That game-winning 3 pointer will set Josh back 2 years

[AHF]

I love the Saturday morning armchair quarterbacking by a bunch of guys that get sat down in the gym at the Y. Seriously guys. How many of you have as much talent as Josh, Joe, Al, Marvin or even Bibby have in their left shoe?

Since I'm not as talented as Randolph Morris that means I should offer nothing but praise for him?

On the subject of the thread, I sure hope Josh moves closer to the basket on offense. If I am the other team's coach, I do everything I can to get a Hawks possession to end with Josh shooting a long jumper. He will make some of them but the net is that the strategy of encouraging those shots is a great one.

[Chickenstanley]

Can someone please define what this debate is actually attempting to come to a conclusion *about*? LOL

It seems that myself and a few others are attempting to explore whether Smoove *might possibly* have a net-positive affect on team success when he shoots jumpers/3's liberally. While many others are attempting to point out the insanely redundant fact that he is a low percentage outside shooter.

Sorry, but simply pointing out the latter does not provide a legitimate debate against the former, in my opinion.

How about something of substance, such as:

1. Team playoff victories/losses in the last 3 years (when compared to) Smoove's jumpers and 3 pt attempts. Show a decidedly negative correlation here.

2. Now show me some conclusion that if Smoove had taken only high percentage shots (for him) --- the team could have expected to win more of these games, based on the overall performance of the other players during losses. Could he have dragged the rest of the team down? That is certainly a possibility. But if this is going to be your case, please tell us how you came to this conclusion. As opposed to the possibility that poor play by the others *could not have been* an explanation for Smoove's increased jumpers during these losses --- if you found that his jumpers increased at all.

3. Now take into account the quality of the opponents by factoring in where the opponents eventually finished in relationship to the NBA title.

4. Now draw a conclusion that, based on your above findings, one *might* come to a *reasonable* conclusion that team success or failure is meaningfully correlated with the number of jumpers/3's that Smoove attempts.

Although this type of analysis will be far from conclusive due to many variables that did not remain constant throughout ---- it would seem to provide (at least) a legitimate *attempt* to draw a conclusion and participate intelligently in this debate.

No one has come close to anything convincing yet, to me.

But I wish someone would! Because I'd like from an opinion on this very interesting topic!

CS

[AHF]

Can someone please define what this debate is actually attempting to come to a conclusion *about*? LOL

It seems that myself and a few others are attempting to explore whether Smoove *might possibly* have a net-positive affect on team success when he shoots jumpers/3's liberally. While many others are attempting to point out the insanely redundant fact that he is a low percentage outside shooter.

Josh Smith is a very talented player. Of course he has a net positive effect on the team whether he shoots 3's or not. If Shaq in his prime launched four 3pt attempts per game and hit 1% of them, he would still have had a net positive effect on the team.

Sorry, but simply pointing out the latter does not provide a legitimate debate against the former, in my opinion.

How about something of substance, such as:

1. Team playoff victories/losses in the last 3 years (when compared to) Smoove's jumpers and 3 pt attempts. Show a decidedly negative correlation here.

WTF? Here is the net:

The actual point is that you are comparing apples to oranges and when the teams and matchups are different, you can't generate a meaningful statistical correlation. But....to play your game, the year Josh shot 3's liberally we barely made the playoffs and lost in the first round. Last season with Josh limiting his 3's, we won more games, won home court advantage, and made it to the second round of the playoffs. That sounds like better team success in the Josh shoots fewer 3's era.

2. Now show me some conclusion that if Smoove had taken only high percentage shots (for him) --- the team could have expected to win more of these games, based on the overall performance of the other players during losses. Could he have dragged the rest of the team down? That is certainly a possibility. But if this is going to be your case, please tell us how you came to this conclusion. As opposed to the possibility that poor play by the others *could not have been* an explanation for Smoove's increased jumpers during these losses --- if you found that his jumpers increased at all.

Why would you look to the overall performance of other players? The issue is Josh's play - not what others do. He is an exciting talented player that is arguably our most important player on the team and he is limiting his own effectiveness this season shooting so many J's.

3. Now take into account the quality of the opponents by factoring in where the opponents eventually finished in relationship to the NBA title.

4. Now draw a conclusion that, based on your above findings, one *might* come to a *reasonable* conclusion that team success or failure is meaningfully correlated with the number of jumpers/3's that Smoove attempts.

If you put together any kind of meaningful analysis on this, I'll happily look at it. Saying that we gave the Celtics a run for their money doesn't cut it for multiple reasons (including sample size and differences in matchups with the Celtics who we have always played tough and the Magic who have owned us in recent years).

Although this type of analysis will be far from conclusive due to many variables that did not remain constant throughout ---- it would seem to provide (at least) a legitimate *attempt* to draw a conclusion and participate intelligently in this debate.

No one has come close to anything convincing yet, to me.

But I wish someone would! Because I'd like from an opinion on this very interesting topic!

CS

You seem to my eyes to be ignoring a lot of very valid arguments about Smith's effectiveness. Just look at Crawford for example - when he shot better last year he was vastly more effective. That is the way it works for every player in the league - raising their TS% raises their game all things being equal.

[jy23]

Josh Smith is a very talented player. Of course he has a net positive effect on the team whether he shoots 3's or not. If Shaq in his prime launched four 3pt attempts per game and hit 1% of them, he would still have had a net positive effect on the team.

WTF? Here is the net:

The actual point is that you are comparing apples to oranges and when the teams and matchups are different, you can't generate a meaningful statistical correlation. But....to play your game, the year Josh shot 3's liberally we barely made the playoffs and lost in the first round. Last season with Josh limiting his 3's, we won more games, won home court advantage, and made it to the second round of the playoffs. That sounds like better team success in the Josh shoots fewer 3's era.

Why would you look to the overall performance of other players? The issue is Josh's play - not what others do. He is an exciting talented player that is arguably our most important player on the team and he is limiting his own effectiveness this season shooting so many J's.

If you put together any kind of meaningful analysis on this, I'll happily look at it. Saying that we gave the Celtics a run for their money doesn't cut it for multiple reasons (including sample size and differences in matchups with the Celtics who we have always played tough and the Magic who have owned us in recent years).

You seem to my eyes to be ignoring a lot of very valid arguments about Smith's effectiveness. Just look at Crawford for example - when he shot better last year he was vastly more effective. That is the way it works for every player in the league - raising their TS% raises their game all things being equal.

Thank you for expressing my hearts sentiments lol....

[Atlantaholic]

Obviously we all want Josh to stop shooting... But after 7 years (500 + games), of him continuing to shoot jumpers I'm guessing it would be a stretch to expect him to stop doing it now. I know last year he stopped taking threes, but the fact of the matter is that he was still taking a healthy dose of shots from the perimeter... If he is going to be shooting from out there it might as well be a three point attempt since he shoots about the same percentage on long 2's as he does in 3's. We really don't need Josh to score a lot of points for us to be effective on offense so as long as the guy is crashing the boards and playing defense, which he has been doing at a peak level so far this year, I can stomach the guy's occasional ugly jump shots.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Atlantaholic

[Chickenstanley]

"If Shaq in his prime launched four 3pt attempts per game and hit 1% of them, he would still have had a net positive effect on the team."

The proper analogy here would be whether Shaq *might have* had an even greater positive affect had he been allowed to shoot four 3's per game. Neither of us know. We're both speculating here -- but I seem to be the only one of us who understands this.

"The actual point is that you are comparing apples to oranges and when the teams and matchups are different, you can't generate a meaningful statistical correlation"

I never said that this could easily put into any conclusive argument. And I never gave you any reason to believe I would try to do this. The burden of reasonable proof is on you. I never made any claim. I only said that your method of attempting to justify your claim was not convincing at all to me. In fact, your argument seems to totally disregard the gist of the thread ---- which my interpretation has thus far been:

When Smoove is allowed to shoot free-rein jumpers, does his game and/or the total team performance elevate to a higher level than when he is restricted to only high percentage shots?

I don't buy that speculations such as "what might have happened" if he'd shot a different shot or if someone else had shot the same shot is remotely conclusive. I'm exploring whether putting a harness on Josh may psychologically impair his ability to perform optimally in other areas of the game --- and as a result hurt team success more than it helps.

Again, I'm with you in as much as I'd like to see him be perfect and take only smart high percentage shots. I'm just not sure we're holding a hand that we play like this with him. It seems like the battle line has been drawn over this matter and it's looking more and more like he's going to win it. It may be time to give him some room. Or else trade him. But an ongoing battle isn't going to be beneficial to anyone.

"lost in the first round"

Yes. To the eventual NBA champions and in 7 games. I did not incorporate "rounds" into my post because it doesn't provide an accurate assessment of the "quality of wins." We haven't been able to even beat the conference "runner-up" one single game the last two years!

"Last season with Josh limiting his 3's, we won more games, won home court advantage, and made it to the second round of the playoffs."

This has nothing to do with what I wrote -- unless we disagree on the value of regular season and home wins.

"Why would you look to the overall performance of other players?"

Because even if he did possibly elevate his overall personal game by shooting jumpers, I wanted to explore whether this might correlate negatively with the performance of the other players or the team as a whole. I'm looking to establish whether his shooting jumpers freely translates into a higher or lower level of play for the team as a whole. If overall his game elevates, but in turn drags the rest of the team down ---- it would still be a net negative to allow him freedon to shoot jumpers.

"he is limiting his own effectiveness this season shooting so many J's."

You seem to have a much easier time making a decision on this than I do :)

CS

[AHF]

Because even if he did possibly elevate his overall personal game by shooting jumpers, I wanted to explore whether this might correlate negatively with the performance of the other players or the team as a whole. I'm looking to establish whether his shooting jumpers freely translates into a higher or lower level of play for the team as a whole. If overall his game elevates, but in turn drags the rest of the team down ---- it would still be a net negative to allow him freedon to shoot jumpers.

"he is limiting his own effectiveness this season shooting so many J's."

You seem to have a much easier time making a decision on this than I do :)

CS

Since his game elevated with a reduction in jumpers, I am going to have to disagree with you again. Here is exodus' post which I fully endorse:

In six years there has never been any evidence of this [Josh Smith not being able to perform in other areas of his game when he isn't shooting bad jumpers]. He is fully capable of blocking shots whether he is taking jumpers or not. He has had plenty of games where he filled up the box score without taking many jumpers.

Last year 36% of Smith's shots were jumpers. That is by far the lowest of his career yet he still set personal bests for rebounding, assists and steals as well as finishing 4th in the league in blocks.

I'll add he was also at his peak for scoring efficiency last season.

[lethalweapon3]

Belated props to Smoove for the clinching oop to Horf, from that otherwise dreaded position on the floor. More of that, please!

~lw3

[jy23]

"If Shaq in his prime launched four 3pt attempts per game and hit 1% of them, he would still have had a net positive effect on the team."

The proper analogy here would be whether Shaq *might have* had an even greater positive affect had he been allowed to shoot four 3's per game. Neither of us know. We're both speculating here -- but I seem to be the only one of us who understands this.

"The actual point is that you are comparing apples to oranges and when the teams and matchups are different, you can't generate a meaningful statistical correlation"

I never said that this could easily put into any conclusive argument. And I never gave you any reason to believe I would try to do this. The burden of reasonable proof is on you. I never made any claim. I only said that your method of attempting to justify your claim was not convincing at all to me. In fact, your argument seems to totally disregard the gist of the thread ---- which my interpretation has thus far been:

When Smoove is allowed to shoot free-rein jumpers, does his game and/or the total team performance elevate to a higher level than when he is restricted to only high percentage shots?

I don't buy that speculations such as "what might have happened" if he'd shot a different shot or if someone else had shot the same shot is remotely conclusive. I'm exploring whether putting a harness on Josh may psychologically impair his ability to perform optimally in other areas of the game --- and as a result hurt team success more than it helps.

Again, I'm with you in as much as I'd like to see him be perfect and take only smart high percentage shots. I'm just not sure we're holding a hand that we play like this with him. It seems like the battle line has been drawn over this matter and it's looking more and more like he's going to win it. It may be time to give him some room. Or else trade him. But an ongoing battle isn't going to be beneficial to anyone.

"lost in the first round"

Yes. To the eventual NBA champions and in 7 games. I did not incorporate "rounds" into my post because it doesn't provide an accurate assessment of the "quality of wins." We haven't been able to even beat the conference "runner-up" one single game the last two years!

"Last season with Josh limiting his 3's, we won more games, won home court advantage, and made it to the second round of the playoffs."

This has nothing to do with what I wrote -- unless we disagree on the value of regular season and home wins.

"Why would you look to the overall performance of other players?"

Because even if he did possibly elevate his overall personal game by shooting jumpers, I wanted to explore whether this might correlate negatively with the performance of the other players or the team as a whole. I'm looking to establish whether his shooting jumpers freely translates into a higher or lower level of play for the team as a whole. If overall his game elevates, but in turn drags the rest of the team down ---- it would still be a net negative to allow him freedon to shoot jumpers.

"he is limiting his own effectiveness this season shooting so many J's."

You seem to have a much easier time making a decision on this than I do :)

CS

Really? Really? You don't know the answer to this question? REALLY??? You're reaching here my friend.....REALLY reaching! And to get at your point about Boston we also beat them all 4 times that we played them last year ( in the season in which Josh cut down on his jumpers) and Boston went to the finals last year soooooooo.........

And again he had his best season shooting, rebounding, passing, and was in the top 5 in blocks last year WHEN HE CUT DOWN ON THE JUMPERS so what other evidence do you need to say that him not taking as many jumpers doesnt have this horrible psychological effect on his game?

[AHF]

"If Shaq in his prime launched four 3pt attempts per game and hit 1% of them, he would still have had a net positive effect on the team."

The proper analogy here would be whether Shaq *might have* had an even greater positive affect had he been allowed to shoot four 3's per game. Neither of us know. We're both speculating here -- but I seem to be the only one of us who understands this.

No - I think this is a legit issue. We need a debate about whether Shaq firing up 4 3pt attempts per game would have resulted in greater overall production for himself and the team. This is a very deep issue and I don't appreciate you trying to trivialize it by pointing out that Shaq shoots 4.5% for his career from 3pt range. Playing more on the perimeter might result in additional rebounding or other benefits to the team as well as just the boost from his fantastic 6.8% efg% from 3. Take some time and think this through before you jump to a premature conclusion there guy!

/sarcasm

Edited November 1, 2010 by AHF

[Chickenstanley]

Neither of you have explained how the Hawks managed to beat the eventual NBA Champions 3 PLAYOFF games with Smoove shooting many jumpers ---- and could not manage to win ONE SINGLE GAME the past two years against the conference RUNNER-UP with him shooting less jumpers ---- is conclusive proof that his shooting jumpers is detrimental to the fate of the team.

Let's see if I understand you correctly:

We beat (what proves to be) the NBA's best team in three PLAYOFF games, therefore, we can conclude that we have been a better team the following two years --- when we could not even beat the conference runner-up one single playoff game? And that this is a fact, and could not be possibly be based in any part, on speculation?

Sounds like sound logic to me!

CS

[AHF]

Neither of you have explained how the Hawks managed to beat the eventual NBA Champions 3 PLAYOFF games with Smoove shooting many jumpers ---- and could not manage to win ONE SINGLE GAME the past two years against the conference RUNNER-UP with him shooting less jumpers ---- is conclusive proof that his shooting jumpers is detrimental to the fate of the team.

Let's see if I understand you correctly:

We beat (what proves to be) the NBA's best team in three PLAYOFF games, therefore, we can conclude that we have been a better team the following two years --- when we could not even beat the conference runner-up one single playoff game? And that this is a fact, and could not be possibly be based in any part, on speculation?

Sounds like sound logic to me!

CS

Josh was worse the year we lost in the first round of the playoffs to the Celtics and better when we swept the Celtics and made it to the second round of the playoffs last season. The team was better last season. The comparison you are trying to make is apples to oranges as the Hawks have always matched up much better against the Celtics than the Magic.

There has not been one piece of evidence suggesting that Josh plays better when allowed to shoot bad jumpers. No correlation to his rebounding, his steals, his blocks, his defense, his offense...nothing.

The comparison between what we did in a single first round series several years ago against what we did last year in a single second round series is really specious. Especially when the entire regular season is ignored as if the MUCH larger sample size of the regular season is meaningless. Josh's individual performance over the season is ignored. The team's performance over the season is ignored. And you want to lecture about logically sound comparisons? Really?

The same guy who thinks it is is a live issue whether a 3pt shooting Shaq would have been better than the MVP Shaq? This is superior logic?

[Chickenstanley]

"Josh was worse the year we lost in the first round of the playoffs to the Celtics"

The team proved to be more formidable that year in the playoffs.

"when we swept the Celtics and made it to the second round of the playoffs last season."

And you're seriously going to try to argue that beating two teams (Miami and Milwaukee) who barely limped into the playoffs --- is a better performance than taking the leagues' best regular season team and eventual NBA Champions to 7 games in a playoff series?

The Celtic's team the Hawks "swept" last year was hardly the same team that played in the finals due to being watered down with injuries --- while the Hawks were 100% healthy. So no, I don't see a case for that being a live debate here whatsoever --- even if I were going to attach credibility to a regular season performance.

"Especially when the entire regular season is ignored as if the MUCH larger sample size of the regular season is meaningless. Josh's individual performance over the season is ignored. The team's performance over the season is ignored. And you want to lecture about logically sound comparisons? Really?"

Yes. Until everyone involved stops whinning about the Hawks weak performance in the playoffs and is satisfied with the last two years --- playoff basketball must be used as the litmus test by which we judge this team.

And nothing indicates that Josh shooting free-rein jumpers is a detriment to playoff success. In fact, the evidence may even point in the opposite direction.

Until the Hawks submit a playoff performance equal to or greater than 2008 --- with Josh taking only high-percentage shots (or less jumpers) --- it's impossible to completely rule out the *possibility* that his shooting free-rein jumpers may either:

1. Not have any effect at all on the teams fate.

2. Might actually improve the teams' fate.

CS

[exodus]

"Josh was worse the year we lost in the first round of the playoffs to the Celtics"

The team proved to be more formidable that year in the playoffs.

"when we swept the Celtics and made it to the second round of the playoffs last season."

And you're seriously going to try to argue that beating two teams (Miami and Milwaukee) who barely limped into the playoffs --- is a better performance than taking the leagues' best regular season team and eventual NBA Champions to 7 games in a playoff series?

The Celtic's team the Hawks "swept" last year was hardly the same team that played in the finals due to being watered down with injuries --- while the Hawks were 100% healthy. So no, I don't see a case for that being a live debate here whatsoever --- even if I were going to attach credibility to a regular season performance.

"Especially when the entire regular season is ignored as if the MUCH larger sample size of the regular season is meaningless. Josh's individual performance over the season is ignored. The team's performance over the season is ignored. And you want to lecture about logically sound comparisons? Really?"

Yes. Until everyone involved stops whinning about the Hawks weak performance in the playoffs and is satisfied with the last two years --- playoff basketball must be used as the litmus test by which we judge this team.

And nothing indicates that Josh shooting free-rein jumpers is a detriment to playoff success. In fact, the evidence may even point in the opposite direction.

Until the Hawks submit a playoff performance equal to or greater than 2008 --- with Josh taking only high-percentage shots (or less jumpers) --- it's impossible to completely rule out the *possibility* that his shooting free-rein jumpers may either:

1. Not have any effect at all on the teams fate.

2. Might actually improve the teams' fate.

CS

Your posts definitely win the award for Best Unintentional Comedy. Congrats

Smith's season of fewest jumpers just so happens to coincide with his best personal season and the Hawks 53 win season, yet somehow you think the Hawks were better during their 37 win season based on 3 home wins vs Boston (never mind the 4 blowouts in Boston).

If I want to use 3 games as a basis to form a conclusion then i can say that Smith is a great 3 pt shooter since he is shooting 67% after 3 games so far this year.

:laughing5:

[NineOhTheRino]

i may end up eating crow on this one.

[Atlantaholic]

i may end up eating crow on this one.

I hope so! :helpsmilie:

Seriously though, if he becomes a decent shooter it will help the guy tremendously. I know we all want him to play inside but, honestly, his post game ain't exactly great, if he can drop 4-6 points from the perimeter and get his usual points in transition and off of slashes and the occasional post up... we may finally see him become a great offensive PF.

[Dsinner]

i may end up eating crow on this one.

LOL, me too. If he shoots himself into a confident shooter than so be it. I'll gladly eat it. IF he becomes a decent shooter he will be a dominant PF who can apparently play decent at SF too (some left over crow for those anti-Smoove at SF).

[AHF]

LOL, me too. If he shoots himself into a confident shooter than so be it. I'll gladly eat it. IF he becomes a decent shooter he will be a dominant PF who can apparently play decent at SF too (some left over crow for those anti-Smoove at SF).

When he is a good perimeter shooter, a good perimeter defender and can bring the same interior help defense and rebounding from the SF position that he can at the PF position, then I will eat my crow...gladly.

Edited November 7, 2010 by AHF

[foeteen14]

When he is a good perimeter shooter, a good perimeter defender and can bring the same interior help defense and rebounding from the SF position that he can at the PF position, then I will eat my crow...gladly.

you're only asking him to do something that probably has never been done, but okay.

[Dsinner]

When he is a good perimeter shooter, a good perimeter defender and can bring the same interior help defense and rebounding from the SF position that he can at the PF position, then I will eat my crow...gladly.

Like he did against Minny?