I wrote this up in response to a post on the NYT board but I think it will be of interest here as well. It was essentially in response to someone's claim that Marbs, Q, and JC were all equally good jump shooters last season.
------

Here's some data from 82games.com for Marbs, JC, and Q from 04/05. The first number after each player's name is the % of his overall FGs attempted on jump shots, and the second is his eFG% on those jumpers.

Marbury - 63% - .472
Crawford - 85% - .472
Richardson - 77% - .487

At first glance, the numbers seem to support the claim that all three players were about equally effective jump shooters last season. But notice that eFG% takes the extra point from a 3-pointer into account by counting each 3 as 1.5 FGMs. Given that Q and JC shot so many 3s last season, it follows that their eFG% on jumpers depends heavily on being rewarded extra for the three pointer. Since Marbury shot about half as many 3s as the other two, we can see that Marbury's FG% on 2 point jumpers-- the midrange game-- must have been a lot better than Q's and JC's in order for their eFG%s to be roughly equal.

In fact, I'll go ahead and do the calculations. From the above 82games.com info and standard, boxscore style stats, we can figure out each player's FG% on 2 point jump shots last season. Here are the per-game numbers.

Marbury

2 point jumpers: 2.66 - 6.08 (43.8%)
3 point jumpers: 1.4 - 4.0 (35.4%)

Crawford

2 point jumpers: 2.40 - 6.05 (39.7%)
3 point jumpers: 2.6 - 7.3 (36.1%)

Richardson

2 point jumpers: 0.60 - 2.16 (27.8%)
3 point jumpers: 2.9 - 8.0 (35.8%)

As you can see, all three were about as efficient shooting 3s last season, although Marbury shot about half as many per game as JC and Q. But when it comes to the mid-to-long range 2 point jumper, Marbury was a healthy 4.1 percentage points better than JC and a whopping 16 percentage points better than Richardson.

Actually, I find Richardon's numbers quite alarming and even hard to believe. He barely even shot any 2 point Js as the designated 3ball gunner for the Suns, which might explain the terrible numbers for his midrange game. So for a healthy check, here are Richardson's numbers from his 03/04 and 02/03 seasons with the Clippers (unfortunately, 82games.com's database only goes back to 02/03):

Richardson (03/04 Clippers)

eFG% on jumpers (% of FGAs attempted on jumpers): .409 (62%)

2 point jumpers: 1.46 - 4.97 (29.4%)
3 point jumpers: 1.8 - 5.2 (35.2%)

Richardson (02/03 Clippers)

eFG% on jumpers (% of FGAs attempted on jumpers): .404 (62%)

2 point jumpers: 0.83 - 2.37 (35%)
3 point jumpers: 1.0 - 3.4 (30.8%)

Well, looks like Q was just about as bad in his last season with the Clips as he was with the Suns. He was at least semi-respectable three seasons ago when he shot 35% on 2 point jumpers.

But still, this doesn't look good at all. Q is an even worse shooter than I suspected at first; his eFG% was consistently terrible in his last two seasons in LA, and only saw a huge spike in Phoenix because he took so many 3s (many of which were probably wide open). He'd better have a really good post game, because his 3 point shot is good but not great and his midrange game is non-existent.

Nice job man.

Yeah this is very alarming about Q.

One thing that comes to mind though is that since he prefers to take 3's as his jumper, those midrange shots might be coming on forced drives that end up on pullups and fadeaways, rather then coming of screens to get open from midrange, or spottin up.

interesting, especially because its exactly how I figured just from watching. Sometimes a perception doesnt manifest itself in stats, but this time it clearly does. I figured Crawford and Marbury had at least decent midrange games. Neither are really shooters however, more scorers. They can score from anywhere but their overall %'s tend to be lower because they just take more shots. Spree was a perfect example, always taking those adreneline shots.

There was an article awile ago talking about the total demise of the midrange game. It was pretty interesting. Easily the best ever was Jordan. Never a great 3 point shooter he used his off the charts ability to get to the rim to create space. At the time of the article using stats like Tom used the 3 best mid range shooters in the NBA were Allan Houston, Rip Hamilton and Wally Szerbiak.

I mention this article because it outlined a new trend in the NBA; the bomb or dunk philosophy. Guys simply dont use the mid range game anymore... they are bombing away from 3 or attacking the rim. Gilbert Arenas was the biggest example. He simply didnt take a shot that wasnt a 3 or 3 feet from the rim.

Watching Q with the Clippers was very similar. Q was either bombing away or posting up, nothing in between. Now when you have Q's post game this isnt a bad thing.

Personally if Q has open 3's than by all means go ahead, but I want his set offense coming from the paint. Anyone remember that Clippers game a couple years ago where we were blowing them away, then they came back in the second half? Maggette and Q were unstoppable. Everytime down the floor Q would post Spree and knock down a nifty turnaround from 7 feet or just go strong to the hole. If THATS the Q we are gettin this trade was a freakin coup. No hanging around the perimeter waiting for open 3's. He's a great finisher and a great rebounder. Keep him close to the basket.

^ Another reason why a guy like Snow would fit well b/c he has a great in between game.

"If Coach Brown can get him to cut a good chunk of that out of his games I'd suspect we'd see a surprisinly efficent shooter."

^ See, that's laughable.


Here's what you guys are doing.

You're admitting that Crawford chucks a lot of shots, and that he stays mostly around the perimeter. Then you say, "Whoooo, now that we have Larry Brown, ain't no WAY he's still gonna play like that."

Question: Since when can does an NBA pro undergo a metamorphosis and completely and utterly change his entire game? B/c, what you're doing is sugarcoating Crawford's weaknesses, and assuming he can do just that -- which is completely unrealistic.

Brown will say this - "Jamal, if you keep shooting like that you're not playing."

He will FORCE Crawford to adjust his OWN game to the team concept. But that doesn't mean, in any way, shape, or form, that Crawford's game will CHANGE - only become smarter and slightly more efficient. Crawford is who he is. Stop pretending like you're in love with a side of him you've never even seen yet.

Guys like Eric Snow and Rip Hamilton have great in between games. Guys like Marbury and Crawford are more perimeter oriented. It is what it is.

That's part of the reason (among others), that you gotta bring in a relatively cheap PG that can flat out play D and pass the ball. While I like Kevin Ollie, he's not the type of guy that's used to playing even relatively heavy minutes. Personally, I think our interest should narrow down to Watson and Snow.....but you guys already knew that.


[Edited by - bobs3304 on 08/05/2005 10:09:02]

I don't mean to obsess over those 2 in particular, but I'm lookin at our options and those 2 seem pretty viable.


Scoring wins games? You're ****in kiddin me right?


QUESTION: How did San Antonio and Detroit win last year?

ANSWER: ___________


You tell me...

I think if you look at the J shot percentages across the league it would be alarmingly low. Players fg percentage is always bolstered by layups and dunks or other more high percentage shots. The mid-range J is the toughest shot in the game! I'm not at all surprised to find these low percentages. As other posters noted the mid-range shot is a rare find these days. But I don't know why people are worrying about Q, he's not a player who has to rely on his mid-range shot--he can shoot the three, run the court for easy baskets, post-up, and make his J when he needs to. If you haven't figured it out yet: I don't like these statistical studies!

Posted by fishmike:

QUESTION: How did San Antonio and Detroit win last year?

they scored more points than their opponents.

Not to be rude, but:


The answer was DEFENSE numbnuts.

It wasn't any sort of humongous turnaround for either player.

Brown is responsible for having both players on a short leash. What does that do? It means you play more under control, or you don't play at all.

And what does THAT mean. Billups and Rip are still who they were 3 years ago, only a bit smarter and slightly more efficient.

Posted by bobs3304:

Posted by fishmike:

QUESTION: How did San Antonio and Detroit win last year?

they scored more points than their opponents.

Not to be rude, but:


The answer was DEFENSE numbnuts.

was my answer wrong nancy?

Ughh, you're NOT GETTING THE POINT.

Choosing who over who?

I'm not choosing anyone over anyone buddy.

In fact, what I'm saying is that bringing in a Watson actually justifies, in my mind, KEEPING Crawford. And not only that, but Crawford would still be getting his 30 MPG. So I'm not getting what your point is.

Yes, under Larry Brown, Rip and Billups became a smarter, more efficient version of themselves. No denying that. But again, you're forgetting who they were VS. who Marbury and Crawford are.

Billups was ALWAYS an average defender and money from 3.
Hamilton was ALWAYS a solid mid-range shooter.

Crawford.......is a good scorer that has PG abilities. Not an average defender. Not money from 3.
Marbury........is a good scorer that has PG abilities. Not an average defender. Not money from 3.

Sounds kinda redundant doesn't it?
Balance in your rotation is important, and that's what a Watson or Snow brings.