Crawford

[AHF]

I think it all depends on personnel. If Josh doesn't improve his posting ability, then why keep him in the post. Our motion offense will get a lot of guys open looks in their spot. The real question to be answered this year is What is Josh's spot. Back to the personnel question, if we have the right personnel, Josh is the first guy to move. i.e. if we happen upon another post player (who is good in the post) then Josh will be Sf. You guys have made Sf to be something that it's not. Sf is really the most undefined position on the court (and always has been). In General, the midsized guy who was not a great shooter/Defender or rebounder was historically your Sf. It's not really a position of Specification. You don't have to be a great shooter to be a Sf. Neither do you have to be a great perimeter defender. That's why Sf is the position on the floor with the most variance.

If we were to trade Jamal and get back Mark Gasol or Brook Lopez, would you put Smoove on the bench? What about Horf? The correct answer is that obviously Horf moves to PF and Smoove to Sf and nobody complains.

And Josh Smith's career goes the way of Andrei Kirilenko as that is exactly what happened to him when they got Boozer and Okur. He went from being an impact player to an overpaid, frustrated and marginalized player.

Let me also add that you can't hide the type of SF you are talking about like you used to. You know that back in the 80's you could put your midsized guy who couldn't shoot at SF and just stick him on the other side of the floor from where the play or isolation was developing. Now that zone defenses are legal, that is a whole different liability and the ability to stretch defenses needs to be in your offense. If you have a perimeter shooting center that is being added, I can see how that works. However, there is only so much space on the floor and if you have a post-playing C, Al Horford and Josh Smith then you have three people who are effective in a small amount of real estate.

If we are talking about acquiring Brooke Lopez, I don't disagree with your ultimate conclusion - you put your best guys on the floor and try to make it work and Josh Smith is one of our top 3 players with JJ and Horford. There is just a lot of "Andre Kirilenko" downside to assigning Smith to guard SFs and to figuring out what to do with him on offense with a C and PF who need touches in the paint.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

AHF exactly.

At that point, you would almost have to bring Smoove off the bench, and play him in a Lamar Odom-esque role, just so that he could still play the majority of his minutes at PF. But to flat out move him to SF would have a Kirilenko effect that would severely affect his game.

As talented as Smoove is, there is a distinct reason why he didn't make the Team USA "B-Team". The SFs on that team would absolutely destroy Smoove out on the perimeter.

The last thing we want as a team, is Smoove 22 ft from the basket, trying to guard Andre Iguodala or Paul Pierce or a Danny Granger or even a Luou Deng.

[MaceCase]

AHF exactly.

At that point, you would almost have to bring Smoove off the bench, and play him in a Lamar Odom-esque role, just so that he could still play the majority of his minutes at PF. But to flat out move him to SF would have a Kirilenko effect that would severely affect his game.

As talented as Smoove is, there is a distinct reason why he didn't make the Team USA "B-Team". The SFs on that team would absolutely destroy Smoove out on the perimeter.

The last thing we want as a team, is Smoove 22 ft from the basket, trying to guard Andre Iguodala or Paul Pierce or a Danny Granger or even a Luou Deng.

Great catch, North. I had almost entirely forgotten about Lamar on the Lakers. He is a tweener himself that has many of the same skills that Josh has yet when have you ever heard of Phil playing Lamar, Pau, and Bynum in the frontcourt just to get his best players on the floor?

[coachx]

AHF exactly.

At that point, you would almost have to bring Smoove off the bench, and play him in a Lamar Odom-esque role, just so that he could still play the majority of his minutes at PF. But to flat out move him to SF would have a Kirilenko effect that would severely affect his game.

As talented as Smoove is, there is a distinct reason why he didn't make the Team USA "B-Team". The SFs on that team would absolutely destroy Smoove out on the perimeter.

The last thing we want as a team, is Smoove 22 ft from the basket, trying to guard Andre Iguodala or Paul Pierce or a Danny Granger or even a Luou Deng.

Totally agree with you and AHF. This topic was dead and beat into the ground 3 or 4 years ago to anyone with eyes and a brain.

Edited October 1, 2010 by coachx

[Diesel]

And Josh Smith's career goes the way of Andrei Kirilenko as that is exactly what happened to him when they got Boozer and Okur. He went from being an impact player to an overpaid, frustrated and marginalized player.

Let me also add that you can't hide the type of SF you are talking about like you used to. You know that back in the 80's you could put your midsized guy who couldn't shoot at SF and just stick him on the other side of the floor from where the play or isolation was developing. Now that zone defenses are legal, that is a whole different liability and the ability to stretch defenses needs to be in your offense. If you have a perimeter shooting center that is being added, I can see how that works. However, there is only so much space on the floor and if you have a post-playing C, Al Horford and Josh Smith then you have three people who are effective in a small amount of real estate.

If we are talking about acquiring Brooke Lopez, I don't disagree with your ultimate conclusion - you put your best guys on the floor and try to make it work and Josh Smith is one of our top 3 players with JJ and Horford. There is just a lot of "Andre Kirilenko" downside to assigning Smith to guard SFs and to figuring out what to do with him on offense with a C and PF who need touches in the paint.

You can't make a case for change in position, injury, or age as being the reason for Ak-47's decline. Cmon.. He was coming off of injury when he was moved. Moreover, he hasn't shown up for Russia in international play either. He has sucked a-- in International play.So is it a conspiracy to keep AK from his best position? First Jerry Sloan (who in my estimation is one of the best coaches in history) fails to put AK back at PF and now, the Russian team just misuses him?

[Diesel]

Great catch, North. I had almost entirely forgotten about Lamar on the Lakers. He is a tweener himself that has many of the same skills that Josh has yet when have you ever heard of Phil playing Lamar, Pau, and Bynum in the frontcourt just to get his best players on the floor?

The reason you don't see that lineup is because Bynum is often injured. Moreover, Phil has Artest. Hello.. Have you forgotten that guy? As far as Lamar Odom is concerned, Maybe you guys have forgotten? Odom was considered a Point Forward coming out of UR. He has more skills than Smoove. He plays the Sf whenever Phil wants him to play it.

[MaceCase]

The reason you don't see that lineup is because Bynum is often injured. Moreover, Phil has Artest. Hello.. Have you forgotten that guy? As far as Lamar Odom is concerned, Maybe you guys have forgotten? Odom was considered a Point Forward coming out of UR. He has more skills than Smoove. He plays the Sf whenever Phil wants him to play it.

Artest has only been there for a season, the season before that Phil started Luke Walton then Trevor Ariza at SF. When Bynum is hurt Odom starts at PF, when Bynum is healthy Odoms backs up the PF position specifically. Overall, Odom has barely played over 3% of his teams minutes at SF going back nearly half a decade despite having better SF skills than Smoove yet you still think Smoove at the 3 is ideal.

[AHF]

You can't make a case for change in position, injury, or age as being the reason for Ak-47's decline. Cmon.. He was coming off of injury when he was moved. Moreover, he hasn't shown up for Russia in international play either. He has sucked a-- in International play.So is it a conspiracy to keep AK from his best position? First Jerry Sloan (who in my estimation is one of the best coaches in history) fails to put AK back at PF and now, the Russian team just misuses him?

Yes I can.

2010 season - +7.9 PER at PF (19.4 PER at SF // 27.3 PER at PF)

2009 season: +2.1 PER at PF (19.2 at PF to 17.1 at SF)

2008 season: +3.8 PER at PF (22.8 at PF to 19.0 at SF)

2007 season: +2.5 PER at PF (17.6 at PF to 16.1 at SF)

2006 season: +1.7 PER at PF (27.0 at PF to 25.3 at SF)

2005 season: +7.2 PER at PF (26.7 at PF to 19.5 at SF)

How can anyone not understand that trend? Seriously, he has never played as well when pulled away from the basket. It is obvious in the numbers and obvious when watching him on the floor.

[niremetal]

Yes I can.

2010 season - +7.9 PER at PF (19.4 PER at SF // 27.3 PER at PF)

2009 season: +2.1 PER at PF (19.2 at PF to 17.1 at SF)

2008 season: +3.8 PER at PF (22.8 at PF to 19.0 at SF)

2007 season: +2.5 PER at PF (17.6 at PF to 16.1 at SF)

2006 season: +1.7 PER at PF (27.0 at PF to 25.3 at SF)

2005 season: +7.2 PER at PF (26.7 at PF to 19.5 at SF)

How can anyone not understand that trend? Seriously, he has never played as well when pulled away from the basket. It is obvious in the numbers and obvious when watching him on the floor.

That doesn't take into account his outstanding ability to defend the SF position. And it doesn't take into account that, for that reason and many others, PER is a completely BS measure.

That being said, while I don't think AK is like Josh - i.e. he isn't drastically more suited for PF than SF - I do think that the Jazz's personnel issues have forced him to spend more time at SF than he should. But I still would be willing to trade Marvin straight-up for him (and yes, I realize that doesn't work with the cap rules, I'm just speaking hypothetically). AK can guard all 5 positions without embarrassing himself and can defend 2-3 positions at an elite level, and he also can give you some offense and rebounding to boot. He would be an excellent fit here, I think.

Edited October 2, 2010 by niremetal

[AHF]

The fact that AK is a significantly better defender at the SF position than Josh doesn't make the comparison less apt for me. I agree about PER but it is the only measure available on 82 games and is still material at those margins, IMO.

[Diesel]

Yes I can.

2010 season - +7.9 PER at PF (19.4 PER at SF // 27.3 PER at PF)

2009 season: +2.1 PER at PF (19.2 at PF to 17.1 at SF)

2008 season: +3.8 PER at PF (22.8 at PF to 19.0 at SF)

2007 season: +2.5 PER at PF (17.6 at PF to 16.1 at SF)

2006 season: +1.7 PER at PF (27.0 at PF to 25.3 at SF)

2005 season: +7.2 PER at PF (26.7 at PF to 19.5 at SF)

How can anyone not understand that trend? Seriously, he has never played as well when pulled away from the basket. It is obvious in the numbers and obvious when watching him on the floor.

He played BU to Carlos Boozer. There's an interesting statistical effect when a player comes off the bench behind a good player.

Shawn Marion comes off the bench to backup Dirk. + 4.2 PER.

Cunnigham comes off the bench for Aldridge.. Per = 18.

Point is AK played 5% of the Jazz PF minutes. That's roughly 2.4 minutes per game. So you want to make a mountain out of 2.4 minutes a game??

[DJlaysitup]

...Let me also add that you can't hide the type of SF you are talking about like you used to. You know that back in the 80's you could put your midsized guy who couldn't shoot at SF and just stick him on the other side of the floor from where the play or isolation was developing. Now that zone defenses are legal, that is a whole different liability and the ability to stretch defenses needs to be in your offense. If you have a perimeter shooting center that is being added, I can see how that works. However, there is only so much space on the floor and if you have a post-playing C, Al Horford and Josh Smith then you have three people who are effective in a small amount of real estate....

Exactly AHF and that is why we shoulnd't be afraid of Smoove shooting jumpers.

[Guest]

I appreciate Jamal's contibution to this team, but there is absolutely no reason for the ASG to extend his contract with the new CBA coming up.

[AHF]

He played BU to Carlos Boozer. There's an interesting statistical effect when a player comes off the bench behind a good player.

Shawn Marion comes off the bench to backup Dirk. + 4.2 PER.

Cunnigham comes off the bench for Aldridge.. Per = 18.

Point is AK played 5% of the Jazz PF minutes. That's roughly 2.4 minutes per game. So you want to make a mountain out of 2.4 minutes a game??

You realize that Kirilenko is better at PF every single year, right? That includes the 2005 season where Boozer missed 31 games, the 2006 season when Boozer didn't start 63 games, and the 2009 season when Boozer missed 45 games.

Moreover, look at Utah BEFORE Boozer joined the team.

In 2003-04, Kirilenko put up a 26.7 PER at PF and a 19.5 PER at SF - a +7.2 PER for the season at PF relative to SF.

In 2002-03, Kirilenko put up a 20.6 PER at PF and a 17.7 PER at SF - a +2.9 PER for the season at PF.

So even before Boozer was the there, the trend was the exact same - Kirilenko put up better numbers as a PF. Every season of his career. Without exception.

Notice I am not even addressing the fundamental flaw in your reasoning since your criticism of my numbers is only relevant to +/- stats. PER is a measure of productivity per minute and is not based on a comparison between the starter and reserve. If a team has an extraordinary starter at a position the backup will still have the same PER as if the starter is just pitiful if the reserve's performance is the same. Since I am talking about better productivity per minute at PF, the other members of the team don't mean as much as in a +/- situation like you are referring to.

Edited October 4, 2010 by AHF

[Diesel]

You realize that Kirilenko is better at PF every single year, right? That includes the 2005 season where Boozer missed 31 games, the 2006 season when Boozer didn't start 63 games, and the 2009 season when Boozer missed 45 games.

Moreover, look at Utah BEFORE Boozer joined the team.

In 2003-04, Kirilenko put up a 26.7 PER at PF and a 19.5 PER at SF - a +7.2 PER for the season at PF relative to SF.

In 2002-03, Kirilenko put up a 20.6 PER at PF and a 17.7 PER at SF - a +2.9 PER for the season at PF.

So even before Boozer was the there, the trend was the exact same - Kirilenko put up better numbers as a PF. Every season of his career. Without exception.

Notice I am not even addressing the fundamental flaw in your reasoning since your criticism of my numbers is only relevant to +/- stats. PER is a measure of productivity per minute and is not based on a comparison between the starter and reserve. If a team has an extraordinary starter at a position the backup will still have the same PER as if the starter is just pitiful if the reserve's performance is the same. Since I am talking about better productivity per minute at PF, the other members of the team don't mean as much as in a +/- situation like you are referring to.

2002, 2003 was 7 to 8 years ago. Over that time...every player goes into decline (ask Tim Duncan). Still, Kirilenko has had problems with his coach, he has had problems with his injuries, he has had problems because of age, he has had some motivation problems... There's an exhaustive list of things that is wrong with Kirilenko, way down on that list was the move to Sf.

[DrReality]

I appreciate Jamal's contibution to this team, but there is absolutely no reason for the ASG to extend his contract with the new CBA coming up.

IT's presumptuous for him to think he'd get his done before Al. He should know better. Think this is posturing for him to get a trade?

[AHF]

2002, 2003 was 7 to 8 years ago. Over that time...every player goes into decline (ask Tim Duncan). Still, Kirilenko has had problems with his coach, he has had problems with his injuries, he has had problems because of age, he has had some motivation problems... There's an exhaustive list of things that is wrong with Kirilenko, way down on that list was the move to Sf.

Kirlienk has been better at PF every single season of his career. He has played more productively at that position every single season of his career. I'm not sure why you are not at least recognizing that fact.