Josh Smith:I'm going to keep taking jumpers

[niremetal]

We have already seen what happens when he was behind the 3 pt line. We know how that story goes. I don't see how this is confusing.

When he is behind the line he is less likely to cut to the basket, drive, get offensive rebounds etc and is more likely to take perimeter shots. Last year 47% of his shots were jumpers. This year 37% of his shots are jumpers. This can be directly attributed to Smith getting off the 3 pt line. It isn't like Woody suddenly changed his offense.

This year Smith hasn't made a 3 yet his EFG% is at a career high. He is also setting career highs for offensive rebounds and assists. There is NO REASON for him to be behind the 3 pt line.

Actually, Josh's eFG% and TS% are indistinguishable from last year's. His TS% is oh-so-slightly higher (.538 vs. .533), but his eFG% is actually oh-so-slightly lower (.505 vs. .508). So no, him moving 3 feet closer to the basket has not improved his efficiency as a scorer. And I don't think you can imply any causation between the fact that he's standing 3 feet closer to the basket and the fact that he's crashing the boards more and driving to the rim more. There is absolutely no reason he couldn't do that from 3 feet further away. The difference is that this year he has made the effort to actually do that, and there's no evidence that the fact that he is now standing oh-so-slightly closer to the basket is the reason why. I would argue that the arrival of Crawford and Horford's improvement from mid-range opening up the lane for him are far bigger reasons for the improvement. In any case, correlation does not equal causation.

[drzachary]

"This article is very disturbing. Josh saying he will keep taking them because "they are just there". "

Exactly. Technically, half-court shots are always there, too. (Reminds of one of my old faves: Randy Woods from LaSalle!)

[exodus]

Actually, Josh's eFG% and TS% are indistinguishable from last year's. His TS% is oh-so-slightly higher (.538 vs. .533), but his eFG% is actually oh-so-slightly lower (.505 vs. .508).

Where is your link? I am getting my overall EFG% from 82games.com

And I don't think you can imply any causation between the fact that he's standing 3 feet closer to the basket and the fact that he's crashing the boards more and driving to the rim more.

That is ridiculous. If you are closer to the basket of course you will be in better position to drive and get offensive rebounds. The correlation is obvious. If there is no difference between being 24 feet and 21 feet away then you could just as easily say there is no difference between 21 feet and 18 feet. You could make that argument all the way to zero.

And it isn't like Smith is taking all his jumpers from just 3 feet inside the line. He is taking them from 15-18 feet as well.

Show me one big man that takes a lot of 3s and is a good offensive rebounder.

If Smith has it in his mind to shoot 3s the 3 feet difference isn't even relevant. The relavant issue is that he is trying to get a three point shot off and if that is what he is trying to do he is less likely to go inside.

And it is no coincidence that Smith is taking fewer jumpers overall this year. In the past 3 years 47%, 48% and 51% of his shots were jumpers. This year only 37% of his shots are jumpers.

Edited March 23, 2010 by exodus

[exodus]

I would argue that the arrival of Crawford and Horford's improvement from mid-range opening up the lane for him are far bigger reasons for the improvement.

And you would be wrong. Last year Horford scored 4.1 ppg on jumpers shooting 40.8%.

http://www.82games.com/0809/08ATL12.HTM

This year he is averaging 4.6 ppg on jumpers shooting 43%.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09ATL11.HTM

As far as Crawford goes the increase in his production over Flip is definitely offset by the declines in Bibby and Marvin.

[niremetal]

Where is your link? I am getting my overall EFG% from 82games.com

That is ridiculous. If you are closer to the basket of course you will be in better position to drive and get offensive rebounds. The correlation is obvious. If there is no difference between being 24 feet and 21 feet away then you could just as easily say there is no difference between 21 feet and 18 feet. You could make that argument all the way to zero.

And it isn't like Smith is taking all his jumpers from just 3 feet inside the line. He is taking them from 15-18 feet as well.

Show me one big man that takes a lot of 3s and is a good offensive rebounder.

If Smith has it in his mind to shoot 3s the 3 feet difference isn't even relevant. The relavant issue is that he is trying to get a three point shot off and if that is what he is trying to do he is less likely to go inside.

And it is no coincidence that Smith is taking fewer jumpers overall this year. In the past 3 years 47%, 48% and 51% of his shots were jumpers. This year only 37% of his shots are jumpers.

I'm getting them from basketball-reference.com.

Josh's shots from 16-23 feet are up compared to past years. His 11-15 feet shots are slightly down. I don't know of a site that breaks it down further than that, but my observations is that in terms of mid-range shots, most of Josh's shots are from 18-22 feet.

The rest of your post is fluff. Of course big men who take 3s tend to be worse offensive rebounders than post-area big men. But they are no better than bigs who take a high number of mid-range jumpers and virtually no threes. But since you asked - Kevin Love is #4 is ORebs and he averages 1.7 3s per game. His shot chart is proportionately quite similar to Josh's in past years, but he gets way more ORebs than Josh ever has. In any case, common sense should indicate that standing 22 feet from the basket instead of 19 should not have more than a negligible impact on how hard a player crashes the boards. It's a matter of effort and disclipline, and the slight difference between standing right behind the line and right and front of it does not determine that effort and discipline.

You say it's no coincidence. My point is that you have no reason but your own sense of "I'm right" to say that him standing 3 feet closer to the basket is a bigger reason for the reduction in jumpers than the arrival of Jamal, the emergence of Al's mid-range game, JJ's improved efficiency, or just the fact that he is putting in greater overall effort on both ends this year than he ever did before.

Edited March 23, 2010 by niremetal

[exodus]

I'm getting them from basketball-reference.com.

The rest of your post is fluff. Of course big men who take 3s tend to be worse offensive rebounders than post-area big men. But they are no better than bigs who take a high number of mid-range jumpers and virtually no threes. But since you asked - Kevin Love is #4 is ORebs and he averages 1.7 3s per game. His shot chart is proportionately quite similar to Josh's in past years, but he gets way more ORebs than Josh ever has. In any case, common sense should indicate that standing 22 feet from the basket instead of 19 should not have more than a negligible impact on how hard a player crashes the boards. It's a matter of effort and disclipline, and the slight difference between standing right behind the line and right and front of it does not determine that effort and discipline.

You say it's no coincidence. My point is that you have no reason but your own sense of "I'm right" to say that him standing 3 feet closer to the basket is a bigger reason for the reduction in jumpers than the arrival of Jamal, the emergence of Al's mid-range game, JJ's improved efficiency, or just the fact that he is putting in greater overall effort on both ends this year than he ever did before.

Wrong. I have several years of evidence to back it up. Before Smith stopped shooting 3s at least 47% of his shots were jumpers for 3 straight years. This year it was 37%. You are trying to say it is just a sudden coincidence which means you are basing your agument on nothing.

And this business about Horford and Crawford is a joke. As i pointed out above Horford is only scoring .5 more ppg on jumpers shooting only 2% better.

Crawford increase in production over Flip is offset by the declines in the production of Bibby and Marvin.

You have no evidence to support your argument. I actually do have evidence to support mine.

Edited March 23, 2010 by exodus

[niremetal]

Wrong. I have several years of evidence to back it up. Before Smith stopped shooting 3s at least 47% of his shots were jumpers for 3 straight years. This year it was 37%. You are trying to say it is just a sudden coincidence which means you are basing your agument on nothing.

And this business about Horford and Crawford is a joke. As i pointed out above Horford is only scoring .5 more ppg on jumpers shooting only 2% better.

Crawford increase in production over Flip is offset by the declines in the production of Bibby and Marvin.

You have no evidence to support your argument. I actually do have evidence to support mine.

Actually, your evidence consists of one thing changing at the same time that another thing changed. That's called correlation. Correlation does not equal causation. I pointed out that a whole bunch of other things changed between last year and this year, and (in my opinion) the most important of those is Josh's effort. There is a correlation between those things and the decrease in Josh's jump shots as well. Anyone can find two stats that change from one year to the next and argue that their changes are linked, but most times the changes are not directly linked. Why are you so insistent that your correlation DOES prove causation?

As for Horford, he might only be scoring .5ppg out there. But that doesn't reflect the fact that he draws his defender outside the paint far more this year than in past years, regardless of whether he actually takes and makes shot (or even gets the ball). When Al goes away from the basket, Josh usually goes inside, thus creating more opportunities for rebounds and fewer opportunities for jumpers.

As for Crawford vs. Marvin/Bibby, I didn't say anything about production. But I think Crawford's ability to both get into the lane and hit open jumpers has taken a lot of pressure of ALL Hawks offensively, which has allowed them to be more aggressive. The box score stats don't tell half the story in terms of Crawford's impact, as I suspect you know.

Edited March 23, 2010 by niremetal

[exodus]

Actually, your evidence consists of one thing changing at the same time that another thing changed. That's called correlation. Correlation does not equal causation. I pointed out that a whole bunch of other things changed between last year and this year, and (in my opinion) the most important of those is Josh's effort. There is a correlation between those things and the decrease in Josh's jump shots as well. Anyone can find two stats that change from one year to the next and argue that their changes are linked, but most times the changes are not directly linked. Why are you so insistent that your correlation DOES prove causation?

Because there is no other logical reason. The effort business makes about as much sense as the Crawford/Horford argument. None at all.

If Smith suddenly decided to put in more effort in his 6th season why isn't he setting career highs in defensive rebounding and blocks, two effort areas? And why would he suddenly decide to put in more effort AFTER he signed his big contract, not before?

And please put some numbers behind your Crawford/Horford argument. I don't see how Horford scoring .5 more ppg on jumpers would have any effect on Smith at all.

Edited March 23, 2010 by exodus

[niremetal]

Because there is no other logical reason. The effort business makes about as much sense as the Crawford/Horford argument. None at all.

Sorry, I didn't realize that Aristotle had come back from the dead and bestowed upon you the sole ability to determine what constitutes a logical reason. I guess mrhonline and others who have made similar points are all on the crack pipe or otherwise lacking in the ability to reason.

Clearly, this argument is no longer worth continuing with you.

Edited March 23, 2010 by niremetal

[exodus]

Sorry, I didn't realize that Aristotle had come back from the dead and bestowed upon you the sole ability to determine what constitutes a logical reason. I guess mrhonline and others who have made similar points are all on the crack pipe or otherwise lacking in the ability to reason.

Clearly, this argument is no longer worth continuing with you.

I knew you couldn't explain why Smith's effort didn't translate into defensive rebounding and blocks. I knew you couldn't explain why he suddenly decided to put more effort out in his 6th year.

Better to just make up a strawman and give up. Good call.

[JackB1]

No sane person could make an argument for Josh taking more jumpers.

[APE]

This is why Michael Beasely is always good against the Hawks . He doesn't have to work defensively.

[AHF]

I agree with exodus' analysis of Josh not shooting 3's reducing his overall jump shooting. While recognizing that a 3 is better than a long 2, I would do anything I could to discourage him shooting jumpers at all and that includes continuing the ban on the 3pt shooting.

Josh loves shooting 3's. Encouraging him to go outside the 3pt line again is like giving whiskey to an alcoholic in that it gives him a temptation that brings him down the wrong path.

My bottomline is that I agree that if Josh is shooting a long two the rationale reaction would be to have him step back and shoot a 3. But the flaw with that premise is that Josh is not rationale in his shot selection. He does not rationally weigh the cost/benefit analysis and decide that a jumper is a good idea. He is open, he likes shooting jumpers, and he can't help himself. If he was disciplined enough to take the kind of approach suggested (weighing the better points per attempt), then he wouldn't be shooting jumpers at all. So I am all for anything that lowers his shot attempts and keeps him closer to the basket more of the time.

[exodus]

I agree with exodus' analysis of Josh not shooting 3's reducing his overall jump shooting. While recognizing that a 3 is better than a long 2, I would do anything I could to discourage him shooting jumpers at all and that includes continuing the ban on the 3pt shooting.

Josh loves shooting 3's. Encouraging him to go outside the 3pt line again is like giving whiskey to an alcoholic in that it gives him a temptation that brings him down the wrong path.

My bottomline is that I agree that if Josh is shooting a long two the rationale reaction would be to have him step back and shoot a 3. But the flaw with that premise is that Josh is not rationale in his shot selection. He does not rationally weigh the cost/benefit analysis and decide that a jumper is a good idea. He is open, he likes shooting jumpers, and he can't help himself. If he was disciplined enough to take the kind of approach suggested (weighing the better points per attempt), then he wouldn't be shooting jumpers at all. So I am all for anything that lowers his shot attempts and keeps him closer to the basket more of the time.

As usual you can express my point better than I can.

Funny but i can't even remember the last time we disagreed about anything regarding the Hawks.

[JackB1]

I agree with exodus' analysis of Josh not shooting 3's reducing his overall jump shooting. While recognizing that a 3 is better than a long 2, I would do anything I could to discourage him shooting jumpers at all and that includes continuing the ban on the 3pt shooting.

Josh loves shooting 3's. Encouraging him to go outside the 3pt line again is like giving whiskey to an alcoholic in that it gives him a temptation that brings him down the wrong path.

My bottomline is that I agree that if Josh is shooting a long two the rationale reaction would be to have him step back and shoot a 3. But the flaw with that premise is that Josh is not rationale in his shot selection. He does not rationally weigh the cost/benefit analysis and decide that a jumper is a good idea. He is open, he likes shooting jumpers, and he can't help himself. If he was disciplined enough to take the kind of approach suggested (weighing the better points per attempt), then he wouldn't be shooting jumpers at all. So I am all for anything that lowers his shot attempts and keeps him closer to the basket more of the time.

Why is it that Al & Zaza can "control themselves" from taking long jumpers, but Josh can't?

[AHF]

As usual you can express my point better than I can.

Funny but i can't even remember the last time we disagreed about anything regarding the Hawks.

We disagree all the time you #$#&**!

:angry22:

Seriously, one thing I disagree on is that I am not ready to get rid of Woody this offseason if we (1) have a solid post-season; (2) resign JJ; and (3) don't have a stud coach who is interested behind the scenes and who the ASG would actually pay.

In general, the Hawks have done pretty well this season and I like the continuity they have developed. Unless there is a good reason (and the three that come to my mind are above - flop in the post-season, no JJ, or stud coach available), I would not rush to get rid of Woodson this offseason.

[GameTime]

If this doesn't show Woody has no control/respect from this team, I don't know what will.

[Plainview1981]

Are you serious? Trade Josh Smith? He is under contract for 3+ years at a very reasonable price. He is playing PF spot, and should be a SF. He has matured this year beyond anyones expectations and wants to become a leader of this team. Too be honest, I do not mind him taking 2-3 jump shots a game. And it's not like he has been forcing them. For instance, last night he took it because the shot clock was winding down and he was wide open. Fri. night vs. CHA he took the 3 because shot clock was expiring again. Trading smoove would be dumb.

Players like Josh Smith is what is wrong with the NBA. Terrible fundamentals along with being a headcase and blatantly doing things that will hurt the team. It annoys me when he makes the comments that he made.

[AHF]

Are you serious? Trade Josh Smith? He is under contract for 3+ years at a very reasonable price. He is playing PF spot, and should be a SF.

I agree with the "don't trade Smoove" sentiment (assuming we don't get godfather offer) but he should not be a SF. Defensively, Josh at SF is bad and any move that has Josh spending more time on the perimeter and/or away from the basket on offense is also a bad move. There is just nothing about his game that would be better at the SF position unless you are saying SF and meaning something different than what is associated with playing the position.

[Guest]

Sorry, I didn't realize that Aristotle had come back from the dead and bestowed upon you the sole ability to determine what constitutes a logical reason. I guess mrhonline and others who have made similar points are all on the crack pipe or otherwise lacking in the ability to reason.

Clearly, this argument is no longer worth continuing with you.

Wow, you are a quick learner. It took me probably 3 years to realize what you just realized.

I don't think anyone on this board is dumb enough to suggest Josh should shoot 3s. We do have people dumb enough on this board that don't understand conditional statements. Hence, when you say something like "given" or "if" it leads itself to a conditional statement. A conditional statement does not imply a general statement.