Why won't Woodson MAKE SMOOVE quit shooting jumpshots!

[spotatl]

We do not have a plan B low post offense

Thats a roster problem- not a philisophy problem. There is no one on this team who can be a consistent low post threat.

[AHF]

And let me drive home my point about Jamal Crawford: ( 10 - 15 ) - 50% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 45% . . . ( 3pt ) - 35%

Jamal is basically a mid-range terrorist. I mean, look at those percentages from 10 - 23 feet. That's as good as Dirk or Kobe. But what messes him up? His love for the 3 pointer. His 4.7 attempts from 3, is .1 more than his combined attempts from 10 - 23 feet. ( 4.6 )

And you guys wonder why he's so streaky? You guys wonder why people say he has horrible shot selection?

But . . wait. His eFG from 3 is 51.3%. So I guess that justifies Jamal to continue to jack up 3s.

Trust your eyes folks. Don't get blinded by what the eFG tells you.

He scores more points per possession from 3pt shots than 2pt shots. The only way he isn't justified in taking 3s is if there are other factors at play such as him being more likely to draw fouls on 2pt shots which would could push his TS% on those shots above the TS% on 3pt shots. You want whatever form of offense is going to best accumulate points over the game and as an extreme and theoretical example that means shooting 2-20 on 20 point shots is better than shooting 20-20 on 1 point shots.

Edited January 8, 2010 by AHF

[niremetal]

39% is higher than 35%.

That's REAL MATH.

3 > 2. That's also real math.

3 > 2 by a greater proportion than 39 > 35. That's also real math.

Just tell the real truth is all I'm saying.

Ok. 3 > 2.

I'm done. How you continue to argue this is really beyond me.

Edited January 8, 2010 by niremetal

[Atlantaholic]

He scores more points per possession from 3pt shots than 2pt shots. The only way he isn't justified in taking 3s is if there are other factors at play such as him being more likely to draw fouls on 2pt shots which would could push his TS% on those shots above the TS% on 3pt shots. You want whatever form of offense is going to best accumulate points over the game and as an extreme and theoretical example that means shooting 2-20 on 20 point shots is better than shooting 20-20 on 1 point shots.

It's funny that he acts like eFG% is some misleading stat.

Per 100 shots=

35% Three point shooting = 105 points

46% Two point shooting = 92 points

You'd have to be a complete fool to rather have the above player stop taking threes in favor of twos.

That's the whole reason the stat even exists. Three pointers are worth 50% more than two pointers. To clarify, they are worth A LOT more than two pointers. The long two point shot is the dumbest shot in basketball (and the shot every single defensive scheme will want teams to shoot). That's why I don't get how analysts view Smoove. They praise him for not taking threes, but don't get on him when he takes long twos (which has been often). The long two is a much worse shot. Usually players shoot it the same or worse than the three but the shot is worth 50% less. You would literally have to shoot .5 times better from that spot to even justify taking that shot.

[spotatl]

He's not criticized for it because the stats about the percentage he shoots on long 2's has not been widely available. Everyone could look at the standard statline and his putrid 3 point shooting would jump out. Its only recently that we ahve started getting more precise information.

Edited January 8, 2010 by spotatl

[Buzzard]

Thats a roster problem- not a philisophy problem. There is no one on this team who can be a consistent low post threat.

That is your opinion; which I think is wrong. A lot of us on this board think its Woodys philosophy vs the improving post games of Horf and Smoove. ZaZa and Joe Smith can score down low as well. Then there is this rookie named Teague who is a better penetrator than Bibby and a more willing one than Crawford.

One day soon we will see who is right. I think you will be shocked at how methodical we can be in a 1/2 court offense once we get a real coach who knows there is more to offense than this crap Woody wants you to believe. " the defense will take care of the offense".

Edited January 8, 2010 by Buzzard

[Atlantaholic]

Horford was 11-14 against the Knicks and didn't see the ball once in the final 10 minutes. Instead JJ took every shot again, and he was 12-30

How is that NOT a philosophy problem?

On the season Horford is shooting 60% from the field, and only attempts 9.9 shots a game. There aren't many Centers in the league with better numbers per 36 minutes than Horford.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Atlantaholic

[Crank]

Just tell the real truth is all I'm saying.

JJ: ( 10 - 15 ) - 49% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 39% . . . ( 3pt ) - 35%

Kobe: ( 10 - 15 ) - 49% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 45% . . ( 3pt ) - 32%

Dirk: ( 10 - 15 ) - 46%. . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 46% . . . ( 3pt ) - 39%

Roy: ( 10 - 15 ) - 47% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 43% . . . ( 3pt ) - 34%

Deron: ( 10 - 15 ) - 32% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 49% . . . ( 3pt ) - 38%

Melo: ( 10 - 15 ) - 45% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 38% . . . ( 3pt ) - 36%

Zach: ( 10 - 15 ) - 29% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 46% . . . ( 3pt ) - 25%

If you're going to tell what these guys shoot from a certain range, tell the real numbers. I have no problem with you guys telling how many points they get from each area. But just tell the truth about the shooting.

And let me drive home my point about Jamal Crawford: ( 10 - 15 ) - 50% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 45% . . . ( 3pt ) - 35%

Jamal is basically a mid-range terrorist. I mean, look at those percentages from 10 - 23 feet. That's as good as Dirk or Kobe. But what messes him up? His love for the 3 pointer. His 4.7 attempts from 3, is .1 more than his combined attempts from 10 - 23 feet. ( 4.6 )

And you guys wonder why he's so streaky? You guys wonder why people say he has horrible shot selection?

But . . wait. His eFG from 3 is 51.3%. So I guess that justifies Jamal to continue to jack up 3s.

Trust your eyes folks. Don't get blinded by what the eFG tells you.

Crawfords horrible shot selection rep comes from him taking the quick three off the dribble other than that when his feet are set his three ball is as good as anyones in the league it always has been .

Do you factor in end of the quarter/half heaves ? How many shots does he take to beat the buzzer ? same for JJ

Our offense creates a lot of spot up threes and it would be more detrimental to the offense if Crawford and JJ took your advice and ignored the three ball in favor of the midrange game . People complain about over dribbling now but would go nutz if JJ and Crawford passed up wideopen three point shots to move closer to the basket to take a more contested higher percentage shot.

So it really boils down to

wideopen 3

contested 2

most coaches would take the 3 for 35% three ball shooters the beauty is that JJ and Crawford have the ability to make those contested shots as well. But you would prefer them to take the three unless the shot just is not falling for them.

One thing I thought was interesting reading this thread was you said trust your eyes but did anyone realize that for the month of December Crawford shot 47% from two AND 47% from three.

[Buzzard]

Horford was 11-14 against the Knicks and didn't see the ball once in the final 10 minutes. Instead JJ took every shot again, and he was 12-30

How is that NOT a philosophy problem?

On the season Horford is shooting 60% from the field, and only attempts 9.9 shots a game. There aren't many Centers in the league with better numbers per 36 minutes than Horford.

It is a philosophy problem and its a huge one. When the jumpers are not falling we get beat by lesser teams and routed by better teams. Woody just does not know how to get players to play post up offense when our jumpshooting ISO offense goes south. It is not that I think we would win every game we lose and have a perfect record; but a more methodical half court offense would give us the best chance of staying close when our jumpers are falling at 25%.

People here like to use Orlando as a example of how good teams lose to bad opponents. What they do not like to point out is even though Orlando has lost three games in a row while shooting no bettter than 42% in any of the losses; in the last five minutes they had a chance to win every game.

That is what good coaching does. Orlando depends on the three just as much as we do; but when it is not falling they know how to get back in the game and give themselves a chance on bad nights. Woody does not know how to coach that.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Buzzard

[spotatl]

Horford is putting up those kinds of numbers because he is getting the ball after the defense is already unsettled- He has NEVER shown any ability to post up against a settled defense- its an entirely different matter. He simply is not a strong post threat.

Even in College he wasn't much of a post threat. Its just not who Horford is no matter how much you want to wish he were.

When Orlando's 3's aren't falling they have Dwight Howard inside. When Kobe's shots aren't falling the Lakers have Gasol. Those teams are more versitile because they have more talent on the roster.

Edited January 8, 2010 by spotatl

[LordOfNYork]

Shooting 3's and shooting 15 footers are two different things. I don't think Woodson has ever said, "you're not allowed shooting the ball unless you're in the paint"...I just don't.

Dude watchout....You know that retard is not shooting 15 footers. He's shooting at least high school/college 3's. Both are out of his rainbow shot range

[Buzzard]

Horford is putting up those kinds of numbers because he is getting the ball after the defense is already unsettled- He has NEVER shown any ability to post up against a settled defense- its an entirely different matter. He simply is not a strong post threat.

Even in College he wasn't much of a post threat. Its just not who Horford is no matter how much you want to wish he was.

Check when Horford scores most of his points. Horf scores 4.9 pts from the 10 to 20 second mark. He also gets 4.2 pts in the crunch range. In fact Horfs % of points scored is higher than JJs at the 16 to 20 second mark. So please quit making excuses for ISO JJ and Woody letting Smoove revert back to a long range jump shooter. This is all on Woody and his lack of coaching ability in some key areas.

Link to Horfs shot clock stats.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL10.HTM

Edited January 8, 2010 by Buzzard

[dlpin]

Just tell the real truth is all I'm saying.

JJ: ( 10 - 15 ) - 49% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 39% . . . ( 3pt ) - 35%

Kobe: ( 10 - 15 ) - 49% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 45% . . ( 3pt ) - 32%

Dirk: ( 10 - 15 ) - 46%. . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 46% . . . ( 3pt ) - 39%

Roy: ( 10 - 15 ) - 47% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 43% . . . ( 3pt ) - 34%

Deron: ( 10 - 15 ) - 32% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 49% . . . ( 3pt ) - 38%

Melo: ( 10 - 15 ) - 45% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 38% . . . ( 3pt ) - 36%

Zach: ( 10 - 15 ) - 29% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 46% . . . ( 3pt ) - 25%

If you're going to tell what these guys shoot from a certain range, tell the real numbers. I have no problem with you guys telling how many points they get from each area. But just tell the truth about the shooting.

And let me drive home my point about Jamal Crawford: ( 10 - 15 ) - 50% . . . ( 16 - 23 ) - 45% . . . ( 3pt ) - 35%

Jamal is basically a mid-range terrorist. I mean, look at those percentages from 10 - 23 feet. That's as good as Dirk or Kobe. But what messes him up? His love for the 3 pointer. His 4.7 attempts from 3, is .1 more than his combined attempts from 10 - 23 feet. ( 4.6 )

And you guys wonder why he's so streaky? You guys wonder why people say he has horrible shot selection?

But . . wait. His eFG from 3 is 51.3%. So I guess that justifies Jamal to continue to jack up 3s.

Trust your eyes folks. Don't get blinded by what the eFG tells you.

The fact that you refuse to understand the math behind efg% is baffling to me.

You don't want to understand the math behind it? Great, I give up on that area.

Let's look at something else then, how about average points per shot taken?

Jamal Crawford:

1 point per shot taken from 10-15ft

0.9 points per shot taken from 16-23 ft

1.026 points per shot taken from 3 points

JJ:

0.984 points per shot taken from 10-15ft

0.78 points per shot taken from 16-23ft

1.02 points per shot taken from 3 pt

The fact is that no matter how you slice it, the 3 point shot is better than the long 2. You still refuse to answer this, but why do you think that defenses worry about penetration and 3 point shots more than they do long 2s?

And I really cannot fathom how you can't understand that shooting 35% from 3 is better than shooting 46% from 2...

[spotatl]

Buzzard- you post something saying that Horford is most effective on the fast break and in transition and you think that somehow helps your case?

This is a simple difference- I think if the Hawks were consistently relying on dumping the ball down to Horford in the post when the defense is focused on him the offense would be MUCH worse. The way the Hawks use him he doesn't hve to deal with being trapped or doubled. He is getting the ball in position where he can do something positive with it. Horford is better in transition than he is in the half court- he needs someone to create chances for him. Look at the link you just sent- he is assisted on 64% on his scoring plays. Of course a big portion of his non-assisted plays are putbacks off of an offensive rebound. He is someone who needs chances created for him. There is nothing wrong with that but thats who he is.

Edited January 8, 2010 by spotatl

[Buzzard]

Buzzard- you post something saying that Horford is most effective on the fast break and in transition and you think that somehow helps your case?

This is a simple difference- I think if the Hawks were consistently relying on dumping the ball down to Horford in the post when the defense is focused on him the offense would be MUCH worse. The way the Hawks use him he doesn't hve to deal with being trapped or doubled. He is getting the ball in position where he can do something positive with it. Horford is better in transition than he is in the half court- he needs someone to create chances for him. Look at the link you just sent- he is assisted on 64% on his scoring plays. He is someone who needs chances created for him. There is nothing wrong with that but thats who he is.

Horf is effective on the break and after the defense has settled; which is evident when his % of points scored is higher than our top scorer and go to guy at the 16 to 20 second mark. Unless you think it takes 16 to 20 seconds for NBA players to run down the floor LMAO.

28% of his points come well into the shot clock; 26% of JJs and Marvins come at that mark. What about this stat does not scream half court offense for all three players. Horf leads all starters and our 6th man in scoring% at the 16 to 20 second mark. I guess the only way to convince you is if he doubled everyone elses production at that mark. And assisted? At the 16 to 20 second mark, Horf shoots his highest eFG% and is only assisted 28% of the time.

I still do not understand you and Diesels infatuation with that stat. The guy shoots over 50% from the field; all you do is pass him the ball and he scores. I am over 50 years old and Horf could give me a few assist. What the hell is your point with that stat?

Edited January 8, 2010 by Buzzard

[spotatl]

The question is whether Horford can be the centerpiece of an offense or whether he needs to have his chances created for him. Looking at what percentage of his shots are unassisted seems to me to be an awfully pertinent stat.

Thats all it is to me- I have never seen Horford have the ability to exploit weak defenders 1 on 1 in the post. I think it would be ridiculous for a Coach to try and run the Hawks offense that way. I want Horford to get the ball after the defense is already in motion.

Edited January 8, 2010 by spotatl

[TheNorthCydeRises]

It's funny that he acts like eFG% is some misleading stat.

Per 100 shots=

35% Three point shooting = 105 points

46% Two point shooting = 92 points

You'd have to be a complete fool to rather have the above player stop taking threes in favor of twos.

That's the whole reason the stat even exists. Three pointers are worth 50% more than two pointers. To clarify, they are worth A LOT more than two pointers. The long two point shot is the dumbest shot in basketball (and the shot every single defensive scheme will want teams to shoot). That's why I don't get how analysts view Smoove. They praise him for not taking threes, but don't get on him when he takes long twos (which has been often). The long two is a much worse shot. Usually players shoot it the same or worse than the three but the shot is worth 50% less. You would literally have to shoot .5 times better from that spot to even justify taking that shot.

You guys keep taking about it's the "dumbest shot in basketball" . . . yet . . . the greatest player in the game absolutely kills people due to the fact that he makes a point to take midrange shots, instead of wasting more attempts from three. And the greatest player EVER, dominated people from midrange. If they couldn't get to the rim, they made sure that they developed their midrange shot to a high degree. The three point shot, to them, was used to simply enhance their game.

In Josh Smith's case, it's definitely a "dumb shot", because he can't shoot from anywhere. For others, it's a matter of simply taking timely threes, not taking threes just for the hell of it.

You know what . . . don't take my word for it though. Let one of the better midrange shooters ever in the NBA explain it to you. This is gospel folks.

NOTE: This guy was a CAREER 33% three point shooter . . but only averaged 2 three point attempts per game, instead of the almost 5 per game that Crawford averages in his career. Crawford could EASILY be this guy from an offensive standpoint.

Edited January 8, 2010 by northcyde

[dlpin]

You guys keep taking about it's the "dumbest shot in basketball" . . . yet . . . the greatest player in the game absolutely kills people due to the fact that he makes a point to take midrange shots, instead of wasting more attempts from three. And the greatest player EVER, dominated people from midrange. If they couldn't get to the rim, they made sure that they developed their midrange shot to a high degree. The three point shot, to them, was used to simply enhance their game.

In Josh Smith's case, it's definitely a "dumb shot", because he can't shoot from anywhere. For others, it's a matter of simply taking timely threes, not taking threes just for the hell of it.

You know what . . . don't take my word for it though. Let one of the better midrange shooters ever in the NBA explain it to you. This is gospel folks.

NOTE: This guy was a CAREER 33% three point shooter . . but only averaged 2 three point attempts per game, instead of the almost 5 per game that Crawford averages in his career. Crawford could EASILY be this guy from an offensive standpoint.

Which "greatest player in the game" are you talking about?

Kobe?

Points per game:

free throw line: 6.7 points a game (and you can bet he is getting fouled at the rim)

closer than 10 feet + 3 point line: 9.4 points a game + 3.6 points a game= 13 points a game

10 feet-23 feet: 10.2 points a game

so of his 30 points a game, only 10 come from the mid range. He "kills" people at the rim, at the free throw line and at the 3 point line

Lebron?

Points per game

free throw line: 7.1 points a game

closer than 10 feet + 3 point line: 12 points + 5.1 points a game= 17.1 points a game

10 feet- 23 feet: 5.7 points a game

Unfortunately we don't that same level of detailed data for Jordan.

But the point remains: the only reason people shoot long range 2s is because defenses focus on penetration and 3 point shots. If what you are saying was true, defenses would let players freely shoot threes or drive to the rim.

You still haven't answered that. If the long 2 is so good, why do defenses focus on the 3 point line and on the paint?

[coachx]

Unfortunately we don't that same level of detailed data for Jordan.

Of course it Jordan.

Both he and Bird had the mid range jumper as one of the major strengths to their games. Half of Jordans championships came after his high flying days.

Remember Alex English ?

[dlpin]

Of course it Jordan.

Both he and Bird had the mid range jumper as one of the major strengths to their games. Half of Jordans championships came after his high flying days.

Remember Alex English ?

I know the best of all time is Jordan. I was asking who he was talking about when he said the greatest player IN the game, as in right now.

Don't get me wrong, to be a complete player you have to have a deadly mid range jumper. But the point remains that mid range jumpers are still worse than close up shots and 3 pointers.

Jordan and Bird used a lot of mid range jumpers because people did everything, absolutely everything to keep them off the paint and off the 3 point line. That is the point: players settle for the long 2 only when the lay up and the 3 point shot are contested, and those are more contested because they are, essentially, better shots. Between an uncontested lay up, an uncontested 3, and an uncontested long 2, the uncontested long 2 is the worst shot.