Now I know Smoove just got back from injury..

[mrhonline]

Smith was terrible last night but your being disingenous. When we did take the lead at the beggining of the 3rd, Josh had 2 steals in a row leading to assists for him and then a block on the next Houston possession and then two possessions later he had blocks on consecutive Houston possessions again to keep them from scoring.

Again, he was horrible with the jumpers but to completely downplay the fact that he basically shut down the Houston offense is twisting facts to prove a point that can be proved without twisting facts, you just have to look at the statline that shows 5-19 shooting. On the other hand, you can recognize positive contributions. When we beat Washington short-handed, Joe shot 7-22 with 7 TOs but since we won we gave him credit for the 19-8-8 stat-line.

It is OK for you to say that Smith's terrible shot-selection cost us the game even though his shot-blocking, rebounding, and sparking the fast break was the catalyst for us getting back into it.

There are games when Smith's defensive energy helps the Hawks tremendously.

But that didn't happen in Houston.

[crimedog]

There are games when Smith's defensive energy helps the Hawks tremendously.

But that didn't happen in Houston.

That's the point, it DID help. A lot at the beggining of the 3rd Q especially when he had 2 steals and 4 blocks in a 5 minute period where the Hawks took their first lead of the game.

You CAN also say that his 5-19 shooting killed the momentum of the game at certain times; or simply that anyone that shoots 5-19 is costing the team points because other guys could make some of those shots regardless of when they happened in the game.

You CAN'T say that the other stuff didn't help because its just not true, in fact he was the ONLY STARTER WHO WAS A NET POSITIVE IN TERMS OF POINTS SCORED when he played the second most minutes (thus helping negate any sample size argument).

Again, if Smith doesn't shoot like crap, we probably win. On the other hand, if Smith doesn't play his balls off in that 3rd Q stretch, we probably don't have a shot anyway.

I entirely agree that Smith is a (fatally) flawed player until he stops taking shots he can't hit; whether we implement a system that has him cutting inside more often, whether he learns just not to shoot as much, or whether he becomes a better shooter... any of those would do the trick. He will never be a superstar until that happens and will always be a liability. That being said, to pretend his defense didn't have anything to do with us being in the game in the first place is blind-ness on your part and completely disregards the FACTS of that game.

[mrhonline]

That's the point, it DID help. A lot at the beggining of the 3rd Q especially when he had 2 steals and 4 blocks in a 5 minute period where the Hawks took their first lead of the game.

Unless those blocks resulted in a change of possession (and they often do not with all shotblockers), they don't carry the same weight as a steal, turnover, successful shot attempt, missed shot attempt, etc. Looking at the game chart on ESPN, four of his blocks were recovered by the Rockets.

Smith missed 14 shots and had 2 turnovers. That's a net loss of 16 possessions.

Smith hit 5 shots, went to the line once, blocked one shot for a change of possession, had four offensive rebounds, and had three steals. That's a net gain of 14 possessions.

So, despite ALL of his activity, Smith's still managed to be a net loss in terms of possessions yesterday.

[crimedog]

Unless those blocks resulted in a change of possession (and they often do not with all shotblockers), they don't carry the same weight as a steal, turnover, successful shot attempt, missed shot attempt, etc. Looking at the game chart on ESPN, four of his blocks were recovered by the Rockets.

Smith missed 14 shots and had 2 turnovers. That's a net loss of 16 possessions.

Smith hit 5 shots, went to the line once, blocked one shot for a change of possession, had four offensive rebounds, and had three steals. That's a net gain of 14 possessions.

So, despite ALL of his activity, Smith's still managed to be a net loss in terms of possessions yesterday.

What is a "Game Chart"?

Don't want to get into specifics, because I agree he played like a moron for most of the game, you just warped facts to make it seem like he didn't do anything for the team...

That being said,

2nd

7:50 Smith blocks Wafer's shot with 4 seconds remaining on the shotclock, recovered by Hayes with 3, Landry gets stripped.... not a forced turnover, but requires more than just looking at a "game chart"

3rd

9:53 Houston defensive rebound then timeout

9:55 Josh Smith blocks Rafer Alston's layup resulting in a change of possession from "team rebound" (shot clock)

7:54 Smith blocks Yao's layup with a D board recovered by Horford

So that's at least 2 and if you want to consider sending a shot attempt back 15 feet with 4 seconds on the clock leading to a bad shot attempt TO something, thats fine too.

He had one of his misses rebounded by Horford, which isn't a "change in possession" and aren't defensive rebounds "changes in possession as well" in fact, wouldn't the defensive rebounds be the ones that you count as "changes in possessions" which would have made him a productive player by your screwy calculus that you have to ignore certain blocked shots to make work anyway?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

That's the point, it DID help. A lot at the beggining of the 3rd Q especially when he had 2 steals and 4 blocks in a 5 minute period where the Hawks took their first lead of the game.

You CAN also say that his 5-19 shooting killed the momentum of the game at certain times; or simply that anyone that shoots 5-19 is costing the team points because other guys could make some of those shots regardless of when they happened in the game.

You CAN'T say that the other stuff didn't help because its just not true, in fact he was the ONLY STARTER WHO WAS A NET POSITIVE IN TERMS OF POINTS SCORED when he played the second most minutes (thus helping negate any sample size argument).

Again, if Smith doesn't shoot like crap, we probably win. On the other hand, if Smith doesn't play his balls off in that 3rd Q stretch, we probably don't have a shot anyway.

I entirely agree that Smith is a (fatally) flawed player until he stops taking shots he can't hit; whether we implement a system that has him cutting inside more often, whether he learns just not to shoot as much, or whether he becomes a better shooter... any of those would do the trick. He will never be a superstar until that happens and will always be a liability. That being said, to pretend his defense didn't have anything to do with us being in the game in the first place is blind-ness on your part and completely disregards the FACTS of that game.

You're exactly right Crime. You have to take the good and the bad with Smith. Without his activity in the 3rd quarter, we DON'T get back into that game . . . period.

Hawks were down 49 - 40 after "Skip" hit that 3.

In the next 3 minutes, Smith has 2 steals and a block . . . and 3 assists. We go on a 13 - 0 run, and take a 53 - 49 lead.

If Smith would just accpet that he's not the 2nd best offensive player on the team, and that he's the designated "energy" guy, we'd be so much better off. He could be so much more effective if he'd just crash the offensive boards, and try to score off of grabbing offensive rebounds.

But that loss wasn't all on him last night. He deserves some blame, but not more than half of it. Our bench the entire game shot 1 - 17 FG. It's a lot of blame to go around, yet, we still should've won that game after Smith hit the 3 to put us up 8, with 7 minutes to go.

[mrhonline]

20-33 Josh Smith blocks Von Wafer's layup

7:48 20-33 Chuck Hayes offensive rebound

7:45 20-33 Ronald Murray blocks Carl Landry's layup

7:43 Ronald Murray defensive rebound 20-33

Ronald Murray should get the credit here. Smith simply blocked the ball back into play.

45-49 Josh Smith blocks Rafer Alston's layup

9:53 45-49 Houston defensive rebound

That should likely say, "Atlanta defensive rebound." Smith gets credit here.

53-51 Josh Smith blocks Rafer Alston's layup

8:00 53-51 Luis Scola offensive rebound

Smith blocked the ball back into play. Nothing positive here.

53-51 Josh Smith blocks Yao Ming's layup

7:50 Al Horford defensive rebound 53-51

Smith gets credit here.

55-51 Josh Smith blocks Luis Scola's layup

7:16 55-51 Yao Ming offensive rebound

Smith blocked the ball back into play. Nothing positive here.

---

So, despite all the "to do" about his blocks, more resulted in Houston getting the ball back than an actual change of possessions.

Shotblocking as a "threat" has value. In its actual effect on the game, it pales in comparison to steals, offensive rebounds, free throws, and made shots.

[crimedog]

You're exactly right Crime. You have to take the good and the bad with Smith. Without his activity in the 3rd quarter, we DON'T get back into that game . . . period.

Hawks were down 49 - 40 after "Skip" hit that 3.

In the next 3 minutes, Smith has 2 steals and a block . . . and 3 assists. We go on a 13 - 0 run, and take a 53 - 49 lead.

If Smith would just accpet that he's not the 2nd best offensive player on the team, and that he's the designated "energy" guy, we'd be so much better off. He could be so much more effective if he'd just crash the offensive boards, and try to score off of grabbing offensive rebounds.

But that loss wasn't all on him last night. He deserves some blame, but not more than half of it. Our bench the entire game shot 1 - 17 FG. It's a lot of blame to go around, yet, we still should've won that game after Smith hit the 3 to put us up 8, with 7 minutes to go.

Hell, he could be the 2nd best offensive player without playing like a retard. In fact, he would be if he just took smarter shots in places he's better in.

Anyway, my point was that mrh said that Smith's defense didn't help the Hawks and that Smith deserved not more credit than Zaza for that which was just an obvious case of making something up to prove your point when your point can be proven with just the truth.

[mrhonline]

Anyway, my point was that mrh said that Smith's defense didn't help the Hawks and that Smith deserved not more credit than Zaza for that which was just an obvious case of making something up to prove your point when your point can be proven with just the truth.

And my point, which you've yet to debunk, is that his two blocks are hardly evidence of good defense. His three steals and four offensive rebounds are infinitely more important.

But there are other players on the Hawks' who do those things regularly, and are never lauded for their "game-changing" presence.

Plus, for every three-minute stretch where Josh played well, he had two more where he sucked. Landry and Scola combined to go 9/16 with 5 offensive rebounds between them, 2 steals, 2 blocks, and only 2 turnovers.

Bottom line - Smith's defense is flashy, but smart teams adjust. The Hawks can when without Smith blocking 5 shots, but they can't win when he takes stupid shots and doesn't box out.

Having a superb stretch at one point in the game does not outweigh his flaws in this game.

Edited December 10, 2008 by mrhonline

[Guest]

And my point, which you've yet to debunk, is that his two blocks are hardly evidence of good defense. His three steals and four offensive rebounds are infinitely more important.

When Smith blocks a shot (assuming the ball does not hit the rim and reset the shot clock), then he is decreasing the amount of time a team has to shoot the ball. As the shotclock winds down, so does expected FG%. So a block is still an indication of good defense and a result that we can see statistically.

I wouldn't call a change of possesion (steal) or continuation of possesion (o-board) infinetly more important. They are more important but you are clearly undervaluing the added benefits of a shot block.

[mrhonline]

When Smith blocks a shot (assuming the ball does not hit the rim and reset the shot clock), then he is decreasing the amount of time a team has to shoot the ball. As the shotclock winds down, so does expected FG%. So a block is still an indication of good defense and a result that we can see statistically.

I wouldn't call a change of possesion (steal) or continuation of possesion (o-board) infinetly more important. They are more important but you are clearly undervaluing the added benefits of a shot block.

If he "Dikembe's" it and sets the shot back to the three point line, I'd buy that line of reasoning. But Smith doesn't often do that. The ball is usually blocked within a couple feet of the goal, and those shots are high percentage shots.

Relative to playing solid team defense that limits high % shots, shotblocking is a highly fickle stat. Not to mention the likelihood of picking up a foul in the process of trying to block a shot...

[PureGreatness]

well, he got a chance to redeem himself tonight.

[crimedog]

And my point, which you've yet to debunk, is that his two blocks are hardly evidence of good defense. His three steals and four offensive rebounds are infinitely more important.

But there are other players on the Hawks' who do those things regularly, and are never lauded for their "game-changing" presence.

Plus, for every three-minute stretch where Josh played well, he had two more where he sucked. Landry and Scola combined to go 9/16 with 5 offensive rebounds between them, 2 steals, 2 blocks, and only 2 turnovers.

Bottom line - Smith's defense is flashy, but smart teams adjust. The Hawks can when without Smith blocking 5 shots, but they can't win when he takes stupid shots and doesn't box out.

Having a superb stretch at one point in the game does not outweigh his flaws in this game.

Ha, there is a reason that blocks leaders are anchors of team's defenses and steals leaders are often mediocre defenders.

Smith's D is flashy but teams adjust? Is that the case? Are you seriously going to argue that he isn't, by far and away the most effective defender on this team? You can't. Its a non-argument. Last season he had the largest defensive +/- for a rotation player in the league. This season (before the Houston game) our team gives up over 18 points per 100 possessions more when Smith is on the bench. Again, by far the largest on our team and probably the league.

If you are going to argue its just "flashy" and completely ignore facts, you're a joke.

... but you are right, teams do adjust to blocked shots. They take fewer layups, they look over their shoulders. Thats why Smith is credited with 5 blocks instead of 2.

I'll readily admit that not only was Smith bad last night, but that he's a liability on offense as much as he is an asset. On the other hand, you are refusing to give the guy credit for impacting our team's success (at least in the hard, provable, numbers catergory... you're not as into that though) far more than anyone with the probable exception of JJ because of his "flashy" defense.

EDIT: Also, by your goofball possession math, Smith cost us a net of 1 possession and JJ cost us a loss of 2... so by your logic, is JJ more to blame than Smith for the game's loss last night?

Edited December 10, 2008 by crimedog

[coachx]

woodson got to get in his ass DURING THE GAME. not just in practice.

He did ! Smoove just has the brains of (I can't even say). Players who live off athletic ability are usually the last to learn.

Woody yanked Smoove 2 minutes into the 3rd quarter for dumb mistakes.

Then ZaZa got 2 quick fouls vs. Yao and Woody had to pull ZaZa cause he has 4 fouls with 8 minutes to go in the 3rd .....so he was kind of forced to go back to Smoove.

Then in crunch time (mid way through 4th quarter) Smoove throws up 3 ill adivised shots that clank and committs an unforced turnovers on 2 breaks ! At that point he was benched for the rest of the game in favor of ZaZa.

At one point Woody went to Smoove and you could read his lips saying "What are you doing ?"

[Dsinner]

He did ! Smoove just has the brains of (I can't even say). Players who live off athletic ability are usually the last to learn.

Woody yanked Smoove 2 minutes into the 3rd quarter for dumb mistakes.

Then ZaZa got 2 quick fouls vs. Yao and Woody had to pull ZaZa cause he has 4 fouls with 8 minutes to go in the 3rd .....so he was kind of forced to go back to Smoove.Then in crunch time (mid way through 4th quarter) Smoove throws up 3 ill adivised shots that clank and committs an unforced turnovers on 2 breaks ! At that point he was benched for the rest of the game in favor of ZaZa.

At one point Woody went to Smoove and you could read his lips saying "What are you doing ?"

Solo anyone? All that improvment Solo was able to accomplish is slowly disappearing with every DNP CD.

[mrhonline]

Ha, there is a reason that blocks leaders are anchors of team's defenses and steals leaders are often mediocre defenders.

You're not helping your argument here. I'm willing to give you the three steals as evidence of good defense. Take what you're given for free. :)

Shotblocking CENTERS are anchors of teams' defenses. (I'm thinking you are misusing the term "anchor" here). Horford is the Hawks' defensive anchor (sadly). That's why Smith is free to roam at will to block shots on the weakside.

Regardless, teams that lead the league in shotblocking are rarely great. Teams that lead the league in rebounding are much more likely to be successful. Now, you certainly need a shotblocking threat to keep a team honest, but at the end of the day, shotblocking isn't what wins games. Team defense, particularly in the post, wins games.

Smith's D is flashy but teams adjust? Is that the case? Are you seriously going to argue that he isn't, by far and away the most effective defender on this team? You can't. Its a non-argument. Last season he had the largest defensive +/- for a rotation player in the league. This season (before the Houston game) our team gives up over 18 points per 100 possessions more when Smith is on the bench. Again, by far the largest on our team and probably the league.

Quite simply, +/- is a flawed stat when comparing a good starter to a crappy reserve. Smith is the only shotblocking threat on the team. Last year, when he wasn't in the game, he was replaced by Zaza and Jones.

Smith is essential to the Hawks' D because he's the only shotblocker and a good rebounder. But he's far from irreplaceable if you get a decent man defender at center.

... but you are right, teams do adjust to blocked shots. They take fewer layups, they look over their shoulders. Thats why Smith is credited with 5 blocks instead of 2.

Or, they do like the Rockets did last night on a NUMBER of occasions and make sure to jump into the shotblocker to get a foul. Teams have been doing that to the Hawks all season long. Now, if the Hawks had a legit center next to Smith that would be much harder to do.

EDIT: Also, by your goofball possession math, Smith cost us a net of 1 possession and JJ cost us a loss of 2... so by your logic, is JJ more to blame than Smith for the game's loss last night?

That's not what I said at all. My point is that you are giving him far too much credit for one short defensive spurt of energy. His offense was poor all game long, and his defensive energy was sporadic. If you're going to give Smith credit for helping the Hawks defensively for a few minutes, you'd be having to do the same for a lot of players all season long.

Smith was a major problem vs. Houston, much more so than usual.

I've said it for years - Smith needs to rebound, alter shots, and get to the line. If he does those things, I'll be his biggest fan and the Hawks will be successful. If he takes stupid shots, makes stupid passes, gets lazy or distracted defensively, and/or doesn't box out, the Hawks are in trouble.

[bronnt]

You CAN'T say that the other stuff didn't help because its just not true, in fact he was the ONLY STARTER WHO WAS A NET POSITIVE IN TERMS OF POINTS SCORED when he played the second most minutes (thus helping negate any sample size argument)

I do think the plus/minus is very deceptive here. Starting at the midpoint of the third quarter, we had a run-during which JJ decided to heave a half-court three to avoid being guarded by Artest-wherein Horford and Joe outscored the entire Rockets squad. This culminated in Smoove's three to put us up by 5.

At that point, Artest came back into the game after sitting all of the fourth up until then. Houston immediately started a run wherein JJ went 0-4, Smith went 0-2 with two turnovers (in addition to holding the ball as the shot clock ran out) before he was replaced by Pachulia. We tried to run the offense through Joe again, Artest shut him down, and we couldn't score at all.

When that run started, most of the Hawks starters were in the positive on the plus/minus. When it ended, they were huge in the negatives. Smith was pulled out during it, and would have been in the negative had he been involved in it because he was a big factor in Houston getting the momentum back.

And he stayed on the floor the last 46 seconds when the rest of the starters left, and he got a couple more +/- points added in during the mop up time when we closed the deficit down to 8.

Hell, he could be the 2nd best offensive player without playing like a retard. In fact, he would be if he just took smarter shots in places he's better in.

In most games, he actually is our second best offensive player-maybe not so far this season. When he plays a really smart game within himself, not attempting a lot of jumpers, he has the ability to be our best offensive player-assuming Joe isn't having one of those nights where he's going off.

Skip Bayless pointed out this morning that Lebron is a scoring beast when he's driving, so he really needs to attempt fewer threes. Smith isn't quite that kind of load, or have that kind of ball control, but it's really the same boat-he needs to learn how to emphasize his strengths and hide his weaknesses.

[crimedog]

Quite simply, +/- is a flawed stat when comparing a good starter to a crappy reserve. Smith is the only shotblocking threat on the team. Last year, when he wasn't in the game, he was replaced by Zaza and Jones.

Its true that Smith's +/- numbers are inflated by the quality of backups but its also true that by the numbers, and most times thats all you can go by because people are subjective for various reasons, no one else on the team matters on D. That would make his D effectiveand not just flashy.

As far as having a good man defender at C making a big difference... a shotblocker helps everyone on the team. Not just Al Horford/Zaza/Solo. A good offensive player is going to be able to get by his man most of the time regardless (I remember hearing 75% of the time quoted by some scout). Having a shotblocker to force players to adjust around the rim is the reason most good defenses have guys who alter shots around the rim. Smith is one of those players and it reflects in the numbers.

If you don't want to apply your possession formula to other guys, thats your perogative, we can throw it away if you want.

Like I said, I agree with you about Smith's shooting hurting us last night but he also altered shots around the rim and rebounded well. You don't have to come out and say "usually his D helps us but last night it didn't" if it did, you can leave it at "his shooting killed us" and you'd be right.

Edited December 10, 2008 by crimedog

[mrhonline]

You said he "basically shut down the Houston offense." That's what I objected to.

People say his "defense kept us in the game." That's what I object to.

Smith helped, in spurts, but the Hawks comeback was a team effort.

(Again, just to make sure people don't think I've "turned on" Smith, I do think his defense HAS kept the Hawks in games at times. I just didn't see him single-handedly keeping the Hawks in the game vs. the Rockets).

Let's go beat the Spurs, and we'll all be happy.

[crimedog]

You said he "basically shut down the Houston offense." That's what I objected to.

People say his "defense kept us in the game." That's what I object to.

Smith helped, in spurts, but the Hawks comeback was a team effort.

(Again, just to make sure people don't think I've "turned on" Smith, I do think his defense HAS kept the Hawks in games at times. I just didn't see him single-handedly keeping the Hawks in the game vs. the Rockets).

Let's go beat the Spurs, and we'll all be happy.

Just to clarify, I don't care if you have "turned on him" but I just like people to have good reasons. You certainly aren't without your reasons in your criticisms of players, even if I sometimes disagree with you.

[BusBoyIsBack]

He should not have been benched. The Rockets pulled away when he was ON THE BENCH.