Posted by VDesai:

You guys really need to start looking at True Shooting %. There are more ways to get points than FG's and not every FG is worth the same amount of points. That's why FG% is kind of imperfect measure of shot efficiency. Crawford was by no means great at TS% (actually more or less middle of the road), but see where he stacks up against some other players. He's right there with Gilbert Arenas who is regarded as a tremendous scorer. He's above Jamison, Baron Davis, Rasheed Wallace etc. Actually he was the 4th best on the team behind Lee, Curry, and Jones. That's sort of representative of what was problematic with the team- we need to get more efficient. Brought Craw gets smacked around a little more for his shooting percentage than maybe he should.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2008/jh_ALL_TSP.htm

He actually had a really good season last year. 20 pts 5 asts is not that easy to just drop for nothing.

Posted by MS:

i can't believe some of you are stupid enough

Posted by Vmart:

Posted by VDesai:

You guys really need to start looking at True Shooting %. There are more ways to get points than FG's and not every FG is worth the same amount of points. That's why FG% is kind of imperfect measure of shot efficiency. Crawford was by no means great at TS% (actually more or less middle of the road), but see where he stacks up against some other players. He's right there with Gilbert Arenas who is regarded as a tremendous scorer. He's above Jamison, Baron Davis, Rasheed Wallace etc. Actually he was the 4th best on the team behind Lee, Curry, and Jones. That's sort of representative of what was problematic with the team- we need to get more efficient. Brought Craw gets smacked around a little more for his shooting percentage than maybe he should.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2008/jh_ALL_TSP.htm

He actually had a really good season last year. 20 pts 5 asts is not that easy to just drop for nothing.

I don't buy into that. Jamal shot 41% and that is his true shooting percent. His average was a product of shooting a lot on a bad team. If you look at the top 50 scorers Jamal had the 2nd worst percentage on that list. Arenas who was basically a shell of himself last year shot a worse fg%. Jamal has never made the playoffs in his career, that is true, and Jamal has one of the worst winning percentage of any player in the NBA which is also true.

There is no defending Jamal he is going to get his opportunity to play in a system that promotes a high FG% if he can't manage to keep it above 45% in D'Antoni's system then you have to question Jamals ability to adjust and not put up shots that have no business going towards the basket.

You're missing the point-

Simple example

Player 1 Shoots 6/10, goes to the line twice, hits 1 3, scores 14 points.
Player 2 shoots 4/10, goes to the line 5 times, hits 2 3's, scores 15 points

Player 1 shoots 60%
Player 2 shoots 40%

Player 2 still somehow provides more points than player 2. Is player 2 far inferior to player 1 b/c he shot 20% lower? Obviously not since he scored 1 point. So how do you reconcile this?

True Shooting percentage takes into account 3 pointers (higher degree of difficult, but more points to the shot- should really be counted differently than a normal 2 pt field goal) and free throws (a player like Allen Iverson may not shoot such a high percentage, but he can produce so many points cause he knows how to get to the line). This is a good way of reconciling FG% for Big men who just take close shots at the basket, vs. Guards who take more difficult shot.

I've posted this several times here- but Kevin Pelton does a nice job of explaining its:

Shooting Efficiency - If there is an on-base percentage in the NBA - a statistic that has traditionally been undervalued - it would probably be some measure of a player's efficiency in scoring points. There's a stereotype that all statistical analysts think Allen Iverson is a bad player due to his low shooting percentage that is untrue because Iverson's ability to create shots and get his teammates better looks is valuable. Still, being efficient with your shots is very important. The two most common ways of measuring the concept of shooting efficiency are Effective Field-Goal Percentage (eFG%) and what this site calls True Shooting Percentage (TS%).

Effective Field-Goal Percentage was popularized by current L.A. Clippers Coach Mike Dunleavy and the Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Bible series. It adjusts for the added value of three-pointers by counting them as 1.5 field goals, thus make it more fair to three-point shooters than field-goal percentage.

eFG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA

True Shooting Percentage goes a step further by factoring in a player's performance at the free-throw line and considering their efficiency on all types of shots.

TS% = Pts/(2*(FGA + (.44*FTA)))

Former Sonics guard Brent Barry - Rick's son - led the NBA in both categories in 2006-07, posting a 62.6% effective field-goal percentage and a 66.6% True Shooting Percentage. Barry has led the NBA in True Shooting Percentage three times, including twice while in Seattle. Rashard Lewis (58.7%) was the most efficient Sonics shooter by True Shooting Percentage.


So in my example above:

Player 1 shoots a 0.643 TS%
Player 2 shoots a 0.615 TS%

Gets em a bit more level eh? Player 1 is a greatly efficient player. But player two isn't that bad- while he's missing more shots- he's taking tougher shots and finding away to make it to the FT line.

Anyway, Jamal Crawford, rather than being bottom of the rung was more towards the bottom of the middle of the rung in terms of where placed among NBA players in shooting efficiency by this measure.

Posted by fishmike:
wow... Billups shot 42% twice in a row. Very impressive.

Billups started producing when he was playing on a real team with a real coach.

and when he gotLets evaluate Crawford in a system that suits him. If he scores 20 a game, shoots 41% and his +/- is a wash we have our answer dont we?

Posted by franco12:

You can wheel out all the stats in the world.

Crawford is a streak shooter - not a good shooter.

He has games like his 50+ performances where he hits everything, in traffic, three players draped on him- crazy shots that go in.

But then there are times he can't buy a bucket- wide open, misses.



Some players are good shooters and if they are left open, will hit more than they will miss- they are consistent.

Crawford isn't a good shooter. On any given day, if he takes 20 3 pointers wide open, he might hit 60% or 30%- the stats tend to cover up the wide swings.


Crawford is best suited to be a 6th man.

We don't have the luxury of using him as a sixth man.

Cleveland, the Lakers, NO Detroit, SA & Dallas do have the luxury of having a player like Crawford and we should explore every trade opportunity.

Not because he stinks or his a bad player- but because we don't have the luxury of keeping him.

He is a bit like a fine sports car- high performance, but breaks down a lot and requires expensive repairs. Not useful as a commuter car unless you are really wealthy.

And last I checked, we are in the poor house.

Posted by MS:

Worst starter at his position in the NBA

SG
Wade, Carter, Hamilton, Allen, Pierce, Richardson, Iggy, Joe Johnson, Gordon, Redd, Parker (more efficient, better defender) Nate (give him 16 shots a game)

You would take Crawford over
Stevenson, Bogens,

That is just in the eastern conference