Is Smoove Regressing under Drew?

[TheTruth]

I realize I'm a little biased as a Josh Smith fan but I'm having a hard time with all the hub bub. currently Josh and Joe are shooting the exact same percentage (44.9 and 44.8). Joe is taking 6.6 more shots a game.

Smith is missing 5.4 shots a game....Joe is missing 9. Josh is shooting 1 3pointer a game. Joe is shooting 4.3 and averaging 30.8%.

I am in no way saying Josh should shoot from the outside more or Joe less, but I'm just not seeing the case for all the drama. The context of Josh really shouldn't be shooting based on percentages is technically accurate. But there sure seems to have been a great deal of space in this thread alone discussing what is a point or two a game. I guess I see it as throwing a guy a bone for all the steals, blocks, rebounds. If it keeps his head in the game to let him fire up one or two and the percentages show it costs us 1 or 2 points a game on the offensive end but gets us Great Josh on the defensive end, I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Psychology is a big deal in the NBA. These are massive egos we're dealing with.

You are missing the biggest point Josh Smith detractors--or just about any fan of the Hawks--is making.

This isn't about mere percentages, his "making up for it on the defensive end," his number of shots, or sacrifice, or any other lame excuses. It's about one simple and undeniable fact:

Josh Smith, by continuing to shoot jumper outside of just a few feet in instead of driving the lane/finding the open man/taking it hard to the basket, is not only a statistical fail of epic proportions...but it also plays to his weaknesses, not his strengths. This, in and of itself, will hinder his ability to become a complete player with higher BBIQ, and it will continue to have a decidedly negative effect on the offensive end.

[AHawks89]

It's funny seeing this topic, then looking down at the OG's sig and then seeing a picture of Al Horford. Really? It seems like majority of the posters on here are either a Josh Smith fan or Al Horford fan, and not a HAWKS fan. Reminds me of the people who follows LeBron around and bashes the teammates. Every day there is a topic bashing a Hawks player. I really don't get it.

Come on 'Hawks' fans! :shake_puter:

[jy23]

It's funny seeing this topic, then looking down at the OG's sig and then seeing a picture of Al Horford. Really? It seems like majority of the posters on here are either a Josh Smith fan or Al Horford fan, and not a HAWKS fan. Reminds me of the people who follows LeBron around and bashes the teammates. Every day there is a topic bashing a Hawks player. I really don't get it.

Come on 'Hawks' fans! :shake_puter:

:thumbsdownsmileyanim: So as a fan of the Hawks I cant see something that one of our players is doing and have a problem with it....am I suppose to watch the games wide eyed and happy no matter what actually happens on the floor?

Josh is a member of this team and Im going to support him no matter what BUT if there is something that he can do that would benefit this TEAM more than Im going to voice my opinion on it....you can accept mediocrity if you want but as a real FAN I want this team to be as good as possible!!!

And before someone comes and says that I need to lower my expectations and be happy with what we have bc it could be worse blah blah blah......I love this team, Im happy that we've made our way out of the bunker of the league and actually are noticed as a good team but I still want a championship...I mean what real fan doesn't?

[High5]

The people who "bash" Josh only do it because we know how incredible he could be if he just played to his strengths. When he settles for jumpers he's wasting his unique ability and harming the team. I'll never understand how anyone could defend that.

[AHF]

The people who "bash" Josh only do it because we know how incredible he could be if he just played to his strengths. When he settles for jumpers he's wasting his unique ability and harming the team. I'll never understand how anyone could defend that.

Josh has the most potential of anyone on this team.

[thecampster]

The people who "bash" Josh only do it because we know how incredible he could be if he just played to his strengths. When he settles for jumpers he's wasting his unique ability and harming the team. I'll never understand how anyone could defend that.

I understand it. I completely understand it. Some people feel the need to constantly correct. Some people don't. There is nothing wrong with pointing out a problem in a player's game. But sometimes it gets excessive (see Diesel's 800 or so topics on why Marvin was a waste). You can be right on something but actually lose your credibility based on your approach. When you hammer, hammer, hammer away at one glaring flaw in a player's game because it drives you crazy, you naturally bring out the love in people that appreciate just as strongly that player's contributions.

The first thing people arguing against Josh taking jumpers need to understand is that there are other people in the world that see it differently. Even if you are right...100% right....there are people that will not and refuse to see it. They prefer to focus on something else. I cringe too when Josh bends those knees at 23 feet, but I prefer to not to put a saddle a mustang. His personality is his biggest strength and his biggest flaw. If you bottle him up, I think you get a lot less of the other good stuff that you love him for.

You see it all the time. Players wear out their welcome in a town or get tired of the antics of the owners or fans in a town and they move on and it's in that new town they reach their full potential. Patience is often the best course.

[exodus]

. If you bottle him up, I think you get a lot less of the other good stuff that you love him for.

In six years there has never been any evidence of this. 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.

[exodus]

This even goes back to college. He is a quote from 1999 article discussing Artest:

Do I need to go on? Really no evidence of him having problems with shot selection? Really?

How can anyone follow the NBA as closely as you do and not be aware that everywhere Artest has played the team's fans and management have all complained about Ron Artest's shot selection?

You must have misread my post. I said that you had not presented any evidence that Artest is taking bad shots. All you had done is mention a declining TS% which is not a measure of shot selection.

Since you did not answer the question i will ask it again. How has Artest managed an EFG of 47% on his jumpers over the last two seasons if he is taking so many ill advised shots?

And i should also point out that you have gotten a little off track. The initial quote about Artest was;

But even Ron Artest's psychiatrist will advise to you that even the most egregious "dumbasses," if you will, win championships with the right personnel on the floor and on the bench.

My response was that it isn't just about the personnel, it is about the player changing his ways and doing what is best for the team.

Given that Artest has won only one title i think it is pretty clear that what he did in college or with Indy/Sactown is irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited November 1, 2010 by exodus

[High5]

I understand it. I completely understand it. Some people feel the need to constantly correct. Some people don't. There is nothing wrong with pointing out a problem in a player's game. But sometimes it gets excessive (see Diesel's 800 or so topics on why Marvin was a waste). You can be right on something but actually lose your credibility based on your approach. When you hammer, hammer, hammer away at one glaring flaw in a player's game because it drives you crazy, you naturally bring out the love in people that appreciate just as strongly that player's contributions.

The first thing people arguing against Josh taking jumpers need to understand is that there are other people in the world that see it differently. Even if you are right...100% right....there are people that will not and refuse to see it. They prefer to focus on something else. I cringe too when Josh bends those knees at 23 feet, but I prefer to not to put a saddle a mustang. His personality is his biggest strength and his biggest flaw. If you bottle him up, I think you get a lot less of the other good stuff that you love him for.

You see it all the time. Players wear out their welcome in a town or get tired of the antics of the owners or fans in a town and they move on and it's in that new town they reach their full potential. Patience is often the best course.

As exodus said, Josh had his best season when he shot the fewest amount of jumpers. That's also a big reason why the Hawks had their best season since he has been here. And you can't really call for patience for something like this in a player's 7th season. He has had more than enough time to swallow his pride and stop trying to be someone he's not.

[AHF]

You must have misread my post. I said that you had not presented any evidence that Artest is taking bad shots. All you had done is mention a declining TS% which is not a measure of shot selection.

Since you did not answer the question i will ask it again. How has Artest managed an EFG of 47% on his jumpers over the last two seasons if he is taking so many ill advised shots?

I didn't misread your post. You said: "The problem is that you have not shown any evidence that Artest is taking bad shots." That is why I cited a dozen different people talking about his terrible shot selection.

And i should also point out that you have gotten a little off track. The initial quote about Artest was;

My response was that it isn't just about the personnel, it is about the player changing his ways and doing what is best for the team.

Given that Artest has won only one title i think it is pretty clear that what he did in college or with Indy/Sactown is irrelevant to the discussion.

My point in discussing Artest has been that he has persistently demonstrated bad shot selection:

in college, with Indy, with Sacramento, and with the Lakers.

That is pretty similar to the repeated problems that Josh Smith has had shooting too many bad jumpers. The difference is that Artest is a good jump shooter who could be a really good jump shooter but isn't because he stubbornly insists on lowering his efg% on jump shots by taking too many bad jumpers while Smith should eliminate long jumpers from his repetoire entirely. The reference to TS% was that at least Josh Smith has cut back on the bad jumpers over the years (although it is still a problem) enough to improve his shooting efficiency every year for the last 5 years while Artest shows no signs of doing the same.

Both guys have a problem with shot selection on jumpers.

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.

This I fully agree with.

Edited November 1, 2010 by AHF

[exodus]

I didn't misread your post. You said: "The problem is that you have not shown any evidence that Artest is taking bad shots." That is why I cited a dozen different people talking about his terrible shot selection.

If you didn't misread it then you clearly misunderstood it. Saying that you hadnt shown any evidence of Artest taking bad shots currently is completely difference from saying that no evidence exists of Artests bad shot selection throughout his history.

Do I need to go on? Really no evidence of him having problems with shot selection? Really?

I say again that you had presented no evidence other than TS% when i asked the question. And TS% is not evidence of shot selection.

Secondly i guess you need to define what you mean by bad shot selection. To me it means persistently taking shots that you aren't making at a reasonable clip. Certainly that is not the case with Artests perimeter shots with the Lakers given that his EFG on jumpers is better than Kobe's.

My point in discussing Artest has been that he has persistently demonstrated bad shot selection:

in college, with Indy, with Sacramento, and with the Lakers.

That is pretty similar to the repeated problems that Josh Smith has had shooting too many bad jumpers. The difference is that Artest is a good jump shooter who could be a really good jump shooter but isn't because he stubbornly insists on lowering his efg% on jump shots by taking too many bad jumpers while Smith should eliminate long jumpers from his repetoire entirely. The reference to TS% was that at least Josh Smith has cut back on the bad jumpers over the years (although it is still a problem) enough to improve his shooting efficiency every year for the last 5 years while Artest shows no signs of doing the same.

Artest has clearly improved his shot selection over the years. When he was with Indy he was consistently below 40% EFG on his jumpers. Since he went to Sactown he is consistently above 40% on his jumpers leading up to his 47% the last two years. That clearly shows to me that he is making an effort to improve his shot selection.

Unless you think that Artest somehow improved his jumper so much that it allows him to shoot 10% higher on jumpers than he did in his prime. Is that really what you are trying to say?

TS% has absolutely no relevance to the discussion because it includes inside scoring where Smith has a dominant advantage over Artest, whose ability to score inside is declining with age. Meanwhile Smiths ability to score inside has increased as he has gained experience and focused more in on inside scoring.

My original point stands. It wasn't just a matter of Artest moving to a different team that could win in spite of his poor shot selection. It was also about Artest improving his shot selection to the benefit of the team. Artest is not a good enough shooter to maintain an EFG of 47% over 2 years while having poor shot selection.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

AHF . . your argument citing Artest takes bad shots, is the exact reason why I hate that eFG%. It's almost if Exodus is framing that 47% number as one that is acceptable for him . . which it isn't.

On 3 point shots, all a player has to do is shoot 33% from 3 point range, to post a 50% eFG percentage.

In Artest's case last year, he took twice as many 3 point shots as he did shots from 16 - 23 feet. Even if you combine his shots from 10 - 23 feet, compared with 3 point shots, he still took almost 1/2 of his jumpers from 3.

Artest shot 36% from 16 - 23 feet and 35.5% from 3 point range. The difference is the 35.5% from 3, translates to a 53% eFG.

And with Artest taking 1/2 of his jumpers from 3, that's how he can post a 47% eFG, despite shooting 36% from both the long 2 point and 3 point areas.

In the past, Artest would take a lot of bad long 2s off the dribble. That's why those writers used to rip right into Artest. Ron's shot selection is actually more closer to Stephen Jackson, than anybody else. And people can't deny that he has horrendous shot selection, even though he possesses the ability to get how and have a big game from time to time.

But it goes to show just how bad of a shooter Smith is, because Josh couldn't shoot 36% from both the long 2 and 3 point range to save his life. That's why he may be the absolute worst jumpshooter in the league, for the amount of jumpers he takes.

To me, if you're not shooting at least 40% from that 16 - 23 feet area, you need to reduce the number of shots you're taking from that area. The same thing goes for 3 point shooters that shoot less than 37%.

[AHF]

Unless you think that Artest somehow improved his jumper so much that it allows him to shoot 10% higher on jumpers than he did in his prime. Is that really what you are trying to say?

That is precisely what some of the basketball writers who have focused on him have concluded - that he has made minor improvements to shot selection and significant improvments to his actual jump shot since arriving in Sacramento.

For example:

http://www.thedreamshake.com/2009/2/27/774937/breaking-down-ron-artest-a

[exodus]

AHF . . your argument citing Artest takes bad shots, is the exact reason why I hate that eFG%. It's almost if Exodus is framing that 47% number as one that is acceptable for him . . which it isn't.

On 3 point shots, all a player has to do is shoot 33% from 3 point range, to post a 50% eFG percentage.

In Artest's case last year, he took twice as many 3 point shots as he did shots from 16 - 23 feet. Even if you combine his shots from 10 - 23 feet, compared with 3 point shots, he still took almost 1/2 of his jumpers from 3.

Artest shot 36% from 16 - 23 feet and 35.5% from 3 point range. The difference is the 35.5% from 3, translates to a 53% eFG.

And with Artest taking 1/2 of his jumpers from 3, that's how he can post a 47% eFG, despite shooting 36% from both the long 2 point and 3 point areas.

In the past, Artest would take a lot of bad long 2s off the dribble. That's why those writers used to rip right into Artest. Ron's shot selection is actually more closer to Stephen Jackson, than anybody else. And people can't deny that he has horrendous shot selection, even though he possesses the ability to get how and have a big game from time to time.

I think i need this translated. So you are saying that Artest has reduced the number of long 2s that he takes off the dribble, but he hasn't improved his shot selection?

To me, if you're not shooting at least 40% from that 16 - 23 feet area, you need to reduce the number of shots you're taking from that area.

Which is exactly what Artest did. He improved his shot selection to the benefit of the team.

If a 47% EFG is not acceptable then what does that say about Marvin, whose best year was 45% and who shot 39% last year?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And Ex, truth be told, Artest should've posted a much higher eFG% than 47%, seeing that he didn't have to create his shot nearly as much in LA, than he had to do in Sactown and Houston.

A 47% eFG for a guy who took a ton of 3s, and was basically a standstill jumpshooter in LA, isn't very good at all.

[exodus]

That is precisely what some of the basketball writers who have focused on him have concluded - that he has made minor improvements to shot selection and significant improvments to his actual jump shot since arriving in Sacramento. For example:

http://www.thedreamshake.com/2009/2/27/774937/breaking-down-ron-artest-a

If he has improved his jumper so much then why is he shooting 36% from 16-23 feet?

And Ex, truth be told, Artest should've posted a much higher eFG% than 47%, seeing that he didn't have to create his shot nearly as much in LA, than he had to do in Sactown and Houston.

A 47% eFG for a guy who took a ton of 3s, and was basically a standstill jumpshooter in LA, isn't very good at all.

So i say again, what does that say about Marvin? He isn't creating his own shot off the dribble at all yet his best year is 45% and he was at 39% last year. I haven't seen anyone bashing his shot selection.

[AHF]

If he has improved his jumper so much then why is he shooting 36% from 16-23 feet?

That is the area where his shot selection is regarded as being at its worst with him taking too many contested or off-balance jumpers from that range. It isn't like Ron Artest is known for taking steady jumpers in that area of the floor. If his shot selection wasn't a persistent issue, I suspect you would see more improvement in that range. There is no logical reason for him to shoot roughly as well from 24 feet as he does from 19 feet if the quality of shots are comparable.

[exodus]

That is the area where his shot selection is regarded as being at its worst with him taking too many contested or off-balance jumpers from that range. It isn't like Ron Artest is known for taking steady jumpers in that area of the floor. If his shot selection wasn't a persistent issue, I suspect you would see more improvement in that range. There is no logical reason for him to shoot roughly as well from 24 feet as he does from 19 feet if the quality of shots are comparable.

But you just said his jumper had improved greatly. So where is the 10% improvement in EFG coming from?

He shot 35.5% from 3 last year which is hardly stellar. That is only 2% better than his first year in Indy when his EFG on jumpers was 37.6%. Your math isn't adding up.

Edited November 1, 2010 by exodus

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Marvin was horribe last year Ex. We all know that. But this is why the eFG% is deceiving as hell, especially for a player like Marvin. When Marvin shot 45% FG on shots from 16 - 23 feet, but took only 10 or so threes, he was a much more dependable shooter than he is now.

If he can't consistently make the three, I'd much rather have the Marvin that was a pretty high shooting guy from 16 - 23 feet, than the schizophrenic shooter from both the 3 and the long 2 that we have now.

Why are you even arguing this? You know Artest takes bad shots and always have taken bad shots. I agree that his shot selection is nowhere near Smith's ( because Smith can't consistently make any jumpshots ). But Artest doesn't have good shot selection at all. He plays like Stephen Jackson, who is notorious for taking early, ill-advised threes.

[exodus]

Marvin was horribe last year Ex. We all know that. But this is why the eFG% is deceiving as hell, especially for a player like Marvin. When Marvin shot 45% FG on shots from 16 - 23 feet, but took only 10 or so threes, he was a much more dependable shooter than he is now.

If he can't consistently make the three, I'd much rather have the Marvin that was a pretty high shooting guy from 16 - 23 feet, than the schizophrenic shooter from both the 3 and the long 2 that we have now.

Why are you even arguing this? You know Artest takes bad shots and always have taken bad shots. I agree that his shot selection is nowhere near Smith's ( because Smith can't consistently make any jumpshots ). But Artest doesn't have good shot selection at all. He plays like Stephen Jackson, who is notorious for taking early, ill-advised threes.

The point is that Artest has clearly improved his shot selection to the benefit of the team. If he was taking a lot of bad jumpers he wouldn't have an EFG of 47%, his career best.

Smith can't even crack 30% which is why it is a ridiculous comparison.

Marvin's best year for jump shooting was when he started shooting a lot of 3s. The year before his EFG on jumpers was 40.8. I'll take 47% over 40.8%.