Ferry's plan is coming together

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Al Jefferson scored fewer points per shot attempt last season than Josh Smith -- and Josh was terribly inefficient last year. Why are people thinking Jefferson is going to help our scoring efficiency? Patrick Millsap - 1061 points, 861 FGA Al Jefferson - 1170 points, 1048 FGA Give me Millsap's productivity over Jefferson's.

AHF . . . I have to make a run right now. But when I come back, I'll post Josh Smith's Synergy screen shot. I'll try to get that up in about an hour. After I do that, I'll let you compare the two. The ONLY knock against Al Jefferson, is that he doesn't offensive rebound the ball enough ( which is a major knock on Josh Smith as well ) . . and he doesn't draw enough fouls on his shots. But when you shoot 50% from the field, and don't have to use many more possessions than shots to get those points, it makes Jefferson a highly efficient scorer. But like I said, I'll post Josh's screen shot when I get back.

[AHF]

AHF . . . I have to make a run right now. But when I come back, I'll post Josh Smith's Synergy screen shot. I'll try to get that up in about an hour. After I do that, I'll let you compare the two. The ONLY knock against Al Jefferson, is that he doesn't offensive rebound the ball enough ( which is a major knock on Josh Smith as well ) . . and he doesn't draw enough fouls on his shots. But when you shoot 50% from the field, and don't have to use many more possessions than shots to get those points, it makes Jefferson a highly efficient scorer. But like I said, I'll post Josh's screen shot when I get back.

Don't both posting Josh's screen shot. Josh was terribly inefficient last year so it should suck. The fact that Josh scored more points per shot attempt than Jefferson last year even while sucking from an efficiency viewpoint speaks to Jefferson's own inefficiency. Compare Jefferson to Millsap instead since Millsap is someone you would want a big man known primarily for his scoring to better. Bettering Josh's efficiency last season is damning by faint praise.

[MaceCase]

2009: ( 49.7% FG )

2010: ( 49.8% FG )

2011: ( 49.6% FG )

2012: ( 49.2% FG ) . . . . his career low, so I guess by Hawksquawk's standards, he's in decline. And I guess in those previous 3 years, we can't round up to the higher percentage, and in the last year, round down to the lower percentage.

Career 50% FG shooter . . . ummm, I mean . . . 50.2% shooter.

Do you understand that it's actually a knock when over half of your offense comes so close to the basket yet you aren't scoring over half of your attempts?

Hasn't dropped below 52% TS EVER, despite having a low FT rate

You are aware that 52% TS is league average right? Dropping below it means you are terrible, being less than a fraction above it means you are average. Thank goodness that he can actually hit free throws at a 75%+ clip otherwise he'd drop below that thinly held 52% precipice.

Part of "working hard" means getting in position to receive the ball. And since Jefferson shoots half of his shots via post ups, he is "working" to get that shot. Also, Dirk Nowitzki has had over 60% of his FG makes the past 3 years come via assists. Does that mean that Dirk can't create his own shot ( which was my original point about Jefferson )?

No, actually following the stream of your criteria, because Dirk is assisted on 64% of his baskets he is therefore a worse scorer than Jefferson. You can't trust Dirk in the 4th quarter with 6 seconds left on the clock to go get you a basket like Jefferson can. That just makes you break out in laughter don't it? Jefferson a guy who supposedly can get his own baskets and is also getting half his baskets assisted yet still coming out with a 52% TS is a red flag.

Terrible passer means that he turns the ball over a lot. Jefferson doesn't do that. He actually had a 2.2 ( oops, I can't round up . . . ) a 2.18 to 1 assist/turnover ratio last year. What Jefferson is . . is a "black hole" . . because he doesn't normally pass the ball if he can get a shot off in the post. That's not a bad thing if you can make right at or close to 50% of your shots.

No, "terrible" passer means that he can't pass. "Dumb" passer or a "risk taker" means you get lots of turnovers. Considering that he's not a prolific scorer that can get you high point totals or even hits the shots that he does take at a very high rate this is another red flag. Uh oh, your old buggaboo the eFG% of a open 3pointer even from a league average shooter at 35%3FG is equivalent to 52.5% from the field......a higher rate than Jefferson has ever achieved. Maybe he should think more about passing.

True. Although he is the main option in the post, he doesn't work hard enough to grab offensive rebounds when he doesn't have the ball.

Al's career low 7.3 offensive rebound % last year is actually the career average of another PF that should be crashing the boards on offense, getting his team ( or himself ) extra possessions . . . instead of shooting up a lot of jumpers like he's a great shooter.

Yea it says something when you are equaling the rebounding production of a guy who is hanging 22+ feet away from the basket...when you are 5 feet away from it. Continues to say something when Josh 6'9" 225lbs (15.9 TRB%) is nearly equaling Jefferson 6'9" 289lbs (16.2 TRB%). What this indicates is a lack of athleticism to rebound outside your area and that you are a finesse player. Red flags.

He was actually fouled on less than 8% of his regular season shot attempts last year ( that drops down to a little over 5% if you include regular season + playoffs ).

But it's not because he's not forcing the defense to react to his presence. The dude is taking 17 shots a game, with most of them coming 15 feet and in, so they have to react to him. Jefferson just has the knack to score the basketball at a pretty high rate, without drawing contact. A lot of jump hooks, short spot up jumpers, nifty post moves, and cuts to the basket are Jefferson's choice of shots on offense.

And once again, he's making at or around 50% of his shots without using a ton of extra possessions to score his points. Should he draw more fouls? Yes. But once again, he's producing points on half of the possessions he touches the ball.

Yes, it symbolizes that he's a finesse player. No, defenses don't have to react much to finesse players in the post when they putting up a paltry efficiency. When you have to round up to 50% as a pure post scorer you aren't really getting it done. When you aren't forcing rotations and overall foul situations for your team, you aren't getting it done. Out of all the rotation players on Utah he put up the 5th best scoring rate. Had he been on the Hawks he would of been 9th, 10th if Josh was at his previous norms. Red flags.

* 22.8 PER last year ( 2nd highest of his career ) . . . no Hawk has posted a 22.8 PER or higher since Dominique in the 1992 - 93 season

* .173 win score/48 last year . . . would've easily led the Hawks last year ( especially with the absence of Horford ), and may have been even higher

* 112 offensive rating . . . . would've led the Hawks last year

* Only 4 three pointers taken all year . . . because he knows where he needs to be shooting the ball to be most effective

* #8 in the league in NBA Efficiency

* #3 amongst centers in NBA Efficiency

* Has averaged more blocked shots than Josh Smith and Al Horford the past 2 years.

* Can actually defend bigger centers successfully in the post.

Are you done with this? Or are you going to act like this dude can't ball at a high level.

Or do you want Zaza to continue to play center for the Hawks, because he brings the "intangibles" like hustle and heart to his game . . and will grab offensive rebounds ( even if they're his own offensive rebounds when he misses lay-ups )?

When I asked "what else?" I did it in direct response to what else does he do offensively besides score less than a ppp on half his opportunities? If you noticed, you started this whole debate with me when I questioned his scoring but I'll go ahead and address these.

*His PER is only that high because PER rewards high usage, rebounds and low turnovers which he obviously performs well by.

* Yes him and Marvin would of made a superstar frontcourt duo

* ORTG can't actually be compared across teams yet alone between starters and a bench on a single team.

* What does his three's have to do with anything? Maybe if 71% of his offense weren't jumpers he could manage above league pedestrian efficiency.

* I neither know nor care what his NBAEFF is, tell me his GameScore too while you're at it.

* Blocked shots are a measure of what now, defense? Al Jefferson is a better defender than Josh and Al? Cool.

* Run through your Synergy archives and tell me what Al's rank was a few years back (hint: he led it)

I never once brought Zaza into this discussion, you did because that's your strawman to help you face the facts that Jefferson is not someone who lives up to his billing as an offensive force. If I wanted to bring him in as a rebounding center sure, but if he's brought in as someone who's supposed to revolutionize the offense......you are in for a dissapointment.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Don't both posting Josh's screen shot.

Josh was terribly inefficient last year so it should suck. The fact that Josh scored more points per shot attempt than Jefferson last year even while sucking from an efficiency viewpoint speaks to Jefferson's own inefficiency.

Compare Jefferson to Millsap instead since Millsap is someone you would want a big man known primarily for his scoring to better. Bettering Josh's efficiency last season is damning by faint praise.

Well . . I'll post it anyway, to let you see the major difference between Jefferson and Smith as offensive players.

And efficiency is much more than just points per shot. It includes a lot of things, which is why you can't look at one particular stat, when you may have other stats that speak directly against the "good stat".

All of Jefferson's efficiency stats speak highly of him as an offensive player, outside of points per shot ( which isn't bad either ). It's just amazing that a guy who has a PER of almost 23 . . and an NBA Efficiency that is top 10 in the league . . and an Offensive Rating of 112 . . and a guy that takes most of his shots from 15 feet and in . . is still dissed like he's a worse offensive player than Josh Smith, because Josh has ONE offensive stat that is in his favor over Jefferson.

By the way:

Points Per shot

Paul Milsap - 1.232 . . . ( 24.64 points per 20 shots )

Josh Smith - 1.125 . . . ( 22.5 points per 20 shots )

Al Jefferson - 1.116 . . . ( 22.32 points per 20 shots )

Points per Possession ( regular + post season )

Al Jefferson - 0.98 . . ( 19.6 points per 20 possessions )

Paul Milsap - 0.96 . . ( 19.2 points per 20 possessions )

Josh Smith - 0.88 . . ( 17.6 points per 20 possessions )

But somehow . . Jefferson is an inefficient player?

[Watchman]

Not getting the injury nonsense in regards to Jefferson, reminds a lot how the lemmings around here would jump to that criticism in regards to Okafor. He's only played oh, 219 of a possible 230 games over the past 3 seasons so I'd say he's proven that he can shake that injury criticism.

Now if you were to debate his defense (much improved over the last few seasons) or being a blackhole on offense (actually improved his assist rate above the Dwightdoza line) then you'd have an argument but the only legitimate reason to give criticism would be the fact that he's an offensively inefficient bigman with an abysmal free throw rate for a guy that handles the ball that much in the post. His near 50% shooting is the most deceiving stat ever because he's a guy who can still only give you 20 points on 20 shots....we just gave away a guy that did that and still have a guy named Josh Smith that will give you the same scoring rate (even with subpar FT shooting....or shooting in general) same rebounds, same blocks, greater passing and greater defense. Creating your own shot doesn't amount to a hill of beans if still takes you 10 tries to get 10 points.

And you want to make your argument off of an over-simplification of a term? Okay. Notice AHF's post. Notice that there is already a comprehensive statistic created to measure scoring efficiency better than your over-simplification also...

Ah, I guess it's actually fair. I made an over-simplified statement based on a fact, you tried to over-simplify facts. Carry on.

I was responding to your posts, not the etherial thoughts going through your head. Sorry, but my clairvoyance is just not working well today. I also had not realized the apparent universal truth that more complicated = better.

A real measure of effectiveness (for simpletons like me) would be (points+rebounds+assists+blocks-turnovers-fouls/minutes played multiplied by Pts/(FGA+FTA). (If you want to somehow throw in a +/- factor into I can see that, however, if you are playing with a bench unit, even though you may be the best person coming off your bench, chances are your +/- is going to be lower than someone who plays with better talent. Therefore I don't put a lot of stock in +/-)

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Matter of fact, this gives me an idea. I think I'll start a Synergy Screen Shot thread for those of you who are curious about what our current crop of guys do in particular situations, and what their production is when they take that type of shot. I may start that thread sometime late tonight or tomorrow.So I'll take requests on that thread and post whatever you guys want to see.

[AHF]

But somehow . . Jefferson is an inefficient player?

He isn't a particularly efficient scorer. I'm not sure what your numbers mean either. Jefferson - FGA + TO = 1110 possessions ending in his hands; PTS = 1170 = 1.05 PPPE (points per possession he ended) Milsap - FGA + TO = 973 possessions ending in his hands; PTS = 1061; 1.09 PPPE How is Jefferson more efficient? That doesn't even count for the fact that Milsap had more assists or that Millsap created more turnovers on defense.

[AHF]

A real measure of effectiveness (for simpletons like me) would be (points+rebounds+assists+blocks-turnovers-fouls/minutes played multiplied by Pts/(FGA+FTA).

Ummm.....I'll just say that strikes me as a rather arbitrary number. (For example, it counts block but not steals; it weighs a missed FG the same as a missed FT; etc.).

[TheNorthCydeRises]

He isn't a particularly efficient scorer. I'm not sure what your numbers mean either. Jefferson - FGA + TO = 1110 possessions ending in his hands; PTS = 1170 = 1.05 PPPE (points per possession he ended) Milsap - FGA + TO = 973 possessions ending in his hands; PTS = 1061; 1.09 PPPE How is Jefferson more efficient? That doesn't even count for the fact that Milsap had more assists or that Millsap created more turnovers on defense.

LOL . . they're not MY numbers. Blame SynergySports . . the entity that most of these NBA teams use to evaluate players, if you disagree with the numbers. And aren't you forgetting trips to the FT line when evaluating Points Per Possession?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

(( sigh )) . . . I guess I have to post Millsap's Synergy then. Give me a minute.

[AHF]

LOL . . they're not MY numbers. Blame SynergySports . . the entity that most of these NBA teams use to evaluate players, if you disagree with the numbers. And aren't you forgetting trips to the FT line when evaluating Points Per Possession?

I'd have to see how Synergy ran their numbers, but trips to the free throw line for and-ones should not count while non-and-ones while a player is shooting should count. Non-and-ones when a player is fouled off the ball are debatable as a measure of a player's scoring efficiency. Edited August 28, 2012 by AHF

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If you have a beef, argue with Synergy

The numbers are what they are. And they show that Millsap is nowhere near as good as Jefferson in the post, but better than him when cutting to the basket and getting offensive put backs.

[AHF]

How is it even possible that Jefferson had fewer "and-ones" than Milsap? That is hard to believe given Jefferson's play in the post.

[AHF]

If you have a beef, argue with Synergy

The numbers are what they are. And they show that Millsap is nowhere near as good as Jefferson in the post, but better than him when cutting to the basket and getting offensive put backs.

How does Synergy count Milsap with 36 3ptFGA when he only shot 31 last season?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Synergy takes the bizarre notion that every trip to the line is another possession. If you run their numbers, they count "And 1's" against the player scoring them and simply divide all FTA by 2 and add possession. Doing that, you get Jefferson at .976 and Milsap at .964 which they round to .98 and 96.

Since drawing contact and getting the bonus fts doesn't actually use up a possession, I personally think that isn't a constructive way of evaluating the numbers.

I'd have to see how Synergy ran their numbers, but trips to the free throw line for and-ones should not count while non-and-ones while a player is shooting should count. Non-and-ones when a player is fouled off the ball are debatable as a measure of a player's scoring efficiency.

????

So drawing contact and getting to the FT line doesn't give you another opportunity to score?

So on one hand, you're fine with a stat like points per shot, that simply counts every shot you make as points, compared to the actual official FG attempts counted against you . . . but doesn't count every FT trip to the line ( unless you make the shot )

While you're not cool with Synergy's calculation of points per shot, that actually counts every trip to the FT line as a possession as well as your official FG attempts and turnovers?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

How does Synergy count Milsap with 36 3ptFGA when he only shot 31 last season?

Synergy counts both regular season and postseason in their final calculations. If I were to count the regular season only, Millsap's PPP would stay at 0.96 while Jefferson's would go up slightly to 0.99

How is it even possible that Jefferson had fewer "and-ones" than Milsap? That is hard to believe given Jefferson's play in the post.

Look at the screenshot of Millsap's production via post-ups. He's not an efficient post up player at all. He's a slasher and crasher.

[AHF]

????

So drawing contact and getting to the FT line doesn't give you another opportunity to score?

So on one hand, you're fine with a stat like points per shot, that simply counts every shot you make as points, compared to the actual official FG attempts counted against you . . . but doesn't count every FT trip to the line ( unless you make the shot )

While you're not cool with Synergy's calculation of points per shot, that actually counts every trip to the FT line as a possession as well as your official FG attempts and turnovers?

The first quote you made was deleted by me because while the numbers coincide with the Synergy numbers, I don't know how they were done. Synergy might have done them the right way. For a proper analysis of possessions used, you absolutely do need to take into account all trips to the free throw line other than and-ones. For a proper analysis of scoring ability, off the ball fouls that send someone to the line don't seem as relevant unless you are talking about hack-a-Milsap, etc.

The fact that they can't count total 3pters correctly doesn't inspire confidence in more advanced analysis, though.

Synergy counts both regular season and postseason in their final calculations.

So 31 +3 = 36?

No wonder I struggle to understand.

[MaceCase]

I was responding to your posts, not the etherial thoughts going through your head. Sorry, but my clairvoyance is just not working well today. I also had not realized the apparent universal truth that more complicated = better.

A real measure of effectiveness (for simpletons like me) would be (points+rebounds+assists+blocks-turnovers-fouls/minutes played multiplied by Pts/(FGA+FTA). (If you want to somehow throw in a +/- factor into I can see that, however, if you are playing with a bench unit, even though you may be the best person coming off your bench, chances are your +/- is going to be lower than someone who plays with better talent. Therefore I don't put a lot of stock in +/-)

You must possess some sort of advanced mental capabilities if you managed to devise a metric for scoring efficiency that includes rebounds, assists, blocks, etc. Nevermind the weighing of certain aspects of that metric (or omission of others), I'm still amazed that scoring has expanded beyond the amount of times the ball goes through the net.

[Watchman]

Ummm.....I'll just say that strikes me as a rather arbitrary number. (For example, it counts block but not steals; it weighs a missed FG the same as a missed FT; etc.).

Sorry, I meant to include steals. I deleted some things, as is evidenced by the missing closing parenthesis, prior to the divide by sign. I guess I deleted more than I meant to. I don't think the FGA/FTA issue you mentioned is valid, particularly in the light of the present discussion of 20 FGA = 20 pts. Efficient would be 20 FGA = 40 pts (or more if some FG were 3 pointers). Back during the time of him (the present Wizard) who shall not be named, all the discussion was that if a player takes 20 FGA, he should score 20 pts. Therefore, if you take 20 FGA and 5 FTA, 25 points would not be an unreasonable expectation. If you take that number of FGAs and FTAs, and you only scored 20 pts, I would consider you inefficient. If those same attempts yielded 30 pts, I think you would be considered efficient. It seems a reasonable method of measuring efficiency for my little peanut brain.

[Watchman]

You must possess some sort of advanced mental capabilities if you managed to devise a metric for scoring efficiency that includes rebounds, assists, blocks, etc. Nevermind the weighing of certain aspects of that metric (or omission of others), I'm still amazed that scoring has expanded beyond the amount of times the ball goes through the net.

I don't think I said scoring efficiency, I used the word effectiveness. Scoring was your thing, not mine. (Curiously however, what about your references to assists and turnovers, and rebounding when discussing Jefferson? Now you're confusing.) I am talking about overall effectiveness. Is a guy who scores 20 ppg, and not much else worth more than a guy who scores 10 ppg, gets 10 rpg and 10 apg?

Reading is fundamental. My most recent post addresses the FGA/FTA issue you seem to be pointing out.