Jamal Crawford

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

I did read it, and watch your mouth - I will challenge you to a free throw contest if you continue to talk spicy.

[Najee12]

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.

In other words, you don't want to use league honors, historian references, scouting reports and journalistic stories from equally trained professional people for what they do as part of the evaluation process of an NBA player. All metrics (including counting statistics, advanced metrics and observation) also have benefits and disadvantages that can paint a distorted picture.

In fact, I didn't give any "hierarchy" of what method of evaluation was more important than another. They all are equally important in helping paint a picture of a player's relative standing. You have to use all of them properly and in context to get a full evaluation of a player. I didn't say placing league honors was the highest order of evaluation.

As for "historian references," I am referring to a player's standing in NBA history relative to his peers. The best comparison for Jamal Crawford is going to be with similar players who played similar roles to him (namely, sixth men who are known for scoring, such as Lou Williams). No one I've ever heard has considered Crawford as being more than a top-scoring sixth man, so it's silly to compare him with, say, a Dwyane Wade (an all-NBA-level shooting guard).

[Knicksfan20]

I did read it, and watch your mouth - I will challenge you to a free throw contest if you continue to talk spicy.

U didnt read. Its obvious in your quote to me. I never brought up Westbrook and i only made a response to Westbrook (to a person who quoted me) in order to show you need more then just advanced stats to determine whether a player is good or not.

If you read this thread, u wouldnt have quoted me talking about Westbrook. Unless you want to touch on the points that i posted about, your post was pointless and had 0 insight what-so-ever.


With that said... This post i am currently responding to made me LOL.

[KuruptedCav]

Crawford is your quintessential volume scoring good stats/bad team player.

See Jordan Clarkston, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, Al Jefferson, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Roscoe Sheed]

Crawford does take a lot of bad shots- maybe the worst overall in nba history. Only one that rivals him is Kobe.

Crawford did have his uses though in his prime. Few players could beat his own man better and you need players like that- they can’t all be spot up shooters. He was worth his spot in a rotation even with his considerable weaknesses. He is the rare case of a player who would have been better if he were less confident

[andyhop]

He is definitely underrated in his ability to fool dumb GM's into paying him, how someone who was so bad for the majority of his career made $120m is one of the great mysteries of sport.

[abark]

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.

When did I say he had a career 50 TS%. I am clearly talking about the declining player he is now, and not the guy I will readily admit was elite 3 years ago. But his TS% numbers have dropped from 55.5 to 52.5 to 50 over that span, while all his other metrics have also declined.

And Westbrook is great in transition, so I'm not even saying that feeding him uncontested rebounds is even necessarily a bad strategy. I also do believe there is an aspect where his teammates are working to help him get triple doubles, but I doubt we agree there. Much of his aura is built on being a "triple double machine," who many people think has the rebounding abilities of an above average center. That is what I take issue with. If people understood a significant number of his rebounds were scheme and not skill based, it wouldn't be an issue. But they don't.

And I will admit his assist to turnover ratio improved last year and was not bad. My point in bring up his league worst pass to assist ratio is that he is not making pass to facilitate proper ball movement. It implies that too often his passes are an attempt to get an assist, which is why I view him as an assist hunter. This isn't just me making an assertion blindly based on this stat. It correlates with what I see when I watch him play. You may see things differently.

Despite everything I've said, I still do think he is a very good player mostly due to the qualities you mentioned. He's just not as good as most people think (his recent playoff run did seem to change a lot of people's attitude towards him though).

[UcanUwill]

Never liked him that much honestly, I think he is overrated as 6th. man, I remember back in the day The Starters (basketball Jones) were lobbying to name 6th. man award after Crawford. I mean, Emanuel Ginobili exists.

[playaloc916]

Crawford has this amazing ability to make you forget the string of horrible shooting nights, all with one game where he goes off and has some crazy impressive 4-point play (usually a game where his team already has a big lead)...

He'll also have the odd game where he looks like a great facilitator... then he goes back to his usual iso fancy dribbling moves and hoisting up a deep contested three... He is a very good freethrow shooter though.

[Gus McCrae]

The original “Crawful.”

Actually he was kind of fun to watch, but I never felt he contributed anything to winning and in fact, directly contributed to losing.

[TreymondGreen]

How did Jamal Crawford’s career last longer than Monta Ellis’?! 2-3 years before his final year in the NBA, he should’ve been an all star over Damian Lillard.

[rasta_marley]

Well that one year he was with the blazers was less then impressive.

[abark]

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.

In other words, you don't want to use league honors, historian references, scouting reports and journalistic stories from equally trained professional people for what they do as part of the evaluation process of an NBA player. All metrics (including counting statistics, advanced metrics and observation) also have benefits and disadvantages that can paint a distorted picture.

In fact, I didn't give any "hierarchy" of what method of evaluation was more important than another. They all are equally important in helping paint a picture of a player's relative standing. You have to use all of them properly and in context to get a full evaluation of a player. I didn't say placing league honors was the highest order of evaluation.

As for "historian references," I am referring to a player's standing in NBA history relative to his peers. The best comparison for Jamal Crawford is going to be with similar players who played similar roles to him (namely, sixth men who are known for scoring, such as Lou Williams). No one I've ever heard has considered Crawford as being more than a top-scoring sixth man, so it's silly to compare him with, say, a Dwyane Wade (an all-NBA-level shooting guard).

I am aware of which players win awards, but they are too often prone to circumstance and narrative. Mike Conley has never been an all star, but Mo Williams has. I think Tim Duncan was the greatest defensive player in the league for most of his career, but apparently the NBA disagreed he was the best in even one single season.

Usually the awards correlate with my expectations, but it doesnt really change my opinion when they don't. I simply don't find that I need awards to make my own evaluations of players.

Scouting reports are useful for when you haven't seen a player yet. That's why they are prevalent in draft profiles, but where do you even see scouting reports written for current NBA players.

Regarding "historian references," it sounds like you just made up a term for player roles/comparisons. I don't know if you think I'm making a purely pro-metric argument (I want to make it clear, at no point have I done anything close to this), but I can tell that Crawford plays a similar role to Lou by watching them and following the NBA in general.

And yes, I do read/watch articles and videos that give you insight into different ways a player might be impacting a game that I have not considered.

I will admit there may have been a misunderstanding with what you meant by primary and secondary tiers. I thought you were ranking one tier as more important than the other. We are both in the all of the above camp when it comes to evaluations, I just don't need an organized system.

[SolidBlack84]

Fried.

[TheNewEra]

Very solid player but Doc Rivers had no idea how to control his shot selection.

[chitownsports4ever]

Crawford is your quintessential volume scoring good stats/bad team player.

See Jordan Clarkston, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, Al Jefferson, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Crawford is 19th among guards in the history of the league in scoring and 55th overall .


Hes not a HOF player nor is he horrible hes a had a very good career.

[Najee12]

Crawford is your quintessential volume scoring good stats/bad team player.

See Jordan Clarkston, JR Smith, OJ Mayo, Al Jefferson, etc.

Jamal Crawford is a much better player than Jordan Clarkson, J.R. Smith and O.J. Mayo, especially when looking at them as reserves. Al Jefferson as a starter was a quality player (including being all-NBA in 2013-14) -- even his advanced numbers show Jefferson was a good player (very good offensive player who struggled on defense) -- but Crawford was a top-level scoring sixth man (more than 19,000 points over his career). And keep in mind, most of Crawford's best seasons as a sixth man (and all of his Sixth Man of the Year awards) came on winning teams (Atlanta, the Los Angeles Clippers).

[Najee12]

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.

Another example of this overreliance on advanced metrics as the sole measurement of a current player is DeMar DeRozan. The sole argument proponents of using advanced statistics have against DeRozan is that he doesn't shoot a lot of 3-pointers. I've read where people on this board have tried to say DeRozan has "negative value" despite the fact he has put up consistent production at an all-star level on quality playoff teams and has otherwise solid advanced numbers over the past six years.

[JasonStern]

Well that one year he was with the blazers was less then impressive.

(on Jamal Crawford) One of the worst point guards I've ever coached.

[cellphonecamera]

Well that one year he was with the blazers was less then impressive.

(on Jamal Crawford) One of the worst point guards I've ever coached.

When was this? I can’t find any link to it.