Statistical evidence that the Atlanta Hawks would be a top-tier team if Josh Smith would just for the love of God go to the paint

[cdef]

In the 2012-13 season (according to 82games.com), 56% of Josh Smith’s shots have been jump shots while the other 44% have been taken close to the basket. On his jumpers, Smith shoots an effective field goal percentage (a statistic which accounts for the weighted value of three-pointers) of 39.3% for a total of 6.9 points per game. On inside shots, his eFG is 60.3% (about the same as Dwight Howard’s 60.7%) for a total of 8.3 ppg. In addition, Smith’s interior play rewards him with an average of 3.9 free throw attempts per game, which he hits at a rate of 50.5% for a total of 2.0 more points. Overall, this gives him an average of 17.2 ppg – 10.3 of which come from interior play. Respectable enough.

But what if Smith decided to stop shooting jumpers and only take shots close to the basket? What if he only took shots in the area of the floor where he shoots 60.3%?

If we take the 56% of his shots where his eFG is 39.3% – i.e. his jump shots – and turn those into interior shots where his eFG is 60.3%, this translates to an increase in points generated by those shots from 6.9 to 10.6, while also adding an additional 2.5 points from free throws. Add these points to the original 10.3 Smith already scores from his interior play, and the result is an overall increase in Smith’s productivity from 17.2 ppg to 23.4 ppg – a 6.2 point difference.

(For illustrative purposes, here is a compilation of charts showing Smith’s shooting locations in each of the Hawks’ losses this season:

http://imgur.com/a/fj9y4

Note the percentage of missed shots outside of the shaded area – it is even worse for Smith in the Hawks’ losses than in their wins. In losses, Smith has only hit 51 of his 197 jump shots away from the basket – a dismal 30.7% eFG. If all 197 of those shots (8.2 per game) had been taken near the basket at an eFG of 60.3%, it would translate to not just 6.2 but 7.3 extra points per game (with 4.9 coming from the 5.0 from jumpers turned into 9.9, plus 2.4 coming from extra free throws).)

But that’s not the end of the story. Scoring aside, Smith also currently averages 1.9 offensive rebounds per game despite spending over half his time away from the basket. Speculation can only take us so far here, but it’s probably fair to assume that if he spent 100% of his time near the basket, rather than merely 44% of it, the result would be an approximate doubling of his present offensive rebounding rate – that is, an additional 1.9 offensive rebounds per game. Based on the fact that the Hawks average 1.05 points per possession, this increase in offensive rebounding from Smith would translate to an extra 2.0 points per game for the Hawks.

Altogether, this increases our grand total to 8.2 extra points per game (or 9.3 if we only count losses). That’s 8.2 additional points per game if Smith were to play exclusively to his strengths, rather than actively playing to his weaknesses as he does today.

What would this extra 8.2 points mean to the Hawks? As of 3/2/13, the Hawks have lost 12 games by 8 points or fewer. Turning those losses into wins would boost the team’s overall record from 33-24 (4th in the East and 9th in the NBA) to 45-12 – best in the entire league. (And mind you, that’s with Lou Williams still out for the season.)

What would it mean for Smith specifically? Well, let’s just say he wouldn’t have to worry about being left out of the All-Star game anymore. Smith has always been known as an elite defender, but now he would have the offense to match it. And his boosted stat-line of 23.4 points, 4.2 assists, 10.7 rebounds, 2.0 blocks, and 1.2 steals per game would arguably be one of the top five in the NBA. Saying that the Hawks would be a top-tier NBA team with such a player on their roster is a grandiose claim, for sure; but imagining a player with such Duncan/Anthony/Howard/Durant-caliber stats playing alongside the likes of Al Horford, Jeff Teague, Kyle Korver, and Lou Williams – not to mention one of the stronger benches in the NBA to back them up – makes it seem not quite so far-fetched after all.

So what should the Hawks do with this information? Let’s look at the bigger picture.

If this year’s trade deadline was any indication, the Hawks are not prepared to pay Smith a max contract to retain him after this season. If that’s the case, then there is no reason to fear that actually coaching him will hurt his ego and scare him off – after all, even if it does, he’ll probably be leaving anyway if nothing changes, so it would make no difference. With this in mind, then, the way forward is clear: The Hawks’ coaching staff should simply grow a spine and demand that he stop shooting jumpers for the next two months. They should be willing to bend over backwards for him as long as he stays within his game – but the instant he starts hoisting 18-foot bricks, they should send him to the bench. Period. No questions asked. (If Larry Drew cannot bring himself to embrace this brand of “tough love,” he can always use the face-saving pretext that he’s just giving Smith a breather because Smith seems to shoot more long jumpers when he gets tired.)

What’s the worst case scenario? Perhaps Smith will prove once and for all that he really is uncoachable, and the Hawks will cut him loose, finally free of any worry that they might be losing a potential superstar. They already seem prepared to do this, so again, there’s really no risk here. But what about the best case scenario? Perhaps Smith will finally get the message and become the spectacular player that he’s always been capable of being. If this happens, then the Hawks will undoubtedly be willing to pay him a max contract after all – and since they can offer considerably more than any other team, he will likely take it. It’s a win-win situation. So what reason is there not to make it happen?

To Larry Drew: I know you’ve sometimes worried about your reputation in Atlanta. I know you’re wondering whether you’ll even be re-signed next season. But believe me, if you give this a try – just for the next two months – you’ll be the most popular man in town. Hawks fans would give anything to see Josh Smith playing more efficiently. Failing that, we’d be thrilled just to see our coach making a full-out, no-excuses effort to make it happen. So how about it?

Further reading:

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/the-long-two-and-josh-smith/

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/49283/courtvision-the-worst-shooters-so-far

[Disclaimer: Yes, this is all wildly speculative. Yes, there are plenty of factors not accounted for here. And yes, I realize that no player would actually take 100% of their shots from close range. But the point still stands: The Atlanta Hawks would be a far, far better team if Josh Smith would stop shooting so many jumpers. You probably didn’t need a bunch of statistical analysis to tell you that, though.]

Edited March 4, 2013 by AHF

[buckeye242424]

Your best point was the first three sentences of the "Disclaimer".

[Cwell]

aint nobody got time for that lol

[Guest]

Now how many people in the NBA only shoot at the rim?

[cdef]

Now how many people in the NBA only shoot at the rim?

A fair point. Like I said, obviously nobody shoots 100% of their shots at the rim. But guys like Dwight Howard, Tyson Chandler, etc. are pretty interior-exclusive players; they don't shoot long jumpers the way Josh does. He just needs to take a page out of their book, is all I'm saying.

[Guest]

A fair point. Like I said, obviously nobody shoots 100% of their shots at the rim. But guys like Dwight Howard, Tyson Chandler, etc. are pretty interior-exclusive players; they don't shoot long jumpers the way Josh does. He just needs to take a page out of their book, is all I'm saying.

Well I think you should go back through and make your post more readable (spaces between paragraphs, making your images actually show up) but also take some time to recognize you assumptions.

You assume that if Josh changes his shot distribution, that his FG% will stay the same. Is this really likely?

If Josh spends more time in the paint, might there be some other changes to his play that result? Sure, more offensive rebounds, but at what cost? I have seen his jump passes, and they aren't accurate underneath the basket. I would bet staying closer to the basket would result in an increase in OREBs but also a decline in assists. Maybe we can measure how our team shoots when Josh passes in the paint versus passing beyond long 2s.

Either way, let's tone it down on the title that there is statistical evidence that Josh hurts this team. There are statistics, and there is evidence in this post. I am not sure there is any statistical evidence that concludes this team is better with Josh in the paint versus how he currently plays.

[cdef]

let's tone it down on the title that there is statistical evidence that Josh hurts this team.

Please don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that Josh HELPS the team significantly, particularly on defense. But he could be help even more than he already is if he stopped shooting those long jumpers.

You assume that if Josh changes his shot distribution, that his FG% will stay the same. Is this really likely?

Also a fair point. Although teams already bring double-teams and apply maximum pressure -- not much more they could do to decrease his shooting percentage beyond what they're already doing. If anything, I can't help but think that whatever extra pressure did come would likely be offset by the fact that if he's exclusively playing inside, Josh would be practicing and honing his post game more than he does currently (During practice, he's more inclined to work on his three-point shooting than his post moves).

I would bet staying closer to the basket would result in an increase in OREBs but also a decline in assists.

Well, keep in mind, though, we're not really talking about assists -- in this thought experiment, it's not that the alternative to Josh taking an inside shot is him passing the ball; it's that the alternative is him shooting it from outside, like he currently does.

I think you should go back through and... take some time to recognize you assumptions... let's tone it down

Like I said, I realize that I'm playing extremely fast and loose with the stats here. It's just a fun bit of imaginary spitballing; please don't take it as an overly serious, precise plan of action.

I am not sure there is any statistical evidence that concludes this team is better with Josh in the paint versus how he currently plays.

Aaaand this is where you've lost me. You've gotta be kidding.

[lethalweapon3]

Welcome to the 'Squawk, cdef! Nice first-post. Thanks for the input!

The paragraphs thing, I bet, is the effect of copy-and-paste when the draft is typed offline. (My walls-o-text usually do the opposite after I paste them... automatic double-spacing that I have to go in and edit before posting). The "Increase Indent" editing feature on here can help with that once you've pasted.

I figure there's probably a Hack-a-Smoove factor that, given a boost in interior shots and keeping his horrendous FT% steady, would bring the PPG value down a notch.

One set of stats that I thought would be interesting would be Opponent eFG% and Opponent PPG after Smoove bricks a three, and/or a long-range jumper, and we fail to get an offensive rebound. Josh prides himself on his defensive impact over the course of the game, so alongside the offensive numbers you calculated, I'd be tempted to show how often opponents take advantage of some of his bad shot selections on the other end of the floor. It would probably have to be restricted to opponent shots in transition, eliminating analysis of the airball specials that fly out of bounds.

~lw3

[Bahamut]

tl;dr

[drzachary]

Josh doesn't need to replace his jumpers with interior shots -- he just needs to stop shooting jumpers. The other team scores more off those jumpers than the Hawks do.

[Bahamut]

Josh doesn't need to replace his jumpers with interior shots -- he just needs to stop shooting jumpers. The other team scores more off those jumpers than the Hawks do.

Especially since the rest of the Hawks see the ball in the air and run downcourt, instead of even trying to rebound.

[drzachary]

Especially since the rest of the Hawks see the ball in the air and run downcourt, instead of even trying to rebound.

Offensive rebounding is pretty rare: getting back on D is probably a good move for them.

In fact, I think there's a case to be made like this:

Take these two scenarios:

A) Josh fires up a long jumper, Hawks scramble back to defend in transition.

B) Josh advances across the halfcourt line, holds the ball in his hands until the 24 second clock expires. During this time, the rest of the team gets set, defensively.

I think B might even be better than A, given how poorly Josh shoots. I'd need to look at the offensive increases in transition vs not, though.

Edited March 4, 2013 by drzachary

[Bahamut]

Offensive rebounding is pretty rare: getting back on D is probably a good move for them.

In fact, I think there's a case to be made like this:

Take these two scenarios:

A) Josh fires up a long jumper, Hawks scramble back to defend in transition.

B) Josh advances across the halfcourt line, holds the ball in his hands until the 24 second clock expires. During this time, the rest of the team gets set, defensively.

I think B might even be better than A, given how poorly Josh shoots. I'd need to look at the offensive increases in transition vs not, though.

C) Josh passes the damn ball

[Admin]

Welcome to the 'Squawk, cdef! Nice first-post. Thanks for the input!

The paragraphs thing, I bet, is the effect of copy-and-paste when the draft is typed offline. (My walls-o-text usually do the opposite after I paste them... automatic double-spacing that I have to go in and edit before posting). The "Increase Indent" editing feature on here can help with that once you've pasted.

I figure there's probably a Hack-a-Smoove factor that, given a boost in interior shots and keeping his horrendous FT% steady, would bring the PPG value down a notch.

One set of stats that I thought would be interesting would be Opponent eFG% and Opponent PPG after Smoove bricks a three, and/or a long-range jumper, and we fail to get an offensive rebound. Josh prides himself on his defensive impact over the course of the game, so alongside the offensive numbers you calculated, I'd be tempted to show how often opponents take advantage of some of his bad shot selections on the other end of the floor. It would probably have to be restricted to opponent shots in transition, eliminating analysis of the airball specials that fly out of bounds.

~lw3

Just a tip, but try hitting the "eraser" button, the 2nd icon in the toolbar of the editor after you paste something in. That strips out any formatting and makes it a lot easier to get your post looking how you expect it to.

Oh and yes welcome to Hawksquawk cdef and I agree nice first post.

[Bahamut]

Best Thread Title of the Decade

[cdef]

Thanks for the welcome, all. To be honest, I don't really have much else to contribute so you probably won't hear much from me anymore, but I just thought after I wrote all this that it might be worth posting here. If I ever think of anything else worth saying, I'll be sure to swing by again.

[effjee14]

My biggest issue with josh is when he sets a screen and then floats out to the three point line. Well that, and when he puts up an off the dribble jump shot. It doesn't bother me when josh takes a jumper off of a drive and kick, and it doesn't bother me when josh sizes up a defender and takes a jumper. But please, just roll to the basket after a screen, and please don't do another pull up jumper on the secondary break. Eliminate those things and he would be a much better player. As silly and maybe unnecessary as it should be, LD should always be in josh's ear reminding him of what he needs to do to most help the team. Good coaches do that, great players listen to it

[ATLscrubLove]

If Smoove is still on this team past this season... I may have to find a new team to support. So tired of his stupidity.