Do the Warriors really play better without Jamal Crawford?
by Agent Zero on Dec 29, 2008 12:19 AM PST
Email
PrintThe Warriors are now 3-14 with Crawford in the lineup and are 6-9 without, which brings up a valid question: are we a better team without him?
Personally, I am really surprised by these numbers. Jamal is a very talented, nice player. Sometimes maybe he shoots a few shots that he shouldn't shoot, but generally he puts up points. I really like his skillset, I thought that he would be a very good fit with the team especially during monta's absence, and would be a very nice compliment to Monta in the backcourt long term.
Is there anything to explain why the Warriors suck with Crawford? If I remember correctly, the Warriors were doing pretty good when Al Harrington was sidelined with "a bad back" and then all of a sudden when Crawford came we lost like 6 straight and now the team is in a position where playoffs are definitely not happening. Come on, he can't be that bad right?
The ultimate piece of evidence in this argument against Crawford has to be the Celtics game. I mean come on. Crawford sits out a couple games and we beat the defending champs with Jackson going off and Bellinelli stepping up.
This is also very relevant to the situation the warriors are in with where they have Ellis, Crawford, Jackson, and Maggette, who are all starters, all paid a lot, all have multi-year contracts, but if started together with Andris Beidrins would be an awful lineup. The warriors have to make a decision because this lineup cannot win, and I don't see any of the 4 accepting a 6th man role. Even if we did move, let's say Crawford to the bench, that would take pt away from Bellinelli, Watson (who are both playing great) and as much as it pains me to say it because I haven't been the biggest supporter of him, Azabuike. He needs some minutes too.
So I really think someone has to go, and I believe that that is the general consensus around here too.
I know everyone wants to see Maggette go--I pretty much do too--but you have to look at these numbers and think if we really even want Crawford around long term. I mean we are freakin 3-13 with him! we have lost over 80% of the games in which he has played in. Those are painful numbers!
Maggette cannot play the 4. We just suck with him at the 4. I am curious though as how a lineup of Ellis, Jackson, Maggette, Wright (or an even better pf) and Andris would look. I believe that this was kind of the idea pre-moped accident, but we never really got to see it.
So what should we do? I think if a good trade is there that involves Maggette, we have to seriously consider it, but I don't think we should just dump him and expect our problems to be solved. As much as I have been hating on him as of late, Maggette is a good player and I thought he was doing pretty good at the beginning of the year. Crawford on the other hand, as much as it pains me to say it, going by the numbers, appears to be an addition by subtraction case. We could have potentially have a situation with him where just taking him out of the lineup we are automatically better. This, I am not exactly sure I believe 100 percent, but the numbers (including the Celtics game) don't lie.
Trading away one of these guys also opens up time for Bellinelli to be a very good scoring sixth man, and of course Buke needs a few minutes, etc.
So what do ya think?? Because I really think that the Warriors should make a big decision (again) on what direction they want to take this team in, before the trade deadline, and I would think that knowing that the Warriors are 3-13 with Crawford playing, is valuable information that may help them make the right decision.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
YES
jamals just..a horrible defender, and honestly just lives on the 3 point line. he takes bad shots, makes bad passess, hes just not they guy we need.
im sure with the right team he could make a real positive effect, and i thought that team was the knicks, so he could stretch the defence, and have less double teams and what not
that's a trade
that i would definitely consider.
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 29, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
what are you talking about
sure he has made SOME bad passes, have you really watched the games?? He is a beautiful passer and he is very skilled. I think we should still give him a chance, he is a fantastic player.
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 29, 2008 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
I’ve watched games. He is only fantastic if your definition of fantastic is expanded to include players who aren’t very good, the watered down, totally meaningless version of fantastic.
He fools people because he looks smooth, because he’s a good athlete. But the results aren’t there and they never really have been. He’s always been something of a tweener guard, never the top rate passer you’d want as a 1 and not a consistently good shooter to be a 2. Since he’s abysmal defensively and on the boards, this doesn’t leave him with much.
The Warriors sucked as a team with or without him
The team had no chemistry and other players on the team were leading the Warriors to losses as well. A lot of guys were ballhogging and we had no swagger. It wasn’t until when Marco recently showed up that everyone started playing “roles” during games, instead of each player fighting for one spotlight.
I’m just counting the wins and losses that we’re getting since the win against the Celtics. Because that’s the point where it seems like the Warriors finally started gelling as a team. The Warriors will most likely have a better record in their next 17 games with Jamal, than the 3-14 record that they had when they first got him. The players on the Warriors trust each other now, I see a really great improvement in the team.
by Five Ten Entertainment on Dec 30, 2008 2:48 AM PST up reply actions
Oh wait, I see what's going on now.
A ton of Warriors fans are using Jamal Crawford as a scapegoat for their losses.
Jeez, people need to stop making this seem so complicated. The Warriors just simply sucked as a team, Jamal was traded to an already bad Warriors team and was just trying to find his niche on the team (Just like how everyone else on the Warriors were trying to find their roles on the team without Baron and Monta). It’s not rocket science, some people are out here writing up conspiracies and mathematical conclusions on how Jamal is a bad guy.
Maybe if Jamal went to the Celtics, Lakers, Cavs, Spurs etc. and made their team WORSE, then that would be a reasonable topic. But to say that the Warriors suck because of Jamal is… what’s the word for this? Nevermind, lol.
by Five Ten Entertainment on Dec 30, 2008 2:56 AM PST up reply actions
yes they do
except when he goes for those 50 pt games but those are rare.
So I don't have a signature well these words would do! Who knew that upgrades can have downgrades too!
by 24k state fan since 87 on Dec 29, 2008 12:37 AM PST reply actions
prob is...
jamal is a 2…he needs a good, strong defensive 1 on the court for him to be truely effective
“Bring B.D. Back”!!!
jamal as backup 2, ellis starting at 2…omg we would own!
Jamal is a very talented, nice player. Sometimes maybe he shoots a few shots that he shouldn’t have, but generally he puts up points.
I suspect you have a different definition of talent than I do.
He’s never been a good shooter. It’s beyond putting up a few shots that he shouldn’t. While he ‘puts up points’ he requires a lot of shots to get those points, which means he’s taking away from the offense of others and wasting possessions. That’s the error of looking at points per game as a measure of someone’s worth. Since he’s also a passive defender, he’s not helping the team much.
Is there anything to explain why the Warriors suck with Crawford?
He takes too many shots to get those points. He isn’t a good defender and he doesn’t rebound well, thus being a big point guard is more or less meaningless. His playmaking isn’t really up to the standards of a first line point guard. It is not an accident that the teams he’s played on haven’t been particularly good. He’s not a particularly good player, though his ability to score points inefficiently have led to the popular (and false) notion that he’s doing something positive.
you can't deny
he is talented. You have to be talented to put up 50 points in the NBA, I don’t care what you say. And on a lot of nights, he is a very good shooter. You could knock him and say he is streaky, therefore ineffective and inconsistent, but I don’t believe you can say he’s a bad shooter. He is very quick, and has very good handles. I have seen several instances where he has been a play maker and made a nice pass. I think the thing with him has to be mental, because the tools are there. If he bought into our system better and made it a point of emphasis to make other guys better and eliminate the contested threes I think then there would be a chance he could succeed with this team.
However, even though I just defended him, I really am not defending him. I agree that he is inefficient, bad at defense, shoots too many shots, and doesn’t make enough plays for others. I also believe that Crawford and Maggette appeared to be good acquisitions because they both score about 20 ppg, but you are right, that is not a very good measure of their worth and management should have known this.
So you responded to several comments I made, but I am still curious to hear what you think the Warriors should do with these 4 players.
Can’t deny he’s talented? I can if by ‘talent’ I mean “has some ability to make it more likely that his team wins with him than without him”. Any other definition of talent is meaningless.
Tracy Murray and Tony Delk scored more than 50 points in games too.
Crawford may be streaky—but he’s also just not very good.
I can say he’s a bad shooter because of this: he misses shots more often than most players in the league. Whether this is because of some innate lack of ability or because of some error in shot selection is rather irrelevant. He doesn’t make his shots regularly. This makes him a bad shooter.
He’s in his late 20s. It’s long past the point of looking at all the ‘tools’ he has as if they’re going to magically come together and make him into a good player. He isn’t a good player and it’s not likely that, at this point in his career, that will change. If he has the “tools” but doesn’t put them together in a way that helps a team win, so what? Are we judging a dance contest with style points or is this a basketball team. Honestly, to hear people prattle on about “talent” in a player who has had such lousy results makes me think that people have forgotten what the goal of a basketball team is.
\What should the Warriors do with these 4 players? Hell if I know. They’ve made a total mess of things. I don’t think there’s any easy answers. Dumping players for sake of dumping, for sake of just making a deal almost never works. It tends to get you guys like Jamal Crawford.
tal⋅ent/ˈtælənt/ tal-uhnt–noun 1. a special natural ability or aptitude
i must say, i find your defiition of talent very stifling. to suggest that a definition of talent that doesn’t include an increased likelihood of winning is stupid/uninformed/etc. is one thing, but meaningless? i beg to differ. i’d say scoring fifty points in one game constitutes a special natural ability, and one which i appreciate, regardless of the resultant record. i may not prefer it to winning, but it’s still enoyable for me to watch. in fact, i think it may be you that has forgotten what the goal of a basketball team is. entertainment!
josh Howard 4 President! We need a REAL black man in the white house!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Dec 29, 2008 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
It is not the only thing, but I find that a team that has a legitimate shot of winning more often than not is entertaining, but a team that seems likely to lose is rarely entertaining, 50 point games not withstanding. I don’t find losing teams to be regularly entertaining, but you are free to differ. Since gate receipts change with respect to wins more than with respect to anything else, I suspect that I’m not alone in seeing a winning team as the single largest factor in what is and isn’t entertaining.
I find that basketball, probably more than any other major sport, has a hype factor surrounding the players that seems to reward style over substance. High ppg scorers who do so in an inefficient manner are hyped as being good, even if this doesn’t often help their team. Raw athleticism, with little regard for results is hyped as ‘talent’. It’s as if people forget that it’s a basketball game, not a dance contest. I guess if you’re simply out to be entertained by the marvel of raw athletic ability, that’s fine, but don’t confuse it with what helps a team win. I think that too many do not make this distinction.
agreed
basketball does seem to lend itself to flights of fancy than football or baseball. i thin it has something to do with the jazzy, make-shift nature of the sport. it’s sort of the rhythmic opposite of football, where there’s time to analyze each play as it occurs. it allows for so much more freedom, both to interpret as a player and as a voyer. so, while i find your penchant for reason refreshing in a league admittedly dominated by hype, i can’t help but continue to enjoy the entropic side of the game. there’s something romantic to me about unnecessary dribbling and inadvisable finger rolls. i think most of us fell in love with that aspect of the game before we hunkered down and learned the nuts and bolts reality which underlies it all. of course, like anything else, this is all subjective…
josh Howard 4 President! We need a REAL black man in the white house!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Dec 30, 2008 1:37 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
He’s never been a good shooter. It’s beyond putting up a few shots that he shouldn’t. While he ‘puts up points’ he requires a lot of shots to get those points, which means he’s taking away from the offense of others and wasting possessions. That’s the error of looking at points per game as a measure of someone’s worth. Since he’s also a passive defender, he’s not helping the team much.
He’s a scorer. Warriors fans already know that this team utilizes a lot of ballhandlers that can initiate their own offense and keep the running game going.
The whole point of adding Jamal is to give Nellie another “weapon”. Nellie coaches well when he has a group of scorers to put on the court. That’s how the Warriors had consecutive 40+ win seasons. Opposing teams will now have to play defense knowing that the Warriors have multiple players that are capable of scoring big. That’s where he helps the team, because he can be a “go-to” guy on the offensive end, and at the same time it doesn’t have to be him all the time since there are other scorers on the team. Jamal has a lot of tools, if his shots aren’t going down he can still use his ballhandling ability to penetrate and get his teammates open shots. He takes a ton of pressure off of his teammates because of that, and that’s the type of player that Nellie likes, someone who is not one-dimensional on offense and will always be a threat. Crawford isn’t a great defender, but it’s not like the Warriors have any better guards on defense anyways.
It was just a matter of how long it would take to see this team gel. The Warriors are now finally trusting each other and they’re finally becoming the competitive team that they should be.
He takes too many shots to get those points. He isn’t a good defender and he doesn’t rebound well, thus being a big point guard is more or less meaningless. His playmaking isn’t really up to the standards of a first line point guard. It is not an accident that the teams he’s played on haven’t been particularly good. He’s not a particularly good player, though his ability to score points inefficiently have led to the popular (and false) notion that he’s doing something positive.
He’s playing for Don Nelson now. Nellieball.
He took “too many shots” to get points in NY and CHI, but that type of play is basically what Nellie coaches. In this system, do what it takes on offense to get the team a lot of points; the team has a lot of scorers, if you’re not making your shots, your teammates will keep the fire going. If everyone on the team is on fire, then fans will witness an exciting blowout win. I can see the complaint about “Jamal shooting too much” as a relevant problem only if he played for a team like the Spurs.
Also, no one is expecting Jamal Crawford to be the next Steve Nash. His passing is not a major worry for me.
The Warriors are a team full of ballhandlers that can initiate their own offense. It’s not like a Kyle Korver type where a player has to get a perfect pass from his point guard in order to get a shot up. The Warriors don’t need to rely on one guy in order to get the up tempo style going. On other teams, when a big man gets a defensive rebound, the point guard will go to him and say “Here, give me the ball so I can bring it downcourt safely without having to worry about you turning it over”. With the Warriors, whoever gets the defensive rebound will probably also be running with it to keep the up tempo style going. We’ve always been the only team to do that. Even with the Suns, their fast break D’antoni offense required having to give the ball to Steve Nash all the time. The overall ballhandling on the Warriors takes pressure off of the players and helps them to get the ball moving around. That’s why in 2007 (when we had a bunch of ballhandlers that can score), Kobe said the Warriors are like the Phoenix Suns on steroids. The whole team being able to handle the ball is what made the Warriors such a great fastbreak team.
I never worried at the thought of Monta playing the point, so why would I worry about Crawford playing the point? I can probably see Crawford not being able to play a point guard role if he were on a team like the Spurs who’s offense relies a lot on drawn up plays and great passing.
Also, the Warriors were already a bad team before Crawford arrived. The team had no chemistry and had a lot of problems on the team that were leading the Warriors to losses as well. Like I already mentioned, the team just needs time to gel so that players can find their roles on the team. And right now it’s looking pretty good. Ever since that game against the Celtics, the Warriors have stepped their game up and are finally utilizing their players in the right way. The Warriors will most likely have a better record in their next 17 games with Jamal, than the 3-14 record that they had when they first got him. Warriors fans shouldn’t be using Crawford as a scapegoat in the first place; he came on an already bad Warriors team and was just trying to find his niche. The Warriors also have a bad record with Corey Maggette playing, so it’s not like the team is only playing bad if Crawford is in uniform. This is the youngest team in the NBA, and the players are trying to learn how to play without Baron and Monta. But like I just mentioned, they’re finally looking good on the court.
by Five Ten Entertainment on Dec 30, 2008 4:17 AM PST up reply actions
I agree that Crawford was brought in to be another offensive weapon. And I even agree that he might be useful to some teams in that role. There are teams that need more offensive weapons.
We’re not one of them. Have you seen a game this season where our problem was that nobody was willing to score? We have no shortage of scorers. Just about all of them score as efficiently as Crawford — several of them score more efficiently — and none of them are as bad as he is defensively.
His passing numbers, to be fair, are pretty decent. He racks up some assists without turning it over too much. But anecdotally, I think our offense actually flows worse when Crawford’s running it. He’ll rack up a couple highlight-reel assists, but overall the ball doesn’t move around well at all. It’s just Crawford isolating, looking to shoot, and then looking to pass if it doesn’t work out. It’s the old Baron Davis routine, except Crawford’s not the passer that Baron is.
Jamal Crawford is a guy who hurts you on defense… you have to hope that his offense makes that worthwhile. I can’t see that it does for us. There’s no evidence that our offense is better when he’s on the floor, and he stretches an already-bad defense to its breaking point.
This is not a good team with or without Jamal Crawford… it’s not like he’s keeping us from the playoffs. But the only game we’ve won with him that we wouldn’t have won without him was the Charlotte game. There are several games we’ve lost with him that we probably would’ve won without him. He’s a nice guy and fun to watch, but I can’t see how anybody can watch the games and think he’s anything but a detriment.
at this point the sample is too small to tell
also, a lot of the games jamal has played was without maggette or jackson. plus he just came to a new city. i wouldn’t look into it too much.
when the team is 100% healthy and assuming he's still on the roster
he’d be better coming off the bench backing up monta… unless he really steps up his defense. i’ve seen him get beat by his man a lot of times already. he can score but it seems like his buckets are offset by his poor defense.
i totally agree
cuz hes a 2, not a 1…he would make an excellent backup for monta…
“Bring B.D. Back”
if we can get baron back for the 1…wow we’d be set!
wow i read that article just now
we can only hope. i’d like to somehow keep crawford though. : (
BLAMING Crawford?? haha, damn.
The reasons we lost those games were..
1- Tons of other guys were hurt.
2- Nellie was playing too much small-ball.
3- 14 of 18 games here were on the road
Stop blaming ONE player, give me a break.
by Bob on Dec 29, 2008 3:40 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Somehow we have turned into LA fans ( I have been preeching this for weeks ) and somehow expect us to compete for the playoffs without Monta Ellis, the sole bonafied potential superstar that we have and were going to build around.
STOP SMOKIN PEOPLE. TAKE A CHILL PILL, and appreciate how even in an OFF YEAR they are competing night in and night out. DONT BELIEVE ME? Just go ask the Boston Celtics, who just WAXED the Kings by 40, after losing to Golden State. You dont think they were bitter about being outplayed by the Warriors?
uh huh
Wow!
9 and 23 is competetive? Not by my standards. Call me crazy, but I consider 500 ball to be competetive. I loved the Boston game as much as the next guy, but that is what we call an aberation that will occur a few times over te course of an 82 game NBA season.
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 29, 2008 8:54 AM PST up reply actions
do u watch the games?
most of the games thy lost they should have won. statistics are a load of crap when u watch them play, they are very competitive.
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 29, 2008 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
most of the games thy lost they should have won.
then that makes them worse than bad, they are chokers too?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 29, 2008 6:58 PM PST up reply actions
the refs
screwed those games and players like maggette (and biedrins and jackson) made shitty mistakes, u haven’t watched the games i assume
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
players like maggette (and biedrins and jackson) made shitty mistakes,
If our players play shitty why do you think we shoulda won more???
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 30, 2008 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
it was at last minute
near the end of the game when they all have been playing well
by Ali luvs monta on Dec 30, 2008 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
"should have"???
Why should they have won? They got fewer points. Sorry but many teams have a tendency to play to a weaker teams level, so many games in the NBA are close. The Warriors have sucked it up this year, mostly due to inexperience and youth. Furthermore, Jack has been too tired which has been irritating me. Nellie thinks he can play Jack 48 min.’s a night and continue to get production every night? Our average age is 21. Do you REALLY think a bunch of 21 year-olds will consistently defeat 26 year-olds?Just accept that our team needs Monta back, needs Jack rested/healthy and needs more experience to hang with the big boys. We probably need a trade or two, also.
'competing night in and night out. DONT BELIEVE ME? Just go ask the Boston Celtics,'
Um, how about ask the Lakers, Magic, Atlanta, Houston, and Cleveland how competive we were?
Boston Celtics is one game, how about Nov 25? Thats the night we lost by 24 to the Washington Wizards, the second worst team in the NBA. You cant point to one win and say we are competetive.
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 29, 2008 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
No one is blaming one player,
just making an observation that we are a better team with Jamal and Maggette not in uniform. Thats boggling because they are considered to be good players.
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 29, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions
I knew you would say that jae, : )
hence at the last minute I changed the phrasing to ‘considered to be good players.’
The question is, will Nelle play his productive players or the high priced ‘considered good players’. Theres no way to know, he played Barnes over Dunleavy 2 years ago, at the same time this year he has rode Maggette, Jackson(during his ridiculuos poor stretch) and Crawford when they have been available.
Everybody wants to see a Maggette dump, but the day you force a trade for the sake of making a trade is the day you get ripped off.
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 29, 2008 9:06 AM PST up reply actions
the day you force a trade for the sake of making a trade is the day you get ripped off.
That is the most true statement I’ve seen here in months.
Maggette has, in the past, been a productive player. He’s never been much of a defender, but he rebounds well for his position, and most of the time is a reasonably efficient scorer. He’s a better shooter than he’s shown here and he gets to the FT line. He’s not great, but he’s been good, good enough that the initial dollar value on the contract wasn’t absurb if he played like he’d done in the past. He hasn’t. He’s shot poorly, real poorly, worse than he’s ever been before. It’s possible that it’s a sign of what he will do, but it’s more likely that he’ll improve some. His rebounding is about what it’s been for his career, as is his ability to get to the line. It doesn’t look like a decline in skill.
The worrisome thing is that in the past, seasons where Maggs doesn’t seem to find a respectable (not great but respectable) 3 point shot, he’s mostly avoided taking it. When he shot .200 from behind the arc a few years ago, he only took 65 3s in 75 games. That’s less than 1 a game. Factor in the ‘shot clock expiring’ situations and he really did appear to know to avoid that shot. But this year, he’s taken 50 attempts already though he’s making 18% of them. His assists are down as well, suggesting that he’s decided to fire up the ball in situations where he in the past handed it off to someone else. No, he’s never been a distributor, but he’s been less of a ballhog.
I am not at all opposed to trading Maggs if it isn’t merely for sake of being rid of him. If it costs us another asset to have someone else take on his contract, we’re taking several steps back, largely for spite. Magically erasing his salary won’t get us to the point of being able to sign another free agent (though it might have some lux tax concerns in a few years), so giving up a young asset would be a financial move that would not improve the on court product and could very well backfire.
It really doesn’t look like management has a plan. I still think it’s a problem of no active leadership at the top, of 2 or three ‘decisionmakers’ not being on the same page and as such, the pieces don’t fit and the long range strategy has fallen apart. It won’t get better until there’s a clear direction from the front office, until it’s clear that the GM position and the coach are on the same page and money guys don’t interfere with the plan. This doesn’t mean that they have to allow the GM to spend at will, but they cannot start over-riding basketball decisions as appears to be the case now.
by jae on Dec 29, 2008 10:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Whoever we trade for
Even if they have put up multiple 50 point games in the NBA you will find a way to say they are not talented.
No, I’ll say that they’re not a good player if they aren’t a good player. I have very specific reasons for my opinion of Crawford and I’ve stated them. If someone doesn’t rebound well for his position, consistently has a below average FG% and is a pedestrian passer for someone expected to do much of the distribution, I won’t give a half a rat’s ass about his “talent”. It’s performance, not talent that wins games.
Don’t forget that Tony Delk and Tracy Murray had 50 point games as well. Do you regard either as talented? Does it matter, since neither were more than journeymen?
okay
and those could very well be legitimate reasons. All I did was bring forth this horrendous stat attached to Crawford’s name (3-13) and asked is it really him? Me, I am not quite sure, but some seem to think it is him and the numbers do not lie. I would like to here some more elaboration.
yes
trade this ballhog alongside maggette and jackson and bring baron davis and marcus camby/chris kaman
=Gaucho=
Here is the Breakdown
Crawford DOES these things well:
- One on one
- Creating for himself
- Ball Handling
- Shooting (when he’s hot)
Crawford DOESN’T do these thing well:
- Create for others
- Play defense
- Rebound for his position
- Take smart shots
- Body up (he’s soft)
In an instant, I would trade the things he does well, for the thing he doesn’t do well.
In comparison, I would trade Jamal for Barnes, straight up. Barnes creates, he isn’t soft, he plays with passion… and does everything Crawford doesn’t do.
Are we suppose to believe that a guy who puts points on the board is a better player than a guy who, just flat out makes his team better? I’d think not.
Please get rid of Cancer Crawford, and get a team player in return.
Harrington was Much More Valuable than Crawford
Crawford is at his best when he drives to the hole and gets fouled or is set up for open shots through team mates. He is at his worst when he forces jump shots off the dribble or on the pick and roll where he never looks to the screen man.
Harrington was much more valuable because he could shoot, handle and pass the ball and defend multiple positions. We got ripped off in the trade.
I see Crawford like Maggs – get him off the bench and if he is on, then keep in on the floor. Our defense will never be good with players like Crawford and Maggs. Laugh, but the W’s were a good defensive team last year in the sense of getting steals, blocks, and deflections which created easy baskets. This year we are getting back to it but not with players like Crawford and Maggs.
yea except that harrington is a little B*$#H
and faked an injured to get traded. what a little Pu$$y.
The ultimate piece of evidence in this argument against Crawford has to be the Celtics game.
basing ANY meaningful analysis on the Celtics game is simply foolhardy – we all loved that W but it was a bit on an anomaly for several reasons.
Celtics, after taking a tough game down in LA were playing on the road on back to back nights against a rested team playing with a nothing-to-lose mentality. Ray Allen had one of his worst nights, somewhat attributable to Marco, but he also picked up ticky-tack fouls and fouled out early, leaving the dubs with only two of the normal “big three” to contend with at crunch time. And Boston could have played Garnet more, but they are smart enough to see the big picture of the season and aren’t going to burn him out in a game against us. They’ll regroup, and this L will be a pimple in the end to them.
Warriors, well rested and playing loose simply shot the snot out of the ball. Jackson’s bombs notwithstanding, Marco had a big night and CJ pulled some shots outahisass in the fourth quarter to keep the lead. We played over our heads shooting, we passed the ball more than the five previous games combined, and D’d it up. Can we sustain that? Doubtful, but possible.
How much, if ANY of that has any reflection on Crawford? none. I’ve been down on the Harrington trade since the day it was rumored before we even got the deal done, and consistently said Craw’s not a good fit for us now, or in the future because of his contract. Nonetheless, I see ZERO evidence he’s any more a cancer than any of the dozen other shoot-first players on this team. As for Harrington faking an injury, that is a naive perception – common sense and common practice in the association for players to be “out with minor injury” when the trade is a forgone conclusion. Happens several times a year.
yeah you make a lot of legitimate points there
and you defend Crawford but you have to admit that it is strange how we go 3-13 with him and then all of a sudden beat the defending champs with out him. Yeah we had other things go our way, but still.
oh, don't misunderstand
I am NOT defending Crawford, I’m not sold on him AT ALL regardless of a 50 pt night … sure, I can admit it’s strange, so are most upsets in the NBA, but more to the point you and I simply disagree on the basis of analyzing perfunctory aspects of the game
YES is the answer
We play better without him.
I don’t care how good someone is one-on-one, if they can’t play team ball then get them off the team. The difference in records isn’t pure because of Crawford, but personally I don’t want him. He is good, but he won’t get us towards a championship, let alone a winning season.
I’d much much much rather have marco belinelli start at point guard than crawford, he still is a decent scorer but he is constantly trying to setup other teammates.
by dancingchiapet on Dec 29, 2008 11:18 AM PST reply actions
He is good,
What’s good about him? He doesn’t seem to improve the teams he’s on, doesn’t regularly give them a better chance of winning than if he wasn’t around. Since the goal of basketball is to win the game, I have a tough time considering a player ‘good’ if he doesn’t get you closer to that goal.
Its a very simple stat,
record with him and record without. The results are not on his side. His performance doenst seem to be helping the team per say. If anything I am worried once 8 and Maggette gets back, minutes are going to run out for Marco, CJ, Buike, and Morrow(who has already dropped of the rotation).
What is the status of our petitions to fire Robert Rowell and have Chris Cohan commit Hari Kiri, or at least sell the team?
by warriorsscore110 on Dec 30, 2008 9:07 AM PST up reply actions
every player on our roster has a losing record, so simple or not the stat isn't all that helpful for GSW
you are right to be worried though about PT when Monta returns in a month, but worry about it then – there’s still time for injuries, illness, trades, etc.
Usually, NBA teams rotate 5 players through the PG-SG-SF spots so (and 4 in the PF/C) so if nothing else changed, Monta, Crawford, Jackson, Maggette, and either Marco or KAz would be in the rotation. But we’re talking about a team that is so thin at PF that Maggette and even Jackson play significant minutes there …
Crawford
I look at Crawford as just a guy who likes to fire jumpers and he isn’t even that good of a shooter. Other than that, he doesn’t bring anything else to the table.
by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 29, 2008 11:51 AM PST reply actions
Crawford doesnt Think well
Forget all the other stuff, his basketball IQ sucks and he does not know what to do on the court.
He does everything poporly at various times during the game despite some skill and athletic ability (which a lot of players rely on really)
I would rather just see Anthony Randolph play point and sit Crawford on the bench. He’s 28 and making these mistakes? What the hell? Let’s get Randolph as much playing time as possible at every position – this season is already lost-and look forward to a great season next year.
by warriorsvictim on Dec 29, 2008 12:47 PM PST reply actions
basketball IQs indeed
his basketball IQ sucks
have you talked hoops with him? has someone more knowledgeable than fans on a blog mentioned this?
he does not know what to do on the court
I don’t even like Crawford, but he found a way to score 50 in an NBA game – what that a squirrel finding nuts?
I would rather just see Anthony Randolph play point and sit Crawford on the bench
surely you jest
PATHETIC effort on defense
how many times have you seen him ‘defend’ a fast break 2 on 1 by looking the other way and making NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER to stop either player. its just pathetic. do SOMETHING. ANYTHING, jamal.
oh yea, hes one of the worst rebounders in the league – i think he averages about 1 a game which is very hard to do with amount of minutes he plays… poor court awareness- he dishes these laser no look passes to turiaf (who has hands of stone made for blocking)… plays like its an and 1 game
and by "think" did you mean
go to a page with stats on it like say, ohhhh espn.com? and then actually CHECKED. because he is averaging 2.9 rebs with the warriors and 2.7 for his career.
Crawford and Maggs
are both losers
they have the antithesis of the player with intangibles
To bad we are stuck with both for some time to come
As devil's advocate against the multitude of Crawford haters
Crawford is not bad. I don’t think it’s fair to label him a “loser”, a “cancer”, “selfish” or anything like that.
“Loser” depends almost entirely on situation. Maybe Crawford was never meant to be a number 1 option, yet he’s had that forced on him. Not his fault. If Crawford and Jet Terry switched places, Crawford would be a career winner…
Crawford has done nothing to show he’s a cancer to the team. I liked the story about him borrowing CJ’s blazer to sit on the bench.
His assist/TO numbers are good enough-similar to Kobe’s, maybe a little better.
I think he’s a great first guard off the bench, on a better team- Warriors or otherwise.
I don’t believe stats tell the whole story. Biedrins has a good fg%, he’s efficient, but he’s not a good shooter.
Crawford has been in bad situations his whole career. Started out on really awful Bulls teams, then really awful Knicks teams, then he landed on a depleted Warriors team. He probably looked around and decided he was the best offensive option, and saw it as a chance to prove himself as worthwhile. Hopefully as he learns to trust his teammates and understand his ideal role in the system, his numbers will improve.
Oh, and I think individual defense is overrated. When the team defense sucks, everyone ends up looking bad. Except for those few guys who have been anointed as “good defenders”- they’re untouchable. Crawford is 6-5, 200 lbs, and he hasn’t especially offended me with his d, unlike CJ.
I agree with most you say...
except for “individual defense is overrated”
Individual defense is one of the biggest knocks on our team. CJ, Wright, Randolph, Beidrins, Crawford, and Maggs have shown an inability to stop anyone off the dribble (or the block). This lack of individual defense is the reason we have to run this sh*tty switch and double defense that has cost us many games (and some dignity too) Last year we at least got steals that led to fast breaks. This year we get blocks but they don’t result in fast breaks.
I think a better effort on 1 on 1 defense is our largest area of concern moving forward
oh I kind of meant individual defensive talent
For example, saying “Posey is a great defender, let’s get him.” I don’t think sticking Posey in our lineup will help us improve by much. I think defense is probably coachable, so hopefully it’ll get better now that it’s better coached.
I’m not sure the Celtics have any great defenders besides KG. I’d rather point at their system, whatever that Thibodeau guy did, and the fact that everyone bought into it, instead of calling Rondo and everyone else great defenders.
Crawford may not be ‘bad’, but neither is he ‘good’. If you swapped him for Terry, he’d have played on winning teams that didn’t win as much as the teams that Terry played for. He’s not as good as Terry.
Crawford has been in bad situations for his entire career. He hasn’t been the only problem, but neither is he part of the solution.
I don’t think he’s a cancer in the sense that I’ve no reason to believe him a bad guy, a guy who makes it tough to be around, but he’s just not a particularly productive player. “Great” first guard off the bench? Try “acceptable guard of the bench”.
His assist to TO ration may be similar to Bryant’s, but he’s neither the shooter nor rebounder that Kobe is. He shouldn’t be the focal point of an offense, the top scoring threat. If he was, then the A:TO ratio would be superb, but since his shooting is such that he should be setting people up more, the ratio isn’t terribly impressive.
Crawford’s defense is lousy, like his rebounding and shooting. I don’t really see how there can be any excuse for this. He simply doesn’t help his team win that often. Stats may not tell the whole story, but they tell a good chunk of it. If someone is not a good shooter, but still finds a way to make their shots fall, that is an asset. If someone is a so-called ‘good shooter’ but misses a bunch of shots because he doesn’t know his limits, he is not an asset.
OHH
you had me until that last jab at Watson.. Come on Man you gotta love watson!
I like Crawford...
But not as a 1… he is not a point at all. He would be better used as a 2 guard. He is eventually a slightly taller, longer range threat ellis.
Both play little d fense, both can score relentlessly, and both are extremely talented players. Unfortunately you need more than just pure talent to be good at basketball. I think Crawford said it best about his game when he said "I can get to the hoop anytime, sometimes I bail them (defenders) out when I shoot midrange jumpers. He said that after his 50 point performance.
I think his head is in the right place and he could be much better as a spot up three shooter and slash a little more. I still think we need to see a better distributor in there to see how this team reacts. The only one remotely close on our team is Marcus Williams. Maybe… Just Maybe… give him a chance to see if he can spark our multitude of 20 point scorers
to hell with stats
I’ve had a mancrush on JC since http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz5DXIezqr4&feature=channel
Maybe this will come back with Monta and running… the best fast-break backcourt in the league!
sigh hes sooooo dreamy
yeah we play better without Maggs and Crawford
I say Trade Maggs + Crawford + Williams for Baron Davis
but we all know that will not happen
I will always be your fan JRich. Good Luck
well it might
come on just think, both teams help, with the situation with the clippers, its byron scott and the hornets and baron davis all over again. hes kind of a cancer for the clippers, so why not trade 2 good players who are hard workers, and dont have attitudes in maggette and crawford for baron davis, crawford would play the 1, thordon the 2, maggs the 3, zach and camby and kaymn the 4/5.
and us,
1.baron, cj,belinelli, monta
2.monta, belinelli,bukie,
3.jack, bukie,
4.brandan,randolph, ronnie
5.andis, ronnie, brandan
i think thats a recipie for playoffs! all we need is to get barnes and his flagrent fouls back
I hate Crawford
The more I see of him, the less I Iike him. I liked Harrington a lot… at the 3, and tolerated him at the 4. Crawford is just awful, the way he makes such terrible decisions and plays awful defense. It’s bad for team morale to see a selfish player, glory-hog like him. I’ll take a mediocre hard-worker/unselfish player over a talented/dumb player like Crawford. Of course, get the ball out his hands and into the hands of a good point guard and use Crawford as a role-player to get threes or when a 2nd ball-handler is needed, I would probably like him a lot. He’s in the wrong position. He is NO point guard and is HARDLY worth what he’s being paid. Send him away, for the love of Pete.
We traded Harrington because he didn't want to be here.
Harrington didn’t want to be here! why y’all miss him so much?
Thats like missing an ex-girlfriend who cheated on you. Its pathetic. Time to move on.
We traded Harrington because NELSON didn't want him to be here ...
we miss the PF that played out of his mind and carried us to the playoffs and was a big reason we improved to 48 wins the next year defending larger players regularly and complimenting AB’s skill set, and the fact that he’s not here and we are playing undersized and undermanned inside every night is frustrating.
He didn’t cheat on us, more like he took us to the prom and we spat on him. Nelson shoved him into the dog house and never rebuilt him into the fabric of the team – a team that could sure use him. Then, after a season in the dog house he quietly asked for a trade, was ignored, then when asked this preseason Al said the “right” thing that he wanted to stay, liked his teammates, etc. until Nelson spilled the beans that Harrington wanted to be traded. All the public vile over that should’ve landed at Nelson’s feet not Al’s. Nelson mishandled that situation from beginning to end.
Move on? sheeee-it, wish we could but thanks to that trade we have yet another undersized overpriced underperforming veteran shoot-first player when we could have at least had PT for our young players & cap room for future deals, or maybe waited for a deal better than Crawford. Move on? Look at Crawford’s contract, that’s when we move on …
Harrington wasn’t the answer to our looming questions at PF. He didn’t have much of a post game nor could he rebound. This is a different thing altogether than saying that trading him for Crawford was a good idea. We traded a flawed player who didn’t want to be here, who has a long history of displaying those flaws (no matter how much of a good guy he is) and had a contract that expired in time to be valuable in the 2010 super-free agent class for a flawed player who has a long history of displaying those flaws (no matter how much of a good guy he is) and has a year extra on his contract. On the court, with Al, we’d still be missing a power forward who could provide a reliable post offense and could help secure rebounds, but we’d have an asset to work with. Now we have a player whose contract is not an asset and is not providing much in a position of need.
[I admit, I don’t pay too much attention to player interviews, but I can’t find a single instance where Al paid Andris a compliment.]
The one thing we do miss about Al, aside from the trade appeal of his contract, is the fact that he was a bigger guy that Nellie was willing to play. Al is not much of a power forward, but he’s more of one than Stephen Jackson or Corey Maggette. The Biedrins/Al/Maggette front court actually looked pretty decent, despite Al sucking, because at least Maggette was being used properly.
I’d much rather see Brandan Wright as our four than Al… I might even rather watch Randolph struggle than watch Al muddle along. But at least Nellie played Al. We could use another big guy he’s willing to play.
by onlxn on Dec 30, 2008 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I can’t find a single instance where Al paid Andris a compliment???
Is that a requirement for interviews? When did Dris become the don?
Till I get free
I live my life in the Walmart
Cholesterol chasin me
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 30, 2008 3:47 PM PST reply actions
Hey, hardcore did say that Al was complimenting AB’s skill set. I couldn’t find any mention of it. If he complimented him, it wasn’t on record.
as humor may be difficult to discern on line (especially for me) and since you mentioned it, twice, what I meant by defending larger players regularly and complimenting AB’s skill set was that an outside shooting big man who could take slower PFs off the dribble seemed a good match with a C who has limited range (at best) and scores slashing to the basket with feeds from the perimeter … at worst, we have to agree that those two in tandem got us to the playoffs and a 48 win season and I would argue we are not as good either on the floor nor on the roster/cap side of the scale. … Harrington’s deficiencies notwithstanding, which you have consistently articulated, he was and could have continued to be both an asset to deal and a valuable contributor to the Nelson-coached GSW. At worst, he’d’ve been a place holder at PF until the dominating low post rebounding force we all would love to have could have been drafted/acquired or cloned.
Just to clarify
One of jae’s pet peeves, right up there with using all caps, seems to be when posters confuse “compliment” (to praise) and “complement” (to make perfect — or by extension, to go well with). Interestingly (to me), their origins are actually similar:
compliment
1578, via Fr., from It. complimento “expression of respect and civility,” from V.L. *complire, for L. complere “to complete,” via notion of “complete the obligations of politeness.” Same word as complement but by a different etymological route; differentiated by spelling after 1650. Complimentary (1716) was originally complementary “ceremonious” (1628), and properly belongs to complement.
complement
1419, “that which completes,” from O.Fr. complement, from L. complementum “that which fills up or completes,” from complere “fill up” (see complete). Originally also having senses which were taken up c.1655-1725 by compliment (q.v.).
OBAMA AMABO
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 30, 2008 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
A post entirely in all-caps is annoying, as if someone is shouting.
I just find the compliment/complement confusion amusing.
COME ON MAN! JUST LIGHTEN UP A LITTLE! ALL CAPS IS GREAT! SOMETIMES YOU JUST NEED TO TYPESHOUT!
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Warriors are 10-23 with Beindris do we trade him?
I am with you on wondering why the fit isn’t there. I am glad better basketball minds then mine are running the show. I am still wishing for a holiday miracle to make all the pieces fit together and to have a team in 2009. We are .500 in the last six games he he.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
