Has Smoove Turned the corner?

[Guest]

Let me try to make this simple. Why do you think Smiths EFG% on jumpers is higher this year than last year?

Just because he increased his shooting from 2 doesn't mean he is more effective. Still due to eFG% his 3 is better than his jumpers. Why are you using eFG% to point this out? Either you don't understand eFG% or you do not have FG% available. Hard for me to determine which it is because you are so vague in response.

[bronnt]

Let me try to make this simple. Why do you think Smiths EFG% on jumpers is higher this year than last year?

He's hitting midrange jumpers at a slightly higher rate this year, but he's also attempting more 3s. I really don't care if his midranged jumper has improved.

As I showed like 4 posts ago, it's definitely a dumber shot at his %'s because he still kind of sucks at it. And it's tough for a guy who's shooting under 25% from 3 to take shot attempts that are more dumb than his 3 point attempts.

But it's so close between the two that he really ought to forgo all jump shots.

Edited January 26, 2009 by bronnt

[exodus]

Just because he increased his shooting from 2 doesn't mean he is more effective. Still due to eFG% his 3 is better than his jumpers. Why are you using eFG% to point this out? Either you don't understand eFG% or you do not have FG% available. Hard for me to determine which it is because you are so vague in response.

The fact that he is shooting much better on 2s argues against the premise that he is taking a lot of long 2s in the first place. Why would Smith be shooting worse from 3 but much better from just inside the arc?

Also you are looking at it from strictly a mathematical perspective and ignoring the reality of what actually happens on the court. the closer Smith is to the basket the more of a threat he is.

How many times is Smith going to get fouled behind the 3pt line? How many offensive rebounds will he get out there? Is it easier to drive to the basket from the 3pt or from closer in? is it easier to cut to the basket from the 3 pt line or closer in?Is the defense going to pay more attention to him when he is behind the 3pt line or when he is closer in?

Trying to say that Smith is better off shooting 3s because his EFG% on 3s is fractionally higher is just flat out ridiculous.

[Guest]

Also you are looking at it from strictly a mathematical perspective and ignoring the reality of what actually happens on the court. the closer Smith is to the basket the more of a threat he is.

How is it dumb to be rational in expected values? Oh I am dumb to say that you should shoot a 3 instead of a long 2 because of all these minor examples you bring up. Bigger threat, closer to basket, blah blah blah. None of that has to do with saying it is smarter to shoot a 3 than a long 2. Tell me Exodus, in what strange world does Smoove have a higher expected value of scoring a long 2 instead of a 3? That would be the mind of someone who doesn't grasp concepts in math, thats who. I think I found that person as you implicitly answered my question from my last post. Data on FG% was available.

[exodus]

How is it dumb to be rational in expected values? Oh I am dumb to say that you should shoot a 3 instead of a long 2 because of all these minor examples you bring up. Bigger threat, closer to basket, blah blah blah. None of that has to do with saying it is smarter to shoot a 3 than a long 2. Tell me Exodus, in what strange world does Smoove have a higher expected value of scoring a long 2 instead of a 3? That would be the mind of someone who doesn't grasp concepts in math, thats who. I think I found that person as you implicitly answered my question from my last post. Data on FG% was available.

This is basketball, not math class. But since you want to think just in terms of math i will play along. When Smith is behind the line the defense is playing 5 on 4.

The fact is that Smith is shooting more shots from the 15 to 18 foot area as opposed to shooting long 2s, hence the improvement in EFG%. That is unless you think that Smith dramatically improved his shooting on long 2s.

Your argument about long 2s vs 3s doesn't make much sense considering Smith isn't taking a lot of long 2s.

[exodus]

Yesterday when i checked 82games.com Smith's overall EFG% on jumpers was 34.8%. His shooting percentage on 2 pt jumpers alone was 34.6% and his EFG on 3s was 35.3%.

That means there was only a .7% difference between his EFG on 3s and his shooting percentage on 2s. That shows that Smith wasn't taking a lot of long 2s. If he was then the difference would be much more than .7%. Also a difference of .7% isn't going to amount to a hill of beans on the court. A .7% difference is insignificant in the context of a basketball game.

In fact that difference is so insignificant that now it's gone. They just updated the site and now there is no difference at all. Smith is shooting 35.4% on 2 pt jumpers

http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT7.HTM

Now lets look at Bibby. Bibby shoots 43% on 2 pt jumpers while his EFG on 3s is nearly 70%. Now that is a statistically significant difference. A difference of .7% was not statistically significant.

[thefloydian]

I'm pretty sure Smith took a shot with his foot on the 3-point line yesterday. And those numbers don't prove that he doesn't shoot many long 2s. He could be shooting them and just making a higher percentage than he should be capable of for some reason.

[exodus]

I'm pretty sure Smith took a shot with his foot on the 3-point line yesterday. And those numbers don't prove that he doesn't shoot many long 2s. He could be shooting them and just making a higher percentage than he should be capable of for some reason.

So Smith shoots over 10% better from a foot or two closer in? Uh....ok.

[Guest]

This is basketball, not math class. But since you want to think just in terms of math i will play along. When Smith is behind the line the defense is playing 5 on 4.

The fact is that Smith is shooting more shots from the 15 to 18 foot area as opposed to shooting long 2s, hence the improvement in EFG%. That is unless you think that Smith dramatically improved his shooting on long 2s.

Your argument about long 2s vs 3s doesn't make much sense considering Smith isn't taking a lot of long 2s.

How exactly does the argument not make sense because Smoove doesn't take a lot of long 2s? [if the data were available, I would imagine that Smoove takes the same if not more long 2s as 3 pointers this season] The statement was simply that it is irrational to have Smoove shoot a long 2 rather than a long 3. Are you arguing it is rational for Smoove to take a long 2 when given the option of a 3? The answer is either yes, you don't understand the idea of being rational, or you are arguing just to argue. Either way you are making yourself look like a fool by arguing against the concept. You are also trying to turn this into an argument that it isn't, I have maintained if given the choice of a long 2 or a 3 from Smoove I would rather see a 3.

I like how you also argue that we play 4 on 5 when Smoove is behind the line, but magically when Smoove takes a step in we all of the sudden play 5 on 5. How does that happen? He takes a step in and his eFG% goes down so now the defenses have to honor a shoot that has a lower expected value? Irrational.

[exodus]

How exactly does the argument not make sense because Smoove doesn't take a lot of long 2s? [if the data were available, I would imagine that Smoove takes the same if not more long 2s as 3 pointers this season] The statement was simply that it is irrational to have Smoove shoot a long 2 rather than a long 3. Are you arguing it is rational for Smoove to take a long 2 when given the option of a 3? The answer is either yes, you don't understand the idea of being rational, or you are arguing just to argue. Either way you are making yourself look like a fool by arguing against the concept. You are also trying to turn this into an argument that it isn't, I have maintained if given the choice of a long 2 or a 3 from Smoove I would rather see a 3.

I like how you also argue that we play 4 on 5 when Smoove is behind the line, but magically when Smoove takes a step in we all of the sudden play 5 on 5. How does that happen? He takes a step in and his eFG% goes down so now the defenses have to honor a shoot that has a lower expected value? Irrational.

Lets use Bibby as an example. If you say he should be shooting 3s rather than long 2s your argument would make sense mathematically. However it makes no sense in reality because Bibby is already taking 3s whenever he gets the chance.

The reality is that Smith isn't taking a lot of long 2s as can be seen by the fact that there is no difference between his EFG on 3s and his shooting percentage on 2s. If Smith was taking as many or more long 2s as 3s then how is he shooting 35.4% on 2 point jumpers?

If Smith starts thinking about shooting 3s and starts camping outside the line that takes him further away from the basket where he is most effective. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

[Guest]

The reality is that Smith isn't taking a lot of long 2s as can be seen by the fact that there is no difference between his EFG on 3s and his shooting percentage on 2s. If Smith was taking as many or more long 2s as 3s then how is he shooting 35.4% on 2 point jumpers?

Again you miss the argument and try to construe this around to make me seem like a fool when in reality you are arguing against something that has not been said by me.

Exodus answer this question, which is the precipice of my argument. If given that Smoove will either shoot a long 2 pointer or a 3 pointer, what do you choose? OK, now that you have answered 3 pointer, i.e. the rational choice, you have now confirmed what I have been arguing. It has no bearing on whether or not Smoove shoots more long 2s than 3s, I am simply showing a rational choice argument.

What you are arguing is something that isn't there, you are creating a false argument and portraying it as what I have said.

[exodus]

Again you miss the argument and try to construe this around to make me seem like a fool when in reality you are arguing against something that has not been said by me.

Exodus answer this question, which is the precipice of my argument. If given that Smoove will either shoot a long 2 pointer or a 3 pointer, what do you choose? OK, now that you have answered 3 pointer, i.e. the rational choice, you have now confirmed what I have been arguing. It has no bearing on whether or not Smoove shoots more long 2s than 3s, I am simply showing a rational choice argument.

What you are arguing is something that isn't there, you are creating a false argument and portraying it as what I have said.

You conveniently left out the only rational choice, other than not shooting at all. There is more than one alternative to shooting a long 2.

The rational choice is to take a step or two closer to the basket as opposed to taking a step or two further back. When he does that his shooting percentage is at least as good, if not better than, his EFG from 3. He also is in much better position to take it to the basket which is much preferable to shooting jumpers in the first place.

He hasn't taken a 3 in the last 6 games, the longest stretch without a 3 in recent memory. It is no coincidence that he is averaging 20 ppg shooting well over 50% in that span.

[benhillboy]

To answer the question, which Josh are you talking about? I'm convinced that there are identical twins playing for the Hawks. There's one who attacks the rack on both ends and plays off instinct. The other one thinks entirely too much and doesn't know his own game and skill set.

[AtLaS]

If given that Smoove will either shoot a long 2 pointer or a 3 pointer, what do you choose?

Do we even care? Smith sucks that far away from the basket, period. A small difference in the eFG just doesn't matter because he shouldn't be there anyway. You are basically arguing which poison we should pick when in reality there are much better options for him.

I understand that you don't want him taking those shots either, but there is no reason to argue Mathematics which is what you're doing. The Math says that Smith sucks that far away from the basket, so let's just leave it at that.

[Guest]

You conveniently left out the only rational choice, other than not shooting at all. There is more than one alternative to shooting a long 2.

That is not what we are arguing. Are you that dense to not see that you are arguing about something that simply is not there? Go back up to my response to Bronnt's post. Bronnt said that shooting a long 2 is in some ways worse than shooting a 3. I responded back that actually there are only rare instances where shooting a long 2 is better than shooting a 3. You come in with all this eFG% mumbo jumbo that you really had no grasp on. Are you telling me that a long 2 is a rational choice over a 3 point shot? That sure as hell was what you were referring to in your previous posts in this thread.

Was this a discussion of whether Smoove should shot a long 2, a 3, or not shoot at all? NO! You tried to have some backwards arguing to change it into that. I have stuck to the original argument as you fiddle back and forth to try and come up with some other solution to a different argument. The argument is when given the choice of a long 2 or a 3 (notice there is no option of him not shooting, hence your "answer" is not possible because it does not fall into the premise of the entire argument) what do you choose?

[thecampster]

Oh hell let me throw my 2 cents in. I watched the game last night (live for a change..didnt' have to tivo it). There are 2 reasons I feel Smoove reverted to being a jump shooter in the final few minutes.

Reason 1, no one else on the floor was hitting jumpers. Bibby and JJ were a combined 7 of 33 from the field last night. or for you math geeks 21.2 %. Statistically he was a better choice (ya I know that's sad).

But the 2nd and much bigger reason was a lack of a police in Phillips last night as evidenced by the thug muggings. 3 different Hawks in a 7 minute period walked away grabbing their heads after getting whacked. The most flagrant of which was O'neal literally grabbing Smooth on a drive and spinning him horizontal to the floor (amazingly the ball went in the basket). But 2 of the last 5 shots Josh took in the game were post ups for layups and he was fouled (no call) on both. Watch the last 10 minutes to see but he got a hand in the back on both...and a slap on the wrist on 1 of the 2. It became a thug fest the last 10 minutes as Phoenix had no other answer to our penetration. Think about the Marvin Williams drive where he got body checked by O'neal to the floor and the foul went to the other guy guarding him. Anyone else see that? O'neal went up for a block but was going more lateral than vertical and slammed into Marvin. No foul on Shaq. Honestly the one where he took Josh out of the air would have been a flagrant if it would have been a scrub center on a star like lebron, dwade or kobe.

I think Josh was just trying option 2 in shooting the 2 jumpers since nothing short of a police report was gonna be needed to get a foul called in the last 5 minutes.

Edited January 26, 2009 by thecampster

[bronnt]

The reality is that Smith isn't taking a lot of long 2s as can be seen by the fact that there is no difference between his EFG on 3s and his shooting percentage on 2s. If Smith was taking as many or more long 2s as 3s then how is he shooting 35.4% on 2 point jumpers?

At this point, several people are arguing for the sake of arguing, but here's the truth, and I'm going to have to link the crap out of this post to get my point across. This thread has gone so far astray that I'm going to list the hierarchy of truths which need to be recognized.

1) Josh Smith should not take jumpshots. He's bad at it. Given all the players I'd like to see take a shot from the right corner with 10 seconds on the shot clock, I'd rather see 14 other Atlanta Hawks try it before he does. If I had the opportunity to lay odds in Vegas who would have a better % on jumpshots for the season, him or Eddie Curry, I'd choose Curry.

2) Josh Smith takes a lot of long 2 pointers, and 35.4 is a crap percentage. Here's some linkage. Scroll down until you see Josh Smith. See that 37% of his shots are 2 point jumpers. Note also that 12% of his shot attempts are 3 point jumpers. THIS IS BAD. That's about 50% of his shot attempts which are jumpshots. For comparison, it was 48% last year. Last year, about 9% of his shot attempts were from 3, so his % of 2 shot attempts has decreased. It's not enough-trust me, go to THIS PAGE and look up how many horribly long 2 pointers Josh takes and misses. Of his 111 2 point jumpers, 76 are at last from 18 feet. He's shooting better than he did last year from 2 on his jumpers, but 35.4% IS STILL CRAP.

3) Given the choice between Josh Smith shooting with his foot on the 3 point line, or setting up so that his feet aren't on it, I'd like him to take the 3-because it's worth more points. In fact, if you include ALL of his 2 point attempts, he's still more likely to do something positive shooting 3s, mostly because they're worth more points-the difference is nearly negligible so he really just need to not shoot. If you don't believe me, check my post at #36 in this thread-I really don't want to put those numbers up again.

4) If anyone is arguing that Josh Smith didn't take a lot of crap jump shots in the fourth quarter last night (I think someone mentioned it), please, Go here and notice the three missed jumpshots and 2 turnovers in the last 8:11 of the game. He was great for the first 40 minutes, and horrible after that.

5) Please stop arguing theoretical scenarios where you want Josh Smith to take two steps in any given direction to take his shot. Ex, I get what you're saying about the defense not guarding Josh when he's on the perimeter, but since the theoretical scenario ends with Josh Smith taking a jumpshot, does it matter who's being defended? The end result is a bad shot. It's a damned exercise in nonsense anyway.

[exodus]

That is not what we are arguing. Are you that dense to not see that you are arguing about something that simply is not there? Go back up to my response to Bronnt's post. Bronnt said that shooting a long 2 is in some ways worse than shooting a 3. I responded back that actually there are only rare instances where shooting a long 2 is better than shooting a 3. You come in with all this eFG% mumbo jumbo that you really had no grasp on. Are you telling me that a long 2 is a rational choice over a 3 point shot? That sure as hell was what you were referring to in your previous posts in this thread.

Was this a discussion of whether Smoove should shot a long 2, a 3, or not shoot at all? NO! You tried to have some backwards arguing to change it into that. I have stuck to the original argument as you fiddle back and forth to try and come up with some other solution to a different argument. The argument is when given the choice of a long 2 or a 3 (notice there is no option of him not shooting, hence your "answer" is not possible because it does not fall into the premise of the entire argument) what do you choose?

Are you so dense that you can't see that shooting more 3s is not a rational option for Smith?You are trying to argue that it is better to shoot farther out. If he can move further out there is no reason why he can't move closer in. That is what guys like Amare and Boozer do. i don't seem them shooting 3s even though they are far better shooters than Smith.

If you have to choose between drinking prune juice or castor oil you would probably choose prune juice. But why choose either when you can drink Gatorade?

The ONLY rational option for Smith other than shooting a long 2 is shooting from closer in. Arguing otherwise is flat out dumb.

[Guest]

If you have to choose between drinking prune juice or castor oil you would probably choose prune juice. But why choose either when you can drink Gatorade?

The ONLY rational option for Smith other than shooting a long 2 is shooting from closer in. Arguing otherwise is flat out dumb.

Again, that is not the argument. Wow, you really love arguing don't you? You go about making up different scenarios just to try and argue. I'll ask again, and you have yet to respond I wonder why, when given that Josh will shoot would you rather he shoot a long 2 or a 3? I am waiting on your response to the actual argument, not your imaginative one that you created just so you could feed your need to argue.

[exodus]

At this point, several people are arguing for the sake of arguing, but here's the truth, and I'm going to have to link the crap out of this post to get my point across. This thread has gone so far astray that I'm going to list the hierarchy of truths which need to be recognized.

1) Josh Smith should not take jumpshots. He's bad at it.

Which is exactly why he shouldn't be hanging out around the 3 pt line. I don't see Horford or Zaza out there. I didn't see marvin out there last year. they are all playing in the same offense.

"2) Josh Smith takes a lot of long 2 pointers, and 35.4 is a crap percentage."

You are right on the first point, flat out wrong on the 2nd. smith takes 4.8 2 pt jumpers per game. if he is shooting 2 shots per game just inside the line and shoots them at 24% like he does from 3 then that would mean he would have to shoot 40% on the rest of his jumpers to get to 35.4%.

No matter how you look at it this is an argument for Smith shooting from closer in.

"3) Given the choice between Josh Smith shooting with his foot on the 3 point line, or setting up so that his feet aren't on it, I'd like him to take the 3-because it's worth more points. In fact, if you include ALL of his 2 point attempts, he's still more likely to do something positive shooting 3s, mostly because they're worth more points-the difference is nearly negligible so he really just need to not shoot"

I have no idea what you are saying here. On the one hand you are saying he is better off shooting 3s but on the other you are saying it is a negligible difference.

Since i don't understand what you are saying i will point out that his shooting percentage on 2 pt jumpers is identical to his efg from 3. Therefore he should be shooting 2s because when he is closer the the basket;

He is more likely to get offensive rebounds

it is easier to drive to the basket.

it is easier to cut to the basket.

the defense has to pay more attention to him.

"4) If anyone is arguing that Josh Smith didn't take a lot of crap jump shots in the fourth quarter last night'

I am not sure why you are including this since i certainly haven't said anything of the sort.

"5) Please stop arguing theoretical scenarios where you want Josh Smith to take two steps in any given direction to take his shot. "

ill do just that when you and hawksfanatic stop arguing theoretical scenarios about Smith stepping back to shoot.