Josh Smith:I'm going to keep taking jumpers

[exodus]

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.

This from the guy who thought Smiths foul shooting slump was due to signing a new contract. Talk about dumb.

So how is Zaza doing on the defensive glass, statboy?

[AHF]

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.

As I said earlier, I agree with this in the abstract but believe that in real life that the idea of Smith stepping out to shoot 3's rather than 2's in the road to hell paved with good intentions since I don't think he can exercise the rationale shot selection needed to make this insight useful in practice. My issue is not with the statistical analysis or conditional premise, it is with the notion that implied course of action (step out and take threes rather than long twos) is self-destructive behavior for Josh.

I know you will agree that Josh should not be taking the long jumpers at all and the conditional premise would have more use if it wasn't so likely to result in an increase in long jumpers and a decrease in rebounding and interior passing opportunities if applied in practice.

[Guest]

As I said earlier, I agree with this in the abstract but believe that in real life that the idea of Smith stepping out to shoot 3's rather than 2's in the road to hell paved with good intentions since I don't think he can exercise the rationale shot selection needed to make this insight useful in practice. My issue is not with the statistical analysis or conditional premise, it is with the notion that implied course of action (step out and take threes rather than long twos) is self-destructive behavior for Josh.

I know you will agree that Josh should not be taking the long jumpers at all and the conditional premise would have more use if it wasn't so likely to result in an increase in long jumpers and a decrease in rebounding and interior passing opportunities if applied in practice.

Oh I agree. Its just foolish for someone to somehow be offended by my conditional statement earlier.

Its like being offered chocolate or vanilla ice cream and then screaming you want Rocky Road. Sure we all want Rocky Road, but thats not in the fridge so we can't get it. And then you keep screaming and hollering about wanting Rocky Road, basically acting like a child over the decision of being offered chocolate or vanilla. You mock us for not having Rocky Road in the fridge, call us names, say its illogical, etc. I get it you want Rocky Road, but back to the fridge we've got chocolate or vanilla which do you choose?

This discussion is one of the reasons I have Excusodus on my ignore list. Unfortunately, when people quote him in their posts I have to relive this argument. So for posters out there, a little common courtesy for me to not quote Excusodus so I don't have to see his angry ramblings. Thanks.

[exodus]

Oh I agree. Its just foolish for someone to somehow be offended by my conditional statement earlier.

Its like being offered chocolate or vanilla ice cream and then screaming you want Rocky Road. Sure we all want Rocky Road, but thats not in the fridge so we can't get it. And then you keep screaming and hollering about wanting Rocky Road, basically acting like a child over the decision of being offered chocolate or vanilla. You mock us for not having Rocky Road in the fridge, call us names, say its illogical, etc. I get it you want Rocky Road, but back to the fridge we've got chocolate or vanilla which do you choose?

This discussion is one of the reasons I have Excusodus on my ignore list. Unfortunately, when people quote him in their posts I have to relive this argument. So for posters out there, a little common courtesy for me to not quote Excusodus so I don't have to see his angry ramblings. Thanks.

So in other words your "conditional" statement was saying nothing at all since you don't think Smith should take 3s.

[niremetal]

As I said earlier, I agree with this in the abstract but believe that in real life that the idea of Smith stepping out to shoot 3's rather than 2's in the road to hell paved with good intentions since I don't think he can exercise the rationale shot selection needed to make this insight useful in practice. My issue is not with the statistical analysis or conditional premise, it is with the notion that implied course of action (step out and take threes rather than long twos) is self-destructive behavior for Josh.

I know you will agree that Josh should not be taking the long jumpers at all and the conditional premise would have more use if it wasn't so likely to result in an increase in long jumpers and a decrease in rebounding and interior passing opportunities if applied in practice.

Fair point. My fear is that as Josh's quickness and athleticism drop from elite levels, he'll start taking more jumpers regardless of where he's standing. When that's happening, I'd rather his hopeless jumpers be worth 3 points rather than 2. As hawksfanatic said, it's a conditional statement: All things being equal, given the choice between Josh taking 3s and Josh taking long 2s, I'd rather him take 3s. You're saying all things aren't equal, and maybe there's something to that - maybe standing behind the 3 point line puts him into "jump shot mode" more than standing 20 feet away from the bucket does. I still don't think that Josh views the 3-point line as a magical jumper-taking barrier, though. I think that the drop in the number of jumpers he's taking is due to a number of things, his positioning on the floor being just one of them.

Edited March 24, 2010 by niremetal

[Dexmethylphenidate]

Here's a good rule for Josh to follow- no jump shooting unless he can shoot 80%+ from free throws.

[YP2K]

Keep shooting Josh! It is the only way you're going to get better . . .

By the way, it is a good thing he kept shooting tonight, when everyone else went to crap in the 4th . . .

[AHF]

Keep shooting Josh! It is the only way you're going to get better . . .

Every opposing team in the league will leave him wide open and pray that he follows your advice. He should keep shooting in practice and only shoot in games when his perimeter shooting has been upgraded from its current woeful state.

You might as well argue that Zaza should be shooting threes because it is the only way he'll get better.

[BusBoyIsBack]

As posted on realgm-

Take note of this

Josh Smith

2004-05 to 2007-08 (19 to 22 years old)

Forwards with 30+ MPG

.445 FG% (39th in league)

2008-09 (23 years old)

Forwards with 30+ MPG

.492 FG% (14th in league)

2009-10 (24 years old)

Forwards with 30+ MPG

.503 FG% (11th in league)

Josh Smith simply did not get it his first few years in the league. Shooting 42 and 44% from the field. Since then he's gradually decreased the amount of 3s he's launches as well as long jumpers.

Finally after all these years of getting benched for taking those ridiculous shots (many of which were air balls), a light has finally clicked in his head.