Josh Smith nicknames himself ‘mid-range shawty’

[MrMeltdown]

This is what Ferry and Drew needs to be looking at. Look at what the other top PFs in the game do. These were the top 12 PFs in the game last season . . in no particular order.

- Josh Smith

- Chris Bosh

- Kevin Garnett

- Kevin Love

- Blake Griffin

- LaMarcus Aldridge

- Pau Gasol

- David Lee

- Dirk Nowitzki

- Tim Duncan

- Carlos Boozer

- Paul Milsap

Let's see how "Midrange Shawty's" mid-range shooting stacks up with what the top PFs in the league shoot.

10 - 15 FT

- Lee: 48%

- Bosh: 48%

- Boozer: 45%

- Duncan: 44%

- Nowitzki: 42%

- Garnett: 41%

- Gasol: 41%

- Aldridge: 40%

- Smith: 31%

- Love: 29%

- Griffin: 28%

- Millsap: 25%

16 - 23 FT

- Nowitzki: 52%

- Garnett: 48%

- Duncan: 47%

- Boozer: 43%

- Aldridge: 43%

- Gasol: 42%

- Millsap: 42%

- Bosh: 41%

- Lee: 39%

- Love: 39%

- Griffin: 37%

- Smith: 36%

"Midrange Shawty" takes more shots 16 - 23 FT than all of the guys listed above, but shoots the lowest percentage of them all.

But let's go the other way. Let's look at shots at the rim and what these same guys shoot.

AT RIM

- Griffin: 75% FG

- Millsap: 71%

- Garnett: 70%

- Smith: 69%

- Gasol: 69%

- Lee: 69%

- Boozer: 69%

- Aldridge: 69%

- Bosh: 67%

- Duncan: 67%

- Nowitzki: 63%

- Love: 60%

Out of everybody on these 3 list, Josh Smith is more like Blake Griffin ( athletically and with his inability to shoot jumpers ), than anybody else on this list. He's not KG. He's definitely not LaMarcus Aldridge.

But while Blake relentessly attacks the paint and plays around the rim, "Midrange Shawty" stays out in the mid-range and shoots jumper, after jumper, after the jumper.

In other words . . . as a poor shooter from 10 - 23 feet, Blake Griffin only took 333 of his shots from that range. Josh Smith took 430 shots ALONE from 16 - 23 feet, with a good chunk of those shots actually coming from 20 - 23 feet. And that's on top of the 113 threes he took in the regular season + playoffs.

Meanwhile, Blake took a whopping 514 shots at the rim, which is over 43% of his total attempts coming at point blank range.

Josh Smith? 363 shots at the rim, representing a little less than 31% of his total attempts.

Somebody of significance in this organization ( or one of his friends and family ) needs to be pointing out these numbers to him. Don't just tell him to have better shot selection. If you want the guy to get to the next level, TELL HIM THE TRUTH. STOP LYING TO HIM.

Josh Smith does not finish well in traffic. That is something that most Hawks fans do not realize. He does not like to attack in traffic like Blake. Blake consistently tries to take everyone through the rim. Josh has never been that explosive in the half court when it comes to attacking the rim. He only finishes strong when it is safe.

[lethalweapon3]

Did anyone ask Smoove to define "mid-range"? Mid-range to him might mean the area midway between "The Rim" and "The Nacho Stand in the Food Court!"

I'd just like Smoove to be able to play "Hot Potato" with the ball. If he's not in range for a high-percentage shot, then either pass, post-up or drive-and-kick. But whatever the decision, he should never be eating up more than three seconds off that shot clock with the Spalding in his hands.

He relishes picking defenses apart in the halfcourt when he makes passes from that dreaded long-range spot on the floor. The defenses know they win from that spot, though, if nobody's open and he's forced to move 20 feet putting the ball on the floor, or better yet, just chuck up a shot, so they lay off him to go double-team somebody else. He really shouldn't be out there with the ball, but when he is, and nobody's open, he needs to push the ball until he either gets a JOSH SMASH play or someone gets open on the wings.

~choirpreacher

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The 3's are much better shots than the long 2's.

Those 3 point shots are only worth more. They're not better shots, because he can't make either shot at a decent percentage in the first place. It's like asking which dog you'd rather get bitten by . . . a Pit Bull or a Rottweiller? Both bites are going to hurt something serious.

[Guest]

This is too much analysis for me, when I read the article my first thought was "good he understand he needs to play inside." End Story.

[Brotha2ThaNite]

This is the reason Danny when out and got shooters.... ""Josh, you see our rooster now? You don't need to be behind the 3pt line" :-)

[AHF]

Those 3 point shots are only worth more. They're not better shots, because he can't make either shot at a decent percentage in the first place. It's like asking which dog you'd rather get bitten by . . . a Pit Bull or a Rottweiller? Both bites are going to hurt something serious.

I don't want him shooting either, but he shoots a better efg% on 3's than on any other jumper. Josh has shot better from 3pt range every season of his career than he has shot from 3-9 feet, 10-15 feet or 16-23 feet with only 2 exceptions (the 2010 year when he didn't shoot 3's and missed all of the few he took and last season when he shot efg% 38.4 from 3-9 feet and efg% 38.3 from 3pt range. He has proven over the course of his career that the 3 is better than any shot for him other than a shot at the rim. If he is going to shoot jumpers, he should adopt the Rick Pitino mantra when he was at Kentucky when he wanted every shot to be a dunk or a 3. All shots close > 3pt jumpers + close shots > 3pt jumpers + midrange jumpers + close shots > midrange jumpers + close shots > 3pt jumpers + long jumpers + close shots > 3pt jumpers + midrange jumpers + long jumpers + close shots > midrange jumpers + close shots > long jumpers + close shots > midrange jumpers + long jumpers + close shots

[Supporter]

The guy is just trying to crack a joke....smh

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I don't want him shooting either, but he shoots a better efg% on 3's than on any other jumper. Josh has shot better from 3pt range every season of his career than he has shot from 3-9 feet, 10-15 feet or 16-23 feet with only 2 exceptions (the 2010 year when he didn't shoot 3's and missed all of the few he took and last season when he shot efg% 38.4 from 3-9 feet and efg% 38.3 from 3pt range. He has proven over the course of his career that the 3 is better than any shot for him other than a shot at the rim. If he is going to shoot jumpers, he should adopt the Rick Pitino mantra when he was at Kentucky when he wanted every shot to be a dunk or a 3. All shots close > 3pt jumpers + close shots > 3pt jumpers + midrange jumpers + close shots > midrange jumpers + close shots > 3pt jumpers + long jumpers + close shots > 3pt jumpers + midrange jumpers + long jumpers + close shots > midrange jumpers + close shots > long jumpers + close shots > midrange jumpers + long jumpers + close shots

Don't get me started on the eFG% . . one of the most misleading stats in basketball. Because what you have to keep in mind is that there is really no such thing as an eFG% on a shot that is not a 3 pointer. The eFG% is simply the statistical adjustment given to 3 point shot make. You can't make an eFG adjustment on a 19 footer. If you shoot 3 - 6 from 16 - 23 feet, it's 50% FG shooting and 50% eFG But if you shot 2 - 6 from 3 point range, that's 33% FG shooting, but an eFG% adjustment to 50%, since the eFG counts 3 point makes as 1.5 FG made. So which is better? Missing 3 shots to score 6 points . . or missing 4 shots to score 6 points? So take Josh's regular season shooting last year. 16 - 23 feet: 37% FG . . ( 37% eFG ) 3 point range: 25.5% FG . . ( 38.3% eFG ) So the 3 point shot is the better shot, right? Ummm, no. Out of 100 shots, Josh is going to make 37% ( or 37 of 100 shots = 74 points ) from 16 - 23 feet Out of 100 shots, Josh is going to make 25.5% ( or roughly 26 out of 100 shots = 78 points ) from 3 point range. The eFG adjustment simply illustrates that Josh is going to score more points in 100 shots, if he just shot 3s at those percentages. What it DOESN'T tell you is that Josh is going to miss 11 more shots, just to score 4 more points. Or better yet, look at it like this. How many 3s would Josh need to take, in order to score the same number of points ( 74 ) Josh can make off of taking 100 shots from 16 - 23 feet? Answer: 97 shots . . ( 25 made 3s and 75 points ) So you're still talking about Josh going 26 - 97 FG . . . and missing 71 shots . . just to get the same number of points. While Josh would only miss 63 shots to get 74 points. That's why you'd rather him taking that long 2, instead of a 3. On a possession by possession basis, he has a much better chance of making that long 2, than a 3, even if he shouldn't be shooting either shot. He's also more likely to get fouled on a 2, than he is a 3. I forget who I went back and forth about this on this board back in the day, but this is why I say that the eFG% flat out LIES. A guy that is a 50% eFG shooter from 3 point range, is really not a good 3 point shooter, because he only actually shoots 33% from 3 point range. And a guy like Josh, who is a poor shooter from 3, definitely doesn't need to be taking that shot as much as he did last year. Rule of thumb. If a guy shoots 10% lower from 3 point range, than he does from long 2 range, he's probably better off taking the long 2 than a 3, no matter what the point value of the made FG is.

[AHF]

More points + more offensive rebounding opportunities = better.Remember, 3's are better offensive rebounding opportunities than long 2's so it is asinine to say that it is better to shoot a lower efg% on 2pt jumpers than it is to score more points on fewer shots via 3pters and get more offensive rebounds and offensive rebounds at a higher rate. On the foul rate, a wide open 2 gets fouled the same amount as a wide open 3 - roughly 0% of the time. This isn't Jamal Crawford we are talking about. Teams give him the space because they want him taking the shot - not shooting ft's.I stand by my > chart and fundamentally disagree with you on your idea that long 2's are better than 3's. Strongly disagree.

Edited October 2, 2012 by AHF

[niremetal]

"Dominate the paint shawty" or GTFOH.

[Guest]

North, the point of basketball is to score more points than the other team. It is not to get more buckets than the other team. Are you just channeling your inner Ricky Davis with that recent post?Even if missed long 2s and missed 3s lead to the same offensive rebounding rate (not true), then it is still the case that the 3 is a better shot than the long 2 for Josh. North is forgetting about the indirect effect of added possessions through rebounding. In the hypothetical long 2 (with 100 possessions/shots), there is an opportunity to extend a possession in 63 events. In the hypothetical 3 (with 97 possessions/shots), there are 8 more possessions that have a chance to be extended. So North, would you like to be given 8 more chances at an offensive rebound?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

North, the point of basketball is to score more points than the other team. It is not to get more buckets than the other team. Are you just channeling your inner Ricky Davis with that recent post? Even if missed long 2s and missed 3s lead to the same offensive rebounding rate (not true), then it is still the case that the 3 is a better shot than the long 2 for Josh. North is forgetting about the indirect effect of added possessions through rebounding. In the hypothetical long 2 (with 100 possessions/shots), there is an opportunity to extend a possession in 63 events. In the hypothetical 3 (with 97 possessions/shots), there are 8 more possessions that have a chance to be extended. So North, would you like to be given 8 more chances at an offensive rebound?

At what rate are 3 point misses rebounded, compared to long 2 point misses? If it's not a significant difference, then 7 of those 8 possessions may be lost anyway. And one of the major factors in getting that offensive rebound, is if your PF/C or guard/wing is shooting that 3. If Lou Williams is jacking up that 3 pointer and he misses, it's a good bet that Josh Smith may be near the rim to rebound the basketball. It'll be Josh + another big man in the area to grab the board, and your chances are higher that they may get that offensive rebound. But if Josh Smith is jacking up that 3, you now have a situation in which one of your best rebounders is nowhere near in position to miss the shot. Now you'll only have one big man, and maybe one wing/guard near enough to even be in the area to get that rebound. Your chances to get an offensive rebound dwindle in that case. When the statistical analysis of missed 3s being rebounded at a higher rate than missed long 2s, they never take into account which player(s) are shooting that shot. As for long 2s, the same concept applies. Today's PFs routinely take that shot. So once again, you'll have a situation in which only one big man may be around the rim to grab a rebound, compared to a long 2 taken by a guard or wing. All I know that in a situation in which I need a basket to stay in a game, and Josh Smith is taking that shot, I want him shooting in these areas first - at the rim - in the paint - from long midrange - from short midrange - 3 point When a guy only makes 25% of his shots from a certain area, you don't want him taking a shot from that area, if you really need a basket, regardless of what his eFG% is. I'd much rather have the 70% shot at the rim. But if I have to take the 37% shot from midrange at that time, I'll take that over the 25% shot from 3.

[Guest]

All I know that in a situation in which I need a basket to stay in a game, and Josh Smith is taking that shot, I want him shooting in these areas first - at the rim - in the paint - from long midrange - from short midrange - 3 point

Uhhh...what!?!? Who was talking about a one possession game and Josh shooting? Well no shit if you just need one bucket you want Josh to shoot where he has a higher percent chance at making the basket, but that is only one instance of a game. You are talking about less than 1% of possessions in basketball. This is just spinning the argument around. No one disagrees with this, but also no one was talking about this. Your claim was that eFG was crap. Then you go along and show eFG is crap because in one scenario you make more "buckets". Well that just has nothing to do with what eFG is trying to accomplish or what you try to accomplish in basketball. When they change the rules of the game in basketball so that the final score does not determine the winner then maaaaaybe I will agree that eFG is useless. As is, eFG serves a purpose. You even proved it yourself, with a higher eFG you need to use less possessions to score the same number of points. How is this not a positive contribution?

[niremetal]

All I know that in a situation in which I need a basket to stay in a game, and Josh Smith is taking that shot, I want him shooting in these areas first

- at the rim

- in the paint

- from long midrange

- from short midrange

- 3 point

When a guy only makes 25% of his shots from a certain area, you don't want him taking a shot from that area, if you really need a basket, regardless of what his eFG% is. I'd much rather have the 70% shot at the rim. But if I have to take the 37% shot from midrange at that time, I'll take that over the 25% shot from 3.

It's deja vu all over again:

If the game is coming down to the wire, and we're down 1 . . . and we're planning to run JJ off of a screen to free him for a jumper, I don't want him taking a 3, because the eFG says that he's a 51% eFG shooter from 3.

And as dlpin said in response at the time:

Too bad that the game isn't made only of last second shots to score 1 point, but of several shots to score several points.

There's nothing new under the sun on the Squawk...

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I guess they do stay the same.All I know is that any stat that tries to claim that JR Smith is "effectively" a better shooter than Kevin Garnett, simply because JR jacks up a ton of threes to boost his percentage, is a garbage stat.The only people the eFG benefits, are inefficient 3 point chuckers.Real shooters don't need an eFG adjustment to make them look better than what they really are.

[MaceCase]

eFG% adjustment exists because a 3 pointer is worth more than a 2 pointer.... Even a child will tell you that 3 is more than 2 unless they had garbage primary schooling. It doesn't just "look" that way.... it is. This is factual. For someone to complain that a stat "lies" they should also realize the hypocrisy of their statements when they are touting a standard FG% that values the 3 pointer the same as a 2 pointer as truth.... That is a "lie" because, again, even a kid will tell you 3 is worth more than 2 so why are you counting a made 2 the same as a made 3?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

eFG% adjustment exists because a 3 pointer is worth more than a 2 pointer.... Even a child will tell you that 3 is more than 2 unless they had garbage primary schooling. It doesn't just "look" that way.... it is. This is factual. For someone to complain that a stat "lies" they should also realize the hypocrisy of their statements when they are touting a standard FG% that values the 3 pointer the same as a 2 pointer as truth.... That is a "lie" because, again, even a kid will tell you 3 is worth more than 2 so why are you counting a made 2 the same as a made 3?

JR SMITH: 32.7% 3 point shooter . . . . 48.9% eFG% GARNETT: 47.7% FG shooter from 16 - 23 feet Who are you giving the ball to the vast majority of the time? The guy who can "effectively" score slightly more than KG, or the one who you know can consistently score the basketball at a much higher rate?

[MaceCase]

JR SMITH: 32.7% 3 point shooter . . . . 48.9% eFG%

GARNETT: 47.7% FG shooter from 16 - 23 feet

Who are you giving the ball to the vast majority of the time? The guy who can "effectively" score slightly more than KG, or the one who you know can consistently score the basketball at a much higher rate?

Sigh,

if volume of shots is the same then no, you are absolutely incorrect in stating that Garnett is scoring on a higher rate.

Here, I'll simplify it for you:

Player A takes 10 shots and hits .333% of them but they are worth 3 points each so he therefore scored 9.99 points

Player B takes 10 shots and hits .499% of them but they are worth 2 points each so he therefore scored 9.98 points

as you can see, the scoring rates are exactly the same (actually, player A is greater). This is your fundamental misunderstanding of basketball, the game is counted on points scored not amount of baskets made (blew your mind, right?). You are confusing rate of conversion which is the number of baskets made as apposed to points scored. Using your logic then a made free throw is greater than both a 2 pointer and a 3 pointer because you "score at a higher rate" by hitting 75% of your attempts so in this case I'm giving the ball to option C, Jose Calderon, because he will "score" 98% of the time lol.

.

[AHF]

Sigh,

if volume of shots is the same then no, you are absolutely incorrect in stating that Garnett is scoring on a higher rate.

Here, I'll simplify it for you:

I don't think there is anything you need to simplify. He already gave you the numbers.

If two teams each had 100 possessions (which is a reasonable number for a game), the team that solely relied on 3pt shots at a 32.7% rate would score 99 points . The other team relying solely on 47.7% 2pt shots would score 94 or 96 points. The team relying solely on 3pters would win.

If the game was tied and came down to a single shot, then the team with the 2pt specialist would win more often. But under the stats already given it wouldn't be a tied game, the team with the 3's would have already put the game out of reach of the 2pt shooting team.

Edited October 3, 2012 by AHF

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Sigh,

if volume of shots is the same then no, you are absolutely incorrect in stating that Garnett is scoring on a higher rate.

Here, I'll simplify it for you:

Player A takes 10 shots and hits .333% of them but they are worth 3 points each so he therefore scored 9.99 points

Player B takes 10 shots and hits .499% of them but they are worth 2 points each so he therefore scored 9.98 points

as you can see, the scoring rates are exactly the same (actually, player A is greater). This is your fundamental misunderstanding of basketball, the game is counted on points scored not amount of baskets made (blew your mind, right?). You are confusing rate of conversion which is the number of baskets made as apposed to points scored. Using your logic then a made free throw is greater than both a 2 pointer and a 3 pointer because you "score at a higher rate" by hitting 75% of your attempts so in this case I'm giving the ball to option C, Jose Calderon, because he will "score" 98% of the time lol.

.

Funny how you didn't answer the dang question. And that's exactly why it's a garbage stat. If the eFG% is such a great stat, then flat out say that you'd give the ball to JR Smith more than you would Kevin Garnett. Don't go all around the Mulberry Bush. Just say that you'd give the ball to JR instead of KG.

Like AHF said, you have the numbers right in front of you. And even I stated that JR ( by the numbers ) would "effectively" score slightly more than KG. So just say that you'd give that ball to JR.

Stop the childish insults, and just say that you'd give that ball to JR Smith for a 3 pointer, more than you'd give that ball to Kevin Garnett for a long 2.

***************************

@ AHF: You know what my real problem with the eFG% is? My problem is that while the adjustment is made for a made 3, that same adjustment for the percentage isn't made in people's minds.

In no universe would anyone call a 33% three point shooter, a "good shooter". But in the world of eFG, a 33% 3 point shooter is a 50% eFG shooter . . all because a made 3 is worth more than a made 2. But it doesn't make that shot a "good shot", because 33% 3 point shooters will flat out shoot you out of a game, and lose more games with their shooting than they will win.

But fans and statiscians refuse to make the proper adjustment to what the percentages actually mean. They simply say . . a 3 is worth a 2, so even if you shoot 33% from 3, that's equal to 50% from 2 . . so it's OK that you shoot 33% from 3.

no . . no . . no . . no . . no

25% 3FG = 37.5% eFG . . . very bad

33% 3FG = 50% eFG . . . below average

40% 3FG = 60% eFG . . . good

45%+ 3FG = 67.5% eFG . . . excellent

So let's re-visit JR Smith once gain.

http://www.hoopdata.com/gamelog.aspx?player=J.R.%20Smith&month=&ha=&sort=threfg

35 games played last year

- 20 games in which he had an eFG% of 50% or more . . . . ( 57% of games )

- 14 games in which his eFG% was above 50% . . . ( 40% of games )

- 17 games in which he made 2 threes ( 6 points ) or more . . . ( 49% of games )

- 12 games in which he actually shot 40% 3FG ( 60% eFG scale ) . . . ( 34% of games )

- 11 games in which he shot less than 25% 3FG ( 37.5% eFG scale ) . . . ( 31% of games )

Let's do Kevin Garnett, since he's a prolific long 2 point shooter. And we'll use the same 5 criteria that I used for JR Smith.

http://www.hoopdata.com/gamelog.aspx?player=Kevin%20Garnett&month=&ha=&sort=lefg

60 games played last year

- 37 games in which his eFG was 50% or more . . . ( 62% of games )

- 27 games in which his eFG was over 50% . . . ( 45% of games )

- 36 games in which he made 3 shots+ from 16 - 23 feet . . . ( 60% of games )

- 20 games in which he shot 60%+ FG . . . ( 33% of games )

- 8 games in which he shot less than 25% FG . . . ( 13% of games )

No adjustments needed for KG.

Translation:

JR Smith is a "feast or famine" type player. Kevin Garnett will give you more consistency. And in the world of the NBA, people value consistency more than they value inconsistency. Guys like JR are "hired guns" that you can't count on all the time. Guys like Garnett are solid rocks you can build your team around.

The funny thing about this discussion is this. On a shot by shot basis, even most of you would admit that you wouldn't want a guy who just shot 50% eFG from 3, to take a critical shot, over a guy who can knock down a long 2 at a 45%+ rate.

But also remember that games aren't played on a 100 possession or shot basis. And most volume shooters may get 12 - 20 times to even shoot the ball. And when you break it down by shot locaiton for a "shooting specialists", you're only talking about 4 to 8 shots from a particular location in any game.

So if the eFG isn't any good to be used on a shot by shot basis . . or even on a game by game basis . . what use is the stat? Is it there just to discourage people from taking long 2s . . even if they can make that shot?