything. And what "historian references" are you referring to?

I agree that watching a player is important. I'm not discounting that at all. I never give an opinion on a player I haven't seen, but I disagree with this specified hierarchy of evaluating players you have given.

[Knicksfan20]

I didn't specifically call him dumb. I don't know him. Leave out the word dumb and my statement still stands.

It's more about the attitude the way many anti-analytics posters come off. Especially when they are talking down to someone about their personal basketball abilities, like this poster was.

And just using advanced stats doesn't make you smart at all. You can use them in a very ignorant way. If you simply want to use PER to say Enes Kanter is about as good as Paul George, you're doing it wrong.

But you can use them productively. For example, I think Westbrook is overrated because he's the only top 45 scorer with a TS% below 53 (his is 50), he has a contested rebound % of 16 (same as Devin Booker and Dion Waiters), and has the worst pass to assist ratio in the league.

These types of numbers help paint a better picture of how a player puts up the traditional box score numbers we are accustomed to.

Westbrook gets fed a lot of rebounds also because he is great in transition. What advanced stats doesnt tell you is how often he takes a rebound, pushes it up the floor for a score or a bucket for his teamate. Despite being "Fed" rebounds, which is something that just started happening 3 years ago....Westbrook is still an elite rebounder for his position and always has been.

Westbrook is a career 50% true scorer? or is that only the number u got from his last season just to help your arguement? A season where he had his worst true shooting % of his career outside of his rook/soph years? Previous year he averaged 52.4 % . Years prior he averaged 55%, 55%, 54%, 55%. So by your definition of overrated, he was only overrated last season when it was well known he had a down year? Or maybe u could see for whatever reason , Westbrook averaged 65% from the FT line which is by far his worst season ever , down from his average of 80%. One who reads past advanced metrics would be able to see he had a down year last year efficiency wise and would see his TS% was at a career low 50 because he was 15% under his career average from the FT line last year.


Lets compare Westbrook to some other Elite PGs. What about Steph Curry? Westbrook besides this past year, posted higher win share numbers, better BPM numbers, Better AST/Turnover % then Steph. Same with Kemba Walker and Kyrie Irving.

So if Westbrook posts higher +/- then Steph Curry, doesnt that make Westbrook better if we are using advanced stats?
What about a guy like Devin Booker...that you brought up. Only 3.5 win shares last season. The same as Enes Kanter had on the talentless New York Knicks. Year Prior Booker had a 2.4 winshare to Kanters 5 on another Pathetic knicks team. SO in this theory... Enes Kanter is better then Devin Booker because he has higher win share numbers along with being a higher ts% player. Since Kanter is a 62% true scorer for his career.

Draymond Greens win share is at 4 last year...I guess hes overrated.

We can all cherry pick stats and use them in any argument. Advanced stats dont tell a player.

Westbrook despite playing nearly 36 mins per game for his career, is one of the most durable players in the league rarely ever missing a game. Something that advanced stats dont tell you. Also his compeitive drive and intensity...His heart...his overall skill level...all ignored in advanced stats. What about his leadership and his confidence? Advanced Stats dont show that.

If you watch the game of basketball and Russel as a player, you dont need advanced stats to tell you what he is good and bad at. We know he isnt a good shooter, but still is an elite player despite that. What about his ability to finish around the rim and in traffic? Im sure hes up towards the top in that category as far as top scorers go. What about the fact that he usually always posts a better then 2-1 assist ratio? Has one of the highest usage rates in the game, but still has a higher then 2-1 assist - turnover ratio. Better then Steph/lillard and way better then guys like Devin Booker/Giannis/Beal/Durant.

Advanced stats should only be used as an advanced argument when determining how good a player is. You cant tell a whole story with stats, thats why the game of basketball is so great. Each player has their own skill set. Trying to compare every single player with stats is impossible. Too many variables in the game of basketball to be able to do that. You have to take in account for the coaching staff, The front office/owner, the personnel around the player, the players personal life and what they could be dealing with outside of basketball, injuries, and many other variables that could affect a player on a day to day basis.

This isnt a video game...These are real human beings. You cant just use stats for an arguement... Too many other factors to take into consideration when it comes to the NBA and basketball. The eye test doesnt fail if you know what you are looking at.

[Najee12]

And just using advanced stats doesn't make you smart at all. ... But you can use them productively. For example, I think Westbrook is overrated because he's the only top 45 scorer with a TS% below 53 (his is 50), he has a contested rebound % of 16 (same as Devin Booker and Dion Waiters), and has the worst pass to assist ratio in the league.

These types of numbers help paint a better picture of how a player puts up the traditional box score numbers we are accustomed to.

However, those advanced numbers only tell a portion of Russell Westbrook's level of play. You have to use all levels of evaluation -- primary visual research (such as watching games) and secondary visual research (such as league honors and historian references) are as equally important as primary factual research (such as counting statistics, scouting reports and journalistic stories) and secondary factual research (advanced metrics).

A logical evaluator is going to balance those numbers you cited with the fact that Westbrook averaged a triple-double for the season (22.9 points, 11.1 rebounds and a league-leading 10.7 assists per game). It tells me that for a small sacrifice in relative efficiency, Westbrook is giving a team unprecedented production (Oscar Robertson is the only other player in NBA history to average a triple-double for a season, and Westbrook has done it three straight seasons).

You're citing a contested rebound percentage, yet overlooking that a 6-foot-3 point guard averaged a mindboggling 11 rebounders per game. Devin Booker (career average of 3.6 rebounds per game) and Dion Waiters (career average of 2.7 rebounds per game) certainly do not have the capacity to average rebounding numbers attributed to power forwards and centers.

I'm a little confused by your statement that Westbrook has the worst pass-to-assist ratio in the league when according to NBA statistics he had the highest pass-to-assist ratio in the NBA among regular players:

https://stats.nba.com/players/passing/?sort=AST_TO_PASS_PCT&dir=1&Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

Then to throw in the league honors (third team all-NBA) and other advanced numbers (such as fifth in value over replacement player) and you're getting a more complete picture of what kind of player Westbrook is: an all-NBA player who can help a team be a playoff entrant by putting up historical numbers with average efficiency.

The problem is not using advanced metrics, but using them solely as a research evaluation in lieu of all the other aspects I mentioned. The fallacy with that approach is it also can paint an incomplete picture without context.

[HeartBreakKid]

I didn't specifically call him dumb. I don't know him. Leave out the word dumb and my statement still stands.

It's more about the attitude the way many anti-analytics posters come off. Especially when they are talking down to someone about their personal basketball abilities, like this poster was.

And just using advanced stats doesn't make you smart at all. You can use them in a very ignorant way. If you simply want to use PER to say Enes Kanter is about as good as Paul George, you're doing it wrong.

But you can use them productively. For example, I think Westbrook is overrated because he's the only top 45 scorer with a TS% below 53 (his is 50), he has a contested rebound % of 16 (same as Devin Booker and Dion Waiters), and has the worst pass to assist ratio in the league.

These types of numbers help paint a better picture of how a player puts up the traditional box score numbers we are accustomed to.

Westbrook gets fed a lot of rebounds also because he is great in transition. What advanced stats doesnt tell you is how often he takes a rebound, pushes it up the floor for a score or a bucket for his teamate. Despite being "Fed" rebounds, which is something that just started happening 3 years ago....Westbrook is still an elite rebounder for his position and always has been.

Westbrook is a career 50% true scorer? or is that only the number u got from his last season just to help your arguement? A season where he had his worst true shooting % of his career outside of his rook/soph years? Previous year he averaged 52.4 % . Years prior he averaged 55%, 55%, 54%, 55%. So by your definition of overrated, he was only overrated last season when it was well known he had a down year? Or maybe u could see for whatever reason , Westbrook averaged 65% from the FT line which is by far his worst season ever , down from his average of 80%. One who reads past advanced metrics would be able to see he had a down year last year efficiency wise and would see his TS% was at a career low 50 because he was 15% under his career average from the FT line last year.


Lets compare Westbrook to some other Elite PGs. What about Steph Curry? Westbrook besides this past year, posted higher win share numbers, better BPM numbers, Better AST/Turnover % then Steph. Same with Kemba Walker and Kyrie Irving.

So if Westbrook posts higher +/- then Steph Curry, doesnt that make Westbrook better if we are using advanced stats?
What about a guy like Devin Booker...that you brought up. Only 3.5 win shares last season. The same as Enes Kanter had on the talentless New York Knicks. Year Prior Booker had a 2.4 winshare to Kanters 5 on another Pathetic knicks team. SO in this theory... Enes Kanter is better then Devin Booker because he has higher win share numbers along with being a higher ts% player. Since Kanter is a 62% true scorer for his career.

Draymond Greens win share is at 4 last year...I guess hes overrated.

We can all cherry pick stats and use them in any argument. Advanced stats dont tell a player.

Westbrook despite playing nearly 36 mins per game for his career, is one of the most durable players in the league rarely ever missing a game. Something that advanced stats dont tell you. Also his compeitive drive and intensity...His heart...his overall skill level...all ignored in advanced stats. What about his leadership and his confidence? Advanced Stats dont show that.

If you watch the game of basketball and Russel as a player, you dont need advanced stats to tell you what he is good and bad at. We know he isnt a good shooter, but still is an elite player despite that. What about his ability to finish around the rim and in traffic? Im sure hes up towards the top in that category as far as top scorers go. What about the fact that he usually always posts a better then 2-1 assist ratio? Has one of the highest usage rates in the game, but still has a higher then 2-1 assist - turnover ratio. Better then Steph/lillard and way better then guys like Devin Booker/Giannis/Beal/Durant.

Advanced stats should only be used as an advanced argument when determining how good a player is. You cant tell a whole story with stats, thats why the game of basketball is so great. Each player has their own skill set. Trying to compare every single player with stats is impossible. Too many variables in the game of basketball to be able to do that. You have to take in account for the coaching staff, The front office/owner, the personnel around the player, the players personal life and what they could be dealing with outside of basketball, injuries, and many other variables that could affect a player on a day to day basis.

This isnt a video game...These are real human beings. You cant just use stats for an arguement... Too many other factors to take into consideration when it comes to the NBA and basketball. The eye test doesnt fail if you know what you are looking at.

Impact stats actually do rate Russell Westbrook insanely high. Impact stats and advance stats are two different things, I don't think you know the difference.

Also, nothing what you said applies to Jamal Crawford. Hey, how about this one - if you watch basketball, you don't need advance stats to tell you Jamal Crawford is a bad player.

[Knicksfan20]

I didn't specifically call him dumb. I don't know him. Leave out the word dumb and my statement still stands.

It's more about the attitude the way many anti-analytics posters come off. Especially when they are talking down to someone about their personal basketball abilities, like this poster was.

And just using advanced stats doesn't make you smart at all. You can use them in a very ignorant way. If you simply want to use PER to say Enes Kanter is about as good as Paul George, you're doing it wrong.

But you can use them productively. For example, I think Westbrook is overrated because he's the only top 45 scorer with a TS% below 53 (his is 50), he has a contested rebound % of 16 (same as Devin Booker and Dion Waiters), and has the worst pass to assist ratio in the league.

These types of numbers help paint a better picture of how a player puts up the traditional box score numbers we are accustomed to.

Westbrook gets fed a lot of rebounds also because he is great in transition. What advanced stats doesnt tell you is how often he takes a rebound, pushes it up the floor for a score or a bucket for his teamate. Despite being "Fed" rebounds, which is something that just started happening 3 years ago....Westbrook is still an elite rebounder for his position and always has been.

Westbrook is a career 50% true scorer? or is that only the number u got from his last season just to help your arguement? A season where he had his worst true shooting % of his career outside of his rook/soph years? Previous year he averaged 52.4 % . Years prior he averaged 55%, 55%, 54%, 55%. So by your definition of overrated, he was only overrated last season when it was well known he had a down year? Or maybe u could see for whatever reason , Westbrook averaged 65% from the FT line which is by far his worst season ever , down from his average of 80%. One who reads past advanced metrics would be able to see he had a down year last year efficiency wise and would see his TS% was at a career low 50 because he was 15% under his career average from the FT line last year.


Lets compare Westbrook to some other Elite PGs. What about Steph Curry? Westbrook besides this past year, posted higher win share numbers, better BPM numbers, Better AST/Turnover % then Steph. Same with Kemba Walker and Kyrie Irving.

So if Westbrook posts higher +/- then Steph Curry, doesnt that make Westbrook better if we are using advanced stats?
What about a guy like Devin Booker...that you brought up. Only 3.5 win shares last season. The same as Enes Kanter had on the talentless New York Knicks. Year Prior Booker had a 2.4 winshare to Kanters 5 on another Pathetic knicks team. SO in this theory... Enes Kanter is better then Devin Booker because he has higher win share numbers along with being a higher ts% player. Since Kanter is a 62% true scorer for his career.

Draymond Greens win share is at 4 last year...I guess hes overrated.

We can all cherry pick stats and use them in any argument. Advanced stats dont tell a player.

Westbrook despite playing nearly 36 mins per game for his career, is one of the most durable players in the league rarely ever missing a game. Something that advanced stats dont tell you. Also his compeitive drive and intensity...His heart...his overall skill level...all ignored in advanced stats. What about his leadership and his confidence? Advanced Stats dont show that.

If you watch the game of basketball and Russel as a player, you dont need advanced stats to tell you what he is good and bad at. We know he isnt a good shooter, but still is an elite player despite that. What about his ability to finish around the rim and in traffic? Im sure hes up towards the top in that category as far as top scorers go. What about the fact that he usually always posts a better then 2-1 assist ratio? Has one of the highest usage rates in the game, but still has a higher then 2-1 assist - turnover ratio. Better then Steph/lillard and way better then guys like Devin Booker/Giannis/Beal/Durant.

Advanced stats should only be used as an advanced argument when determining how good a player is. You cant tell a whole story with stats, thats why the game of basketball is so great. Each player has their own skill set. Trying to compare every single player with stats is impossible. Too many variables in the game of basketball to be able to do that. You have to take in account for the coaching staff, The front office/owner, the personnel around the player, the players personal life and what they could be dealing with outside of basketball, injuries, and many other variables that could affect a player on a day to day basis.

This isnt a video game...These are real human beings. You cant just use stats for an arguement... Too many other factors to take into consideration when it comes to the NBA and basketball. The eye test doesnt fail if you know what you are looking at.

Um, impact stats actually do rate Russell Westbrook insanely high. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Also, nothing what you said applies to Jamal Crawford. Hey, how about this one - if you watch basketball, you don't need advance stats to tell you Jamal Crawford is a bad player.

You must not be a very bright person to see this is a side conversation that wasnt even brought up by me. A little reading before u post would have made that obviously clear. Im not even the one who brought up Westbrook. Just showing your laziness/ignorance by quoting me without doing any reading.