TheNorthCydeRises

Wow. If he averages 17 - 19 ppg, that means that he'll take the 2nd most shots on the team, next to JJ. Not good for us at all. I think he only gets to that point total, if Marvin isn't re-signed. If Woody can make Crawford an efficient player here, he should silence his critics. Maybe JC's presence will enable the Hawks to score 106+ ppg. Maybe the "GO Joe!" offense will become the "Woodson Express/Blue Streak" offense. The guy is a career 40% FG shooter though, so 43% might be pushing it. I'd love to see him average 13 ppg on 45%+ shooting.

And that's a good thing he doesn't. Shot selection . . check that . . HORRIBLE shot selection is what Crawford is known throughout the league for. KB, you know your NBA basketball, and you watch other teams outside of the Hawks. So let me ask you a question. What do you honestly think JC will do next year with the Hawks, shooting wise? - give his overall FG% - give his 3FG% - and how many ppg will he score?

Correctly stated. I only want to see that Bibby - JC - JJ lineup in the game, if we're down 10+ pts, and we need a few 3s to get us back into a game. No sense in having 2 defensive liabilities in the game for long stretches. Signing Marvin should be Sund's top priority right now. As for the Bibby trade . . . thank you. 3 yrs for 18 mil is very reasonable, considering all he's done here so far. And contrary to poular belief, Bibby was our best player in the playoffs last year.

And that is what is going to potentially kill us. You better check those shooting stats again, when you talk about JC being the far better jumpshooter. Flip shot better from both 2 point and 3 point range last year. This is exactly why I created the Northcyde Jump Shot Index. To prevent lies like these from being told.

Excellent post. If this team has to rely on Jamal to be the starting PG, and we don't have Bibby or another vet PG, we're in trouble. People should please not go by youtube highlight clips to evaulate how good a player can be here. As for Teague, I hope he is a solid player right away. But also remember that there were 6 PGs taken ahead of him in the draft. If he doesn't play a lot right away, it may not be Woody's fault. It may be because he's not ready to run an NBA team as a rookie

Interesting breakdown. I don't know about giving Andersen 27 min/gm though. If he does get that much PT, then that means Andersen is being a highly efficient player via scoring and rebounding. Any minutes w/Smoove at SF scares the hell outta me. Smith has to be on the floor 30 min+, so it will be interesting to see how Woody would handle that. And I hope you're dead wrong about Crawford playing 30 min/gm. Hopefully, his minutes are closer to 24 per game, than 30. Interesting breakdown nonetheless. I'd be shocked to see Woody try to go 10 deep, if we're fortunate enough to bring everyone back.

I can do this 2 ways Nine. The easy way, is to use the chart that 82games.com has done for most of the main scoring players on each team. http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT7.HTM Sometimes to find data on different players, you may have to highlight a different category, in order for that player to show up. But as long as the player qualifies under the parameters that I listed at the start of this thread, I simply add the 2-point jumpshot percentage and the 3-point jumpshot percentage . . to get my index number. Then I place the index number in the appropriate "shooting" category, also listed at the beginning of the thread. For a guy like Acie though, I'll have to do it the hard way, to figure out what a guy shot on 2-point jumpshots. But as long as I know . . - the total shots a player takes and makes - the total amount of 3-point shots a player takes and makes - and the percentage of shots that he took that are considered "inside shots" . . I can use those numbers, to see what he shot on his 2-point jumpers. Once I get the percentage ( and if he qualifies under the parameters ), I can calculate his NJSI. The key is to do it for guys that routinely take 2-point and 3-point jumpers. No stat is perfect. But when you look at that list of players that I did the NJSI for initially ( including the Hawk players ), I don't think there's too much argument that the NJSI didn't accurately place those players in the right category ( as far as their jumpshootiing goes ). And once again, the NJSI is NOT a reflection of how good of an overall player a guy it. It simply is a measure of how consistent or inconsistent his jumper is . . regardless if he takes tough shots, or wide open shots.

I'm not worried about being critized for the Northcyde Jump Shot Index. People question just about every stat, and how it relates to a player, or his impact on a game in relation to that stat. - the eFG is criticized - the PER is criticized - the TS% is criticized - the EFF is criticized So it's only natural that the NJSI will be criticized. You STILL haven't addressed the main issue though. IF the NJSI is so "statistically flawed", why does it give an accurate representation of how these guys shoot jumpshots? Matter of fact, let me drive home the point of the NJSI further, by using a player that Woody "gave up on" . . . and that's ACIE LAW. Acie doesn't quite qualify to be on the NJSI, because 63% of his shots last year, were jumpers. But the NJSI is also accurate, if a player has 20% of his jumpshots being 3-pointers . . instead of the 10% 3-point minimum of all shots, that the NJSI is based on. So why didn't Acie play more, seeing that Woody has a guard oriented system? Well, I've already documented just how horrible of a start he got off to the regular season last year, in a thread about Acie few weeks back, when the Acie trade was first done. But let's look at it from the NJSI perspective. Acie shot .310 on 3-point jumpshots Acie shot .241 on 2-point jumpshots ( a percentage far lower than Smoove on his 2-point jumpshots ) That means that Acie in the NBA, couldn't even hit the shot that he made a living off of in college . . the mid-range pull up jumper. So that gives Acie an NJSI of .551 for the 08 - 09 season. . . . which is far below the .699 index number, that is considered horrible. That's just one of the reasons why he didn't play folks. So you and anyone else can talk about how "bad" or how "flawed" the statistical analysis is. But as long as I use the parameters correctly on players that take jumpers from both 2 and 3 point range . . . the NJSI DOES NOT LIE!!!

So I take by seeing the results of the poll so far, that YOU are the only one that voted for starting Andersen? Could you explain why you would start Andersen over Horford, especially when Horford is by far the best rebounder on the team?

I've said the same thing for the past 2 years on this board. The people who hate Woody, are simply going to hate him, until he gets us to the NBA Finals. And if we don't win a title, they'll still blame Woody for our shortcomings. There's just no changing their mind on this subject. They're absolutely convinced that Woody is still one of the 5 worst coaches in the league . . and that's that.

LOL . . it's like some of you keep overlooking the obvious parameters that I've set up, to be able to qualify to be listed on the NJSI. I clearly said that: - 65% of his total shots have to be jumpshots. - at least 10% of his total shots, must be from 3-point range. That means that I would NEVER include a guy like Kwame Brown on the NJSI, because he doesn't shoot nearly enough outside shots to even have this be a factor. I know exactly what the eFG is. All I'm saying is that the eFG can skew a person's efffectiveness of how he really shoots from the outside, because of the 1.5 points given to every made 3-point shot. The prime example of this, is comparing Ron Artest to Marvin Williams. His eFG on his jumpshot is higher than Marvin's . . . ( .472 to .449 in favor of Artest ) But when you look at the numbers closer, you'll see something. Marvin shot .355 from 3-point range . . but shot .399 on 2-point jumpshots. Artest shot .399 from 3-point range . . but was only a .343 on 2-point jumpshots ( making m one of the worst 2-point jumpshot shooters in the league, for a guy that scores a decent number of points. Believe it or not, he's almost as bad as Josh Smith from that range . . who comes in at .322 ) Yet, because of Artest's high number of 3-point makes . . . his eFG is higher. But in reality, he's missing a ton of outside shots, no matter where he shoots it from. That's where the NJSI comes in. Now I could easily do this more accurately, and just figure out exactly what a guy shot on 3-point jumpshots ( total wise . . like 12 - 30 ) . . and add that to what he shot on 2-point jumpshots ( total wise . . like 48 - 110 ) . . and then just give the correct percentage on what he shot from the outside. In this case, it would be 60 - 140 = .429 . . . his eFG would be .471 though. I like the NJSI better, because if they meet the parameters I give before calculating this, I just add the 2-point jumpshot and 3-point jumpshots together, to come up with the index number. Then I have my set categories that I place guys in, to indicate what type of outside shooter they are. So while Artest has a far better eFG jumpshot percentage than Marvin, under the NJSI, it's . . Marvin: .754 Artest: .742 It's simply a different way of looking at this, without the eFG inflating what a guy actually shoots. Like Gray Mule explained brilliantly from my example . . if player A goes 6 - 12 from 2 point jumpers . . and player B goes 4 - 12 from 3 point jumpers . . they both score 12 points and they both have a 50% eFG on their jumpshot. But the difference, is that player B has missed 2 more shots, possibly giving the opponent 2 extra possessions to score, without his team scoring. Like I asked the others . . go through my NJSI list of players, and the categories I've placed them in. Is there anyone that you would think that is "out of place" as far as the category that they're in? If my system is so flawed, why does it accurately reflect how these guys really shoot from the outside, and how consistent or inconsistent they are? It's not a single person that has answered that question yet. Probably because Crawford rates so low on the NJSI.

That's why I wanted to use Speedy + whomever, to bring in Camby. We'll get someone though. It'll be a reserve type big that's more talented than Morris, but less talented than Zaza. Damn . . we already possibly have that in Solo. Solo is our big FA signing. Put him on some HGH and have him gain 10 - 15 lbs. It's either Solo . . . or Shelden.

This is a pretty hardcore message board. This is NOT the ESPN Hawks board, where kids play around on. You do NOT try to get attention on Hawksquawk, with a fake post like this. I advise that you delete this topic altogether, before the moderators see it, and IP ban your account.

3/15? Hell yes. You do that in a heartbeat. A contract like that will even give you flexibility to possibly add him in a package deal, to get somebody else in the future.

He may not be worth the risk, it it meant losing Marvin. But not because he isn't a better overall player than Marvin. Artest could turn us into a top 5 defensive ballclub, plus possibly give us better 3-point shooting. It's funny though. A team that is on the brink of winning a title, think he's definitely worth the risk.

Artest eFG on jumpers: .471 . . . ( 40% from 3-point range ) Marvin eFG on jumpers: .449 . . . ( 36% from 3-point range ) Crawford eFG on jumpers: .446 . . ( 34% from 3-point range ) Northcyde Jump Shot Index: Marvin: .754 Artest: .742 Crawford: .738 Keep in mind that Crawford's game, is the jumpshot ( 86% of shots last year were jumpers ) . . unless Woody performs some miracle next season, and gets that guy to drive the ball a lot more. Defensively, there's no question that Artest is the better of the 3. Artest's problem, is that he was playing like he was still a #1 option. He was also a HORRIBLE finisher on his inside shots. His game may be on the decline somewhat, and would be better suited being a complimentary player in the mold of Bruce Bowen. If he teams up with Lebron and Shaq . . oh boy. That'll be just another headache we'd have to worry about. They could have somebody to harass JJ for most of the game, while Lebron plays a rover position on defense. Having said that, I do agree that because Marvin is still improving, and because of Marvin's age, that you'd take Marvin over Artest. But Artest over Crawford? Ummm . . no. The Crawford move is only better, because of the cap issue.

LOL . . I'd add Iverson before Crawford ONLY because he has a history of winning and he'd immeadiately become the leader of the team. And AI would be able to get Smoove involved in the offense. But AI and Crawford on the same squad? LOL . . Woody would definitely get fired. If we get Iverson, you have to trade Crawford for a big once August/September comes around.

People diss Randolph, but praise Crawford? This fan base is funny. Memphis needed a PF, so they went out and got one of the better ones in Randolph. He's not going to defend, but he's going to efficiently score and rebound the basketball. Memphis knows that they're not winning anything this year. So instead of keeping a useless player for one year, they got a decent player for 2 years . . . possibly. That 17 million next summer could be very interesting to a team looking to gain a large expiring contract for the 2011 free agency period. This is no different, than the move we made for Bibby 2 years ago, when there were major quesitions as to if Bibby still had any decent game left in him.

(( DING . . DING . . DING . . DING . . DING )) ( Talking like a gameshow host: ) "GrayMule . . you win a BRAND NEW CAAAAARRRRRRRR"

LOL . . now how crazy are we really? We welcome Crawford ( a guy who is explosive but schizophrenic on offense ), but want nothing to do with Artest ( who is schizophrenic but can be explosive on offense, but is also one of the best all-around defenders in the league )? Really? Artest, like Crawford, has horrible shot selection. But unlike Crawford, he can make it up on the defensive end. Some of you may want to look at some defensive stats, before expressing your distaste for Artest over Crawford.

Yeah I know. That still doesn't mean that he could reign him in. This kid would be a real asset if he'd not fall in love with his schizophrenic jumper. But he does. Just like another Hawk we know and love. 85% of Crawford's shots last year, were jumpshots. And when he has a NJSI of .732 ( which puts him in the highly inconsistent category ), that's not good.

Coach, I hope I'm dead wrong about this guy. I really do. I hope Woody can reign him in, and get the most out of this guy. I just don't see it. If Larry Brown and Don Nelson couldn't get this dude to play efficient basketball, how the hell is Woody gonna be able to do it? If he's our starting PG, or if he's logging 30+ minutes a game, this team will drift back toward being a .500 team. If Woody can't get the kid to drive to the hole 35% of the time, we might be a 1 and done team in the playoffs.

The difference in Jamal though ( and we'll all get to see this firsthand ), is that JC is WILDLY INCONSISTENT. He's the ultimate "hot and cold" type of player. And when he's cold, he's always been the type of player that doesn't stop shooting. That 50 point game that everybody keeps talking about that he had, is great. But that 50 point game was preceded by a 6 point 3 - 15 FG game IN ATLANTA.

Marvin has routinely played some 4 since he's been here. That's why we almost have to re-sign the guy. There's no way we're advancing anywhere, with that lineup.

It's measuring the shooting that takes place in the game, that isn't considered to be an inside shot. But unlike the eFG, I'm not tryiing to adjust the 3 point percentage, to adjust for the point differential between a 2 point jumpshot, and a 3 point shot. A guy goes 6 - 12, but only shoots 2-point jumpshots. He shoots 50% and scores 12 points. Another guy goes 4- 12, but only shoots 3 point shots. He shoots 33% and scores 12 points. Because of the eFG, people look at that 6 - 12 and 4 - 12 as being equal, because they got you the same amount of points. But the reality is that the other guy missed 2 more shots, regardless of where the shot was from. The 4 - 12 from 3-point range is usually seen as a bad percentage for a guy shooting 3-pointers. But somehow, all that is null and void, because he got you the same amount of points as the guy who shot 6 - 12. But the 6- 12 from 2-point jumpers, is considered great. The categories that the players are placed in, according to their index number, shows just who are the decent shooters, and who's not. When I say "out of place", I'm saying does this index overrate or underrate a player, according to the category he's placed in.