Keep doing what you do.

I never really looked at that, but wouldn’t that typically be more true of guards than PFs.”

no is is absolutely not true, its a purely 50/50 thing, some on a team will do it and some wont .

Crawford actually has been on the court and his team has shot better from the field in 5 of the 6 seasons 82games.com has kept the stat, the year he didn’t 04-05 his 1st year with the knicks it mostly due to Marbury really being the guy who made them go , he was 9th in the league in +/- and the team shot much better when he was on the court,

Crawford on the other hand despite a career high in scoring didn’t really play all that great adjusting to a new team, city, marbury’s ball domination and system.

“Mel,

Crawford’s effect is likely exaggerated because he played 80% of the Knicks’ minutes and his backups were Mardy Collins and Fred Jones. Besides his first season in NY, Crawford has made the Knicks more efficient in terms of eFG%, but by more like 1 or 2 percentage points not 4.

Generally I agree that Crawford and Randolph are not bad basketball players, just miscast and overpaid. I like Crawford more than Randolph in part because he’s been a coach’s favorite for 2 HOF coaches as well as Isiah: he seems to want to win and shows up in shape, he just never learned how to win after leaving a corrupt Michigan program too early and coming into the league to play for 2 straight dysfunctional organizations. Randolph is about as efficient on his career as Crawford, despite being a 4 and not a combo-guard. Plus he’s paid a lot more. So, yeah, I guess it’s tough to compare the two.”

while i do agree his backups sucking had something to do with the somewhat large disparity I think by now it should be obvious he isn’t the detriment people often make him out to be just because of his shooting % becuase his teams shoot better with him on the court rather consistently despite his role changes , as leading scorer , off the bench , point guard and at the 2.

i think he is a starter caliber player better suited as a spark off the bench or a 3rd option whose role is to get the offense going when it stagnates sort of like manu in S.A., he is however basically the knicks best player right now, in that sense he is miscast , he was originally signed to be a 3rd guard.

“I agree with you, but I’m still not sure you are framing the debate perfectly. If you don’t have the right complimentary players, guys like Balkman, Wallace, Chadler etc.. do become a problem.”

A big question I have is why those guys are big problems if there teammates aren’t good??? I would consider the teammates to be the problem. I threw this out there in a previous thread and as far as I know got no response, but what team has ever won with a bunch of mediocre players? If you don’t have a great player (say, Chris Paul), it’s better to have a mediocre all-around player than a player who’s very good at a few important things (say, Tyson Chandler)?

“Take West or Peja (or God forbid Paul) out of the equation and the team is going to need more shooting and scoring out of Chandler.”
“I just think that absent three terrific offensive players (let’s say they had just two instead), Chandler having to take on a bigger role in the scoring would be slightly bigger problem for the team than you would think.”

Take West and Peja out of the equation and replace them with, for example, Zach Randolph and Nate Robinson and the offense likely gets worse, but the number of shots attempted by either set of players would be (has been) very close. The offense would likely get worse because Nate and Zach would likely be less efficient than Peja and West, but Tyson Chandler would likely have a very similar offensive burden: a similar number of FGA per minute whether on the court with West and Peja or Zach and Nate.
To look at it in another way, David Lee managed to shoot a TS% of .606 on 2 FGAs per 36 more than Chandler in the Knicks’ offense with Nate and Zach, is it reasonable to assume that if you replace them with Peja and West David Lee would suddenly shoot a TS% of .700???

“I guess what I am “suggesting” is that there’s a point where their lack of offense is a bigger negative than the positive of their above average defense/rebounding.”

This contradicts your statement that there are only x possessions to go around. Because there are only x possessions to go around there are only x + offensive rebounds FGAs to go around. Unless you want an offense where everyone on the court takes (x+orebs)/5 shots (which you explicitly said isn’t realistic and would contradict your position that Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph should heave the ball at the basket whenever they get the chance because they’re supposedly better than their teammates) you’re going to have someone out there taking relatively few FGAs per minute. In this case it matters how efficiently that guy score on his limited FGAs, as well as what else he brings to the table: creating possessions, maintaining possessions, helping the offense score more efficiently through ball movement and moving himself (screens, spacing, cutting to the basket, etc.).

“I don’t think it will be possible to evaluate Z and Craw really well until they are on a good enough team to reduce their own shots and also get better ones from a true PG.”

Then I guess we can’t evaluate any player on a team that doesn’t get home court in the playoffs…

“I agree with you, but I’m still not sure you are framing the debate perfectly. If you don’t have the right complimentary players, guys like Balkman, Wallace, Chadler etc.. do become a problem.”

A big question I have is why those guys are big problems if there teammates aren’t good??? I would consider the teammates to be the problem. I threw this out there in a previous thread and as far as I know got no response, but what team has ever won with a bunch of mediocre players? If you don’t have a great player (say, Chris Paul), it’s better to have a mediocre all-around player than a player who’s very good at a few important things (say, Tyson Chandler)?

“Take West or Peja (or God forbid Paul) out of the equation and the team is going to need more shooting and scoring out of Chandler.”
“I just think that absent three terrific offensive players (let’s say they had just two instead), Chandler having to take on a bigger role in the scoring would be slightly bigger problem for the team than you would think.”

Take West and Peja out of the equation and replace them with, for example, Zach Randolph and Nate Robinson and the offense likely gets worse, but the number of shots attempted by either set of players would be (has been) very close. The offense would likely get worse because Nate and Zach would likely be less efficient than Peja and West, but Tyson Chandler would likely have a very similar offensive burden: a similar number of FGA per minute whether on the court with West and Peja or Zach and Nate.
To look at it in another way, David Lee managed to shoot a TS% of .606 on 2 FGAs per 36 more than Chandler in the Knicks’ offense with Nate and Zach, is it reasonable to assume that if you replace them with Peja and West David Lee would suddenly shoot a TS% of .700???

“I guess what I am “suggesting” is that there’s a point where their lack of offense is a bigger negative than the positive of their above average defense/rebounding.”

This contradicts your statement that there are only x possessions to go around. Because there are only x possessions to go around there are only x + offensive rebounds FGAs to go around. Unless you want an offense where everyone on the court takes (x+orebs)/5 shots (which you explicitly said isn’t realistic and would contradict your position that Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph should heave the ball at the basket whenever they get the chance because they’re supposedly better than their teammates) you’re going to have someone out there taking relatively few FGAs per minute. In this case it matters how efficiently that guy score on his limited FGAs, as well as what else he brings to the table: creating possessions, maintaining possessions, helping the offense score more efficiently through ball movement and moving himself (screens, spacing, cutting to the basket, etc.).

“I don’t think it will be possible to evaluate Z and Craw really well until they are on a good enough team to reduce their own shots and also get better ones from a true PG.”

Then I guess we cant evaluate any player on a team that doesn’t get home court in the playoffs…

I would never have guessed it was him had it not been pointed out to me.

David Lee…..

Of course having a 3rd or 4th scorer who makes $16 mill per and doesn’t give much effort on D (Randolph) is a hard pill to swallow.

—————————————–

The thing is that the Knicks rarely moved the ball or themselves well last season. That’s not all on Crawford and Randolph, but as the leading shot takers per minute you have to expect some sort of leadership. It’s not just about making the “extra pass” it’s about moving the ball and themselves in the first place to set up the defense and get a good shot. Not standing around and settling for contested jumpers.

The top 5 alternatives in terms of total FGAs were Nate Robinson (.485 eFG%), David Lee (.552), Q (.421), Curry (.546), Fred Jones (.507). Besides for Q they were more efficient from the field, I don’t see why (theoretically) Jamal and Zach shouldn’t have passed them the ball.

“As Caleb said, Crawford and Randolph have put up similar stats every single year of their careers, as teammates have come and gone.”

I’ve seen their stats over the years. I’ve just never seen their stats when they were on a high level playoff team and they were the 3rd scoring option because they’ve never been in that situation.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask to wait for either to actually be on a good team before being sure how they would perform.

“Organized basketball is about the team working together to get the best shot. Ball movement and player movement lead to the best shot, not an inefficient scorer jacking up the first shot he can.”

I agree with you 100%. I’m talking about the shots at the margins where there is a choice to be made.

Does it make sense for Crawford or Randolph to shoot a mediocre shot when the passing hasn’t lead to an easy attempt if the alternative is a jumper by Balkman, Jeffries, Lee, Qrich, Collins, or Rose?

I think so. I don’t think they should make that last pass for a similar quality shot by one of those guys. They should take the mediocre shot and hope for the best. (and they often do)

Now create the same exact situation except that the alternative is Monta Ellis, Josh Childress, or Mike Miller and you definitely make the extra pass and let that guy take the mediocre shot. If they don’t make the pass, you smack them in the head. ;-)

“A player’s efficiency can be impacted by the lack of talent on his team because some situations may call for him to take poor shots that he would/should not take on a better team.”

As Caleb said, Crawford and Randolph have put up similar stats every single year of their careers, as teammates have come and gone. They’ve had up years and down years, but fairly consistent with the type of players they’ve been. They’ve both mostly played on bad teams, but considering their shooting volumes and salaries you could argue that they’re as much to blame for that fact as any player.

“Sometimes the best player on the court should shoot a tough shot even if he’s a mediocre shooter simply because his teammates are even worse.”

This is where I really disagree with you. Organized basketball is about the team working together to get the best shot. Ball movement and player movement lead to the best shot, not an inefficient scorer jacking up the first shot he can. In the last few minutes of an import game maybe the defense clamps down and an individual play might make the difference between a win and loss, but the Knicks were often down by 20 points in the first quarter. They need to move the ball and get good, easy looks. It’s tough when very few of your rotation players have won above the high school level.

Mel,

Crawford’s effect is likely exaggerated because he played 80% of the Knicks’ minutes and his backups were Mardy Collins and Fred Jones. Besides his first season in NY, Crawford has made the Knicks more efficient in terms of eFG%, but by more like 1 or 2 percentage points not 4.

Generally I agree that Crawford and Randolph are not bad basketball players, just miscast and overpaid. I like Crawford more than Randolph in part because he’s been a coach’s favorite for 2 HOF coaches as well as Isiah: he seems to want to win and shows up in shape, he just never learned how to win after leaving a corrupt Michigan program too early and coming into the league to play for 2 straight dysfunctional organizations. Randolph is about as efficient on his career as Crawford, despite being a 4 and not a combo-guard. Plus he’s paid a lot more. So, yeah, I guess it’s tough to compare the two.

IS, I don’t think a guard necessarily has more of an effect on the team’s shooting efficiency. Boozer had almost a percentage point higher effect on the Jazz than Williams, for example.

It’s remarkable how consistent basketball players’ stats are, compared to other sports. There just isn’t a big difference year to year, no matter the coach, the teammates, etc. Crawford and Randolph, like other NBA’ers, are what they are.

I think the differences are subtile but enough to matter in close games. Granted it would take a lot to make the Knicks a top team, but it would not shock me if “all else being equal” the Knicks improved their record quite a bit simply if Gallinari (or Chandler) turned out to be a strong scoring/shooting threat and reduced the role of Zach and Crawford. Unfortunately, all else will not be equal. The pace is likely to be faster, other teams in the conference have improved a lot (probably more than the Knicks), and there will other differences.

I do think we’ll be able to tell though. The level of our frustration (or lack of) with Crawford and Randolph will become apparent after awhile.