Stephen Jackson vs. Joe Johnson and Vince Carter
by ajbry on Jun 10, 2009 2:13 PM PDT
78 comments
I recently authored a new blog post that comprehensively compares Stack Jack to two other players who I feel are currently on the same level in terms of play, but not in reputation.
http://ajbry.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/illuminating-my-stephen-jackson-comparisons/
I'm not asking for you to engage in this discussion so I can persuade everyone to think the way I do. But I do feel that there's some very pertinent information within the piece that will alter your viewpoint of a very important player for our team...
Here's an excerpt that illustrates the comparison:
Let’s get into actual scoring situations now. A key component of a swingman’s offensive game – particularly a top option – is manufacturing their own opportunities from isolation sets. Based on the work of Doug Thonus (and the subject of one of my earlier posts), we can examine how successful certain players are in one-on-one situations. Interestingly enough, our trio produces extraordinarily similar results: Jackson and Carter rank in the 73rd percentile, Johnson in the 72nd. However, Johnson (30.66% of the time) utilizes isolation more than either Jackson (27.55%) or Carter (20.45%). Either way, it’s safe to assume that all three are quite capable at creating their own offense – a necessary component in a primary option’s repetoire.
What does GSOM think? Is my logic fair or the rantings of someone who loves defending their favorite player?
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!
4 recs |
78 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I've read your blog
keep posting. i check it everyday and i see the same stuff now.
I do not agree that they are equal players. Johnson is on another level compared to Jackson or Carter. He is a much better passer and shooter than either of them. He is also a good defender.
Jackson makes the offense very stagnant and turns the ball over alot. Carter is a great player but he has such a big contract.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by montadaboss on Jun 10, 2009 2:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks. I'll try to update more, just aiming for larger pieces now so it takes some time.
Johnson is clearly the most natural facilitator of the bunch, but Jack and VC are still more than capable as well.
by ajbry on Jun 10, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bit too much of a downplay of turnovers...
but i loved the statistics of shots created by assists. Point being i agree jack is widely underrated. None of these 3 would lead a team far in playoffs. But if jack is ur 3rd option… now you got something
by tafkasam on Jun 10, 2009 2:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
After scanning this article it seems to be there’s a decent case that they are similar offensive players. I only scanned the article, but I didn’t see any mention of their TS% – I was curious about that, thinking Jackson wouldn’t stack up to them. Briefly looking through their numbers, it seems to go Vince, Johnson, Jackson, but their TS% are all almost identical, which surprised me. It’s a worthwhile discussion.
by Missing Barry on Jun 10, 2009 2:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cant believe we drafted VC
We USED to Believe...
WE DEMAND IMPROVEMENT!
by RunNdGun on Jun 10, 2009 3:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yup.
Who knows, he probably could have been the next Michael Jordan if he played for Golden State. He wouldn’t have had to deal with that Canada situation and could have done special things here. Also he seems like he would have been perfect in a Warriors uniform; Vince Carter doing electrifying dunks in the Warriors “electrifying” color scheme jerseys.
Too bad we traded him for Jamison, and then traded Jamison to give Mike Dunleavy Jr more playing time. ahh.
by Precise Films Productions on Jun 10, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who knows, he probably could have been the next Michael Jordan if he played for Golden State
I know. Most people know. He wouldn’t have been.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 10, 2009 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very Interesting
I loved the article. It gave interesting stats that aren’t used often to compare and contrast the players. Stack Jack babay!
by gobigg415 on Jun 10, 2009 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
very good
it made me feel much better about jackson, or atleast until next season where he misses 6 shots in 6 possessions late in the 4th quarter of a close game. Seriously send that post to the owners of the Hawks and Nets, especially the hawks, and see if we can make a trade and swap those players.
by bizz 192 on Jun 10, 2009 8:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Jackson is one of my favorite players in the league
ans this article reassured my belief. Jackson has and possibly will always be seen as a thug in the national media; however, he has added to much to the Warriors, the Bay Area, and his hometown community that doesn’t nearly get as much press as it should. Although he has won a championship ring and shows great emotion and passion for the game, he is a Warrior and we all know that the Warriors are practically hated by the media. This article speaks volumes towards Jackson and his game. Maybe he should use this for his next contract negotiation… oh wait a second.
by Knowshon Ciron on Jun 10, 2009 8:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
great post, and I share you opinion about Cpt. Jack
What I like even more about Stack is his effort, emotion and swagger. He gives our team a mojo we did not have with Murphleavy. he does not back down from anyone. He is not intimdated by Kobe, Lebron or anyone for that matter. While you showed the stats tell how valuable he is, it is the intangibles where he excels the most. I know, I know alot of you on this board hate him and want to trade him. But the truth is. He gives you all he has every night love him or hate him.
by dungeness crabdribble on Jun 10, 2009 8:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I am, however, tangibly refuting all of the unfounded generalizations regarding Stephen Jackson’s game. He’s essentially victimized given his propensity to magnify his own negatives – technical fouls and complaining to referees, for instance. Fans see those actions and those remain ingrained in their memories far more than his positives.
Well those are big problems so therefore they will be ingrained in our memory.
Knowing all of these things now – and given the obscurity of some of the numbers inserted into this exhaustive effort, you’ll undoubtedly stumble upon new information – do you feel differently about Stephen Jackson’s game, and his place in the NBA community?
No. I watch the games and Joe Johnson and Vince Carter help their teams out more than Jackson.
Johnson and Carter have far worse teams than the Warriors but they kept their teams competitive and made the playoffs or were atleast close.
Johnson’s team is composed of Mike Bibby, Al Horford, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Flip Murray.
Crawford is essentially a taller Mike Bibby. Biedrins is better than Horford. Azubuike/Maggette are better than Marvin Williams, and Watson/Bellinelli are much better options off the bench than Flip. They only have one player better than us in Josh Smith if you believe Jackson is better than Johnson….(which is not true). Josh Smith is not a whole lot better than Randolph. Add Monta Ellis in for 30 games…. explain how Jackson is better than Johnson.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by montadaboss on Jun 10, 2009 10:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His case is Jackson is very comparable to Johnson, and he makes a pretty compelling case. My initial thought was to dismiss it, but give it a read with an open mind and you’ll see there are some very reasonable arguments…
His best point regarding the whole technicals/not getting back on defense thing is we should quantify it to see how much it hurts the team before we really crucify Jack over it.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the Hawks played in the West
They would be in the lottery
by myk on Jun 11, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
when teams double team JJ, it's to get the ball out of his hands.
when teams double team SJ, it’s cause they know there’s a good chance they’ll get a turnover.
by KeepdaCore on Jun 11, 2009 1:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's funny you should bring that up...
Hawks fans often converse about how frequently JJ is double-teamed.
And for the record, Jack has been double-teamed since the Indiana days, particularly in the post. Everything doesn’t revolve around turnovers although it’s difficult to illustrate that for some people…
This year actually provides a good example. Often times when Jack would initiate the pick-and-roll at the top of the key, the opposing big man would show on the other side of the screen and thus create a double-team at the top of the floor that wasn’t meant to create a turnover but to prevent Jack from creating a shot for himself and from seeing the passing lanes. That happened quite often and it’s certainly not a “turnover” double-team. It’s a “he’s a problem” double-team.
by ajbry on Jun 11, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Often times when Jack would initiate the pick-and-roll at the top of the key, the opposing big man would show on the other side of the screen”
Umm, basketball 101. That’s how you play the pick and roll.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The rest of the sentence is important...
by ajbry on Jun 11, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that most players get played that way in a pick and roll, and it has much less to do with Jackson and much more to do with defensive philosophy.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a big difference is
JJ has some young athletic forwards and mike bibby who is a pro….. and a REALLY weak east.
I maintain if warriors played in east they would make playoffs… Even last year
by tafkasam on Jun 11, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the warriors were able to pad their win totals against worse teams than the hawks were. look at the bottom of the standings: the clips, grizz, thunder, kings, and wolves were all bottom 6 teams in the nba. the worst 5 teams in the east: the wizards, knicks, raps, bucks, and nets were collectively better than those 5 teams. the west had 7 teams (warriors included) that failed to reach 30 wins; the east just had one. not to mention that at the top, the cavs, magic and celtics were looked at as 3 of the best 4 teams in the nba for much of the year. the gap isn’t as wide as you make it out to be.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 11, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The “REALLY weak east” was a line from a few years ago. It’s not really true anymore. There were several serious title contenders (Orlando, Cleveland and before Garnett went down, Boston). Their were 5 teams with records worse than the Warriors in the West including the worst overall record to the Kings. Only 1 in the East had a record worse than ours. It didn’t take as good a record to make it into the playoffs in the east, but that’s about it. There’s really not any justification for calling the east “REALLY weak” unless you’re saying that the west, with its collection of bottom feeder teams, is also really weak.
We went 11-19 against the east this year. That’s a 36.7% winning percentage which projects to 30 wins. That’s shockingly close to the record we had overall. There’s no real evidence that if we played in the east this year that we’d have made the playoffs.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to remember the east actually having a winning record vs. the west this year. This is really the first year that all the east is weak stuff can really be put to rest, though. Even just the year before that the west was much stronger (8 teams 50+ wins). Warriors got screwed.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, do you ever get the feeling God created the Warriors just to taunt us? “Oh yeah, sure I’ll let them win upper 40’s and make the fans feel good about themselves…until they realize they still won’t make the playoffs!”
I mean honestly, nothing ever goes in our favor. Outside shot of winning the lottery? I don’t even get my hopes up anymore…
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes there are 3 quality teams in the east. After that there is miami, atlanta who are marginally better. but all those teams with better records… Who is legitimately head and shoulders about GSW?
by tafkasam on Jun 11, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you don’t need to be “head and shoulders” above a team to have a better record than them. my guess is that the warriors would have been toward the bottom of the eastern conference last year, but since teams 6-14 in the east were pretty closely bunched (within 9 games), they would have been in the hunt for longer. on the whole, the eastern conference would not have been a big enough talent downgrade to give the warriors a much better record, if a better record at all. could they have improved by 3 games won 32 games in the east? sure, why not, but that’s still not a playoff team, in fact, it’s 7 games out (and the same record that the knicks sported last year; they finished 14th in the conference)
if they were healthy, you could argue that they were better than those teams and would have had a decent shot, but did you forget about all the injuries the warriors had last season? they were not close to a playoff team in either conference.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 11, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is legitimately head and shoulders about GSW?
Head and shoulders? Dunno. But everyone but Washington had a more successful season. Given our record vs. the East and how it didn’t really differ from our record against the West, I’d say that overall record remains a pretty good indicator of where we’d stand.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the bulls and sixers?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by montadaboss on Jun 11, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Jack is not one of the most underated players in the NBA
he is certainly one of the most underated (even hated) players by Warriors fans.
And I don’t get it. Sure he led the league in turnover %, but the Ws were playing without a real PG and he was counted on to initiate the offense most of the time.
People seem to forget that for a 3 week periord (just before the all-star break) there were only two players in the NBA who were playing better ball than he was. And even those two have been known to make bone-headed plays from time to time.
Stephen Jackson finished the 09-09 season ranked #17 in the NBA in the league in Pts/Rbs/Ass, ahead of Johnson, Carter, and many other players who folks on GSoM would happily trade him for.
Let’s give him a bit more credit, see what he does next season (after hitting the reset button on a team that fell apart due to injuries), and then we can reevaulate him and his play in a fair context.
by miguelito on Jun 11, 2009 4:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
All this positive talk about Jackson is making me like him more (not that I hate him, just like him in a much less prominent role), and I feel once the season comes around I’m just going to be frustrated watching him again.
Anyways, the reason we get down on Jack at times is low shooting %‘s and lots of TO’s. His TO rate was definitely substantially higher this year than in the past as you said, because he was a bigger part of the offense, but that also lead to more assists and points. When you consider the points weren’t coming off very efficient shooting, and the assists were coming but with a poor assist/turnover ratio, using him more offensively wasn’t making our offense good. I like Jack when he knows he’s the 3rd/4th option on the team, takes good shots and doesn’t force things, instead swinging the ball when it’s not there, and when he gives a consistent effort on D, which definitely didn’t apply for a lot of last year.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His TO rate was definitely substantially higher this year than in the past as you said, because he was a bigger part of the offense,
I would also suggest that having players like Marco Belinelli, CJ Watson, Corey Maggette, 2008 Anthony Randolph, etc. did not help him make plays.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 11, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
VC and Joe Johnson are much better than stack jack.. i think
by Belinelli's the savior on Jun 11, 2009 12:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well that’s the whole point of this article, to delve into the issue by actually looking at the facts. A statement like this is completely unproductive and kind of insulting (in my opinion) to all the work this guy did to give us an objective analysis of those three compared to each other. Keep an open mind and read the article and then see what you think, and if you disagree, at least have some reasons for your disagreement.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing weith jackson is
He is severly underrated by GSoM. Stat geeks who se his high turnovers and inconsistant shooting percentages and refrain from asking the reasons why. Jack is no superstar. I am not arguing that, but he isnt paid like one either. He makes 8-9 mil a season. Less than Corey Maggette… i’d rather have jack. Less than Andris. Yes Andris does a few things very well at a hard position to fill, but jack is more fundamental to the team. Less than crawford, no need to go there.
Point being he is paid what a 3rd or 4th option should get, which on a good team, he would be. If we switched Jack with delonte west or mo williams, cleveland would probably still be in finals. If we switched him with odom, the lakers would still win a championship. If we switched him with an injured Manu, san antonio would have got out of first round, and so on…
If we have Monta who if he develops into pg he is capalbe of being (which isnt chris paul, but maybe someone like a devin harris ), then he is capable of being a complimentary star player (a gasol to your kobe, or parker to duncan if you will…). Then all we need (emphasis on the ALL) is a star viable #1. That guy isnt easy to come by. Then, jack looks alot better and our team is alot better.
by tafkasam on Jun 11, 2009 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I dunno about others, but I like to give Jack a lot of crap.
“Point being he is paid what a 3rd or 4th option should get, which on a good team, he would be.”
Completely on board with this, Jack is miscast on this team and the more he does the more he hurts us. He’s a valuable #3/4 option to have. Most of my frustration with him comes from the fact that a.) he’s miscast b.) I don’t see him as a great positive influence as the leader of our team c.) why the hell did we extend his contract and d.) his “shenanigans” which include not getting back on D to argue calls, getting T’s, and his very spotty defensive effort (he’s a good enough on ball defender when he doesn’t just watch his guy go right by him while waving his hand and giving 0 effort).
Going back to this article, though, it would be good to try to quantify how much those “shenanigans” actually hurt us – do they just stick out in my mind because it’s so frustrating when it does happen or do they actually happen often enough that it really hurts the team?
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody seems to think that Stephen Jackson should be a 3rd or 4th option
Most teams in the NBA would have Jack as their second offensive option. A few would have him as their 3rd, including the Lake show. Only 2 teams would have him as their 4th, Boston and Orlando. We have a great scorer in Monta, the most efficient scorer in the NBA in Corey Maggette (well maybe not the most efficient, but he’s pretty insane), we also have Jamal Crawford, and a host of scorers who can put up 20+ on any given night.
What makes Jack so valuable to us is his perimeter D. Put him on Boston, Orlando, most teams, and he is the #1 option to guard perimeter players, or even PF’s, Dirk.
We always complain about our lack of Defense and our lack of perimeter D especially. Playing Jack at the SG greatly, greatly improves that. We have plenty of scorers, we need D, Jack’s got that.
by myk on Jun 11, 2009 3:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Definitely would be 4th in SA. 5th in Cleveland (Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Mo Williams, Jack?). 4th in Phoenix. Don’t want to go through every team, but for almost every good (playoff) team he would be a 3rd/4th option.
Anyways, curious about this line: “Playing Jack at the SG greatly, greatly improves that.” What’s the difference playing him at SG compared to SF?
From the games I watched (admittedly, not that many), Jack didn’t seem to give a consistent effort on D. Maybe it was because he was called on to do too much on offense? I don’t know, but he needs to be playing D to be valuable, because he’s a decent on ball defender.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack was forced to be everything on offense last year
This year that’s duty is split with Monta. I don’t know about 4th in San Antonio, I wouldn’t say that between Duncan, Jack, Ginobili, you’re splitting hairs. 4th in Phoenix? I can only see him behind Amare, and I guess Shaq. J-Rich? When they were on the same team here Jack was more crucial on offense, at least in the playoofs. And I still rock my J-Rich jersey with pride, love that dude. Cleveland? I’d say he is just as valuable on offense as Mo Williams. Mo might be a better shooter, but Jack is more creative around the rim, he’s a better passer, and his combination of size and quickness is lethal. Is Jack a top 20 player in the league on offense?No. Is Mo Williams? No. So he could very easily be the 2nd option in Cleveland.
Jack was our main threat on offense last year, apart from Jamal and Corey, both of whom will be on the bench. Jack had to create shots for himself and others. He faced double teams because he was our biggest offensive threat, considering Maggette was injured a lot. With Monta back Jack’s offensive game should be less complicated and he should face less double teams.
Plus I value Jack for his D, he’s a boss on D, one of the best perimeter Defenders in the league, easily top 10.
by myk on Jun 11, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have a very high opinion of Jack as a scorer/offensive player. The same as Duncan and Manu? You really think that? Last I checked Phoenix also had a guy named Steve Nash. Even Mo Williams is definitely better than Jackson. Over 17 ppg with a TS% at 58.8. Jack has never sniffed that kind of scoring efficiency.
I also wouldn’t go as far as to call Jack easily Top 10 perimeter defender. Lack of effort last year side, he’s a good on ball defender, but a pretty terrible help defender and rebounder.
by Missing Barry on Jun 11, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Steve Nash is good for passing the ball, he is Phoenix’s 5th option on the court becasue he is suppsoed to pass the ball. If you asked Cleveland if they would rather have a Jack/ West backcourt or the present backcourt, I bet they would go with Jack. Yeah, I would say that Jack’s offensive game, while different than Manu and Timmy’s is very different, it is just as valuable.
I can’t think of 10 guys that guard the perimeter better.
by myk on Jun 12, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha, my spurs reply doesn’t make sense. I mean to say that he has a very different offensicve game from Manu and Duncan, but it’s just as valuable. I wonder if San Antonio would take Jack for Manu? I bet they would, I wouldn’t though
by myk on Jun 12, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just want to point out the massive amounts of homerism that are exuding from your comments about jack. that is all.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 12, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, find my self saying "F**k you Jackson!"
a lot during the season, but even despite all that, he is our most valuable player becasue he is the most versitile. Monta is our best player though. I just think that Jack gets dumped on a little too much.
Plus, I like to stir it up. I’m sure if there was a post talking about how great Jack was and how he is going to go down as the greatest Warrior ever, I would be one of the first to step up and talk shit.
by myk on Jun 12, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have a very strange way of defining who the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc options are. Phoenix’s offense runs through Nash. He passes more than he shoots, but when he does shoot, he’s very efficient at it. But they rely on him to create most of their offense, even though it’s other people that often get most of the shots…last I checked that makes him the #1 option…
by Missing Barry on Jun 12, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet most suns fans would say that Amare is their #1 option. Plus, by your rationale that would make rafer alston the magic’s # 1 option or Calderon the Raptors #1 option, or Andre Miller Philly’s # 1, or Brooks Houston’s #1 option, or Billups Denver’s #1 (that’s still Melo, though chauncey is a close second, closer than Nash).
Well maybe based on your rationale Turkoglu would be Orlando’s #1 which works. I just don’t think that the way you justified calling Steve Nash phoenix’s #1 option makes sense, even to suns fans. Yeah he moves the ball, and he shoots lights out, but Amare is their best offensive weapon and their #1 option. I’m sure the suns would rather have the D focus on Nash than Amare 82 games of the year.
by myk on Jun 13, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, no. And can I say no again? Your examples just don’t work in this situation in the least bit. I mean, ok, if you want to debate whether Amare or Nash is the #1 option, fine, I don’t have an issue with someone that claims either one. But to compare what Nash does in Phoenix to what Rafer Alston or Aaron Brooks do? It’s one thing to dribble the ball up and set up a play, but watch Phoenix play. Steve Nash creates the offense. All Rafer Alston does is dribble up and pass to Dwight or Hedo. Steve Nash runs the pick and roll or whatever set they’re in to beat his guy and put the defense at a disadvantage, and THEN passes the ball. It’s a night and day situation to what someone like Rafer Alston does.
If you really want confirmation, watch the possessions the offense breaks down and someone has to create a shot in the last 5-8 seconds of the shot clock. Watch for who gets the ball. In Phoenix it’s Steve Nash. In Orlando, it sure as hell isn’t Rafer Alston.
by Missing Barry on Jun 13, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There aren’t a whole lot of point guards who have as clear a positive effect on their team’s offensive efficiency as Nash.
by jae on Jun 14, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really wanted to know how many wins we would have
last season without Stephen Jackson. He had the best month by a Warrior player in more than 30 years. He averaged 20, 6.5 and 5 for the Season. Was a leader on the floor… I know he led the league in turnovers but the Warriors put him in a situation last season to be a Lebron James type player but he´s no Lebron. In the Cavs offense, the ball always passes through LB23 and that´s what the Warriors did to Jack last season, and that´s too much for him. I really like him, I think we don´t have to trade him and I think he should start at SG (if Monta is PG) or at SF (if we get a real PG).
F**K REFS
by faetati on Jun 11, 2009 5:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I really wanted to know how many wins we would have last season without Stephen Jackson.
30.
by jae on Jun 11, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by montadaboss on Jun 11, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any justification for that statement?
Jax certainly didn’t contribute to us winning more games than we did, but I’d certainly say that without Jax we would have won fewer games because we’d have been giving those minutes and those responsibilities to players who are even less equipped to do what he did. Could Marco have stepped in and done what Jax did? Kelenna? Morrow? Randolph? Watson? I find it highly doubtful that we could have won even 29 games unless you replace Jax with a better player.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 12, 2009 6:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they did when they got the chance
Marco played better than Jackson when he got steady playing time. Buike was a much better scorer when he got the same freedom. Morrow was a much better scorer and rebounder when he got playing time. Randolph was alot better than Jackson this season besides 3 point shooting. He was more helpful to the team with his rebounding and DEFENSE. At the end with the ball in his hands, he was a better playmaker. CJ is the only player on that list that would make your argument true.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by montadaboss on Jun 12, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was largely a joke, that we’d be about the same without him, but win one more game.
I’ve never been a big fan of what Jax brings. When he was committed to defense, he was a plus and he’s versatile, but I think he’s fooled people into thinking he’s more valuable by the ppg recently. And while he does good things on the court, he does bad things too, especially last year. I tend to think that the scoring is easier to replace than many others seem to think. Last year he believed he had to do everything and tried and it didn’t really work. I don’t think he had to do everything in the manner he tried. I think he’s replaceable, perhaps not by a single player, but by giving his minutes to a number of guys, we’d wouldn’t have been worse off last year.
Our record when Jax wasn’t in the lineup, even late in the year when we weren’t really in it to win games was practically identical to the record overall. It’s a small sample, sure, (and I reserve the right to say that such small samples for winning percentage are irrelevant in other case), but I do think it’s suggestive that he wasn’t the “wow, we’d be dead without him” player that some suggest. I don’t think we’d be any worse off honestly.
by jae on Jun 12, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We had a lot of home games late in the year.
We always play better at home. Regardless of who plays
by myk on Jun 12, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This team would have been a mess at the beginning of the year without Jack.
He held the team together, I honestly feel that his contributions to the team up until he went out really added to the confidence and chemistry of this team.
by myk on Jun 12, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This team was a mess the whole year without Jack
Like jae, I’ve never been a big fan of what Jax brings. But I have to admit, for all his short comings, he has shown this season that he has some of the qualities (like being able to take control of a game) that make for a viable first option.
However, he’s also shown this season that if he is your team’s first option chances are your team is not going to be very good. And it’s gonna be very hard to argue against this one as he was surrounded by a lot of good role players this year, some, like Azubuike, even having career years.
You can say they were without Monta, but if you add Monta to the team I believe he will be the first option. So adding him or any other player better than Jackson to be the first option is out of the question.
by lightz0ut on Jun 12, 2009 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well we looked pretty good that last month of the season
without SJ. i think the main problem with SJ, besides the turnovers and low FG pct., is that there is little ball movement with him on the court. did you notice how both anthonys looked great as soon as he left? so if jax tries to go KOBE on us again this coming season, he has to go. because 1- he’s not kobe,hell he’s not even joe johnson,2- he hinders the growth of all our young players with the " i’m the man " attitude. like most said, he’s a great 3/4 option on winning team, #2 on this team behind ME. ME is easily one of the most efficient guards in the league and that alone makes him our #1 option.
by KeepdaCore on Jun 12, 2009 6:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Like most said, he's a great #3/4 option on a winning team..."
That’s precisely the flawed, unfounded logic I was trying to refute with my original piece.
Stephen Jackson has NEVER been a #4 option. I’ll break it down very clearly, starting with the Spurs:
- 2002-03 (Spurs, championship): #3 option, behind Duncan and usually Parker. Ahead of Robinson and Ginobili.
- 2003-04 (Hawks, lottery): #3 option / #1 option. Started out behind veterans who had cemented themselves in the system (Shareef and Jason Terry). After the All-Star break, took over as #1 option and put up better numbers than those two could have.
- 2004-05 (Pacers, Eastern semifinals): #1 option / #2 option / #3 option. First year in Indiana, initially he and Artest were both behind JO. After suspensions became clear #2 option and occasionally #1 option. #1 option in playoffs, advancing to the second round.
- 2005-06 (Pacers, Eastern 1st round): #2 option / #3 option. A weird year. The Artest trade fiasco (and subsequent acquisition of offensive-oriented Stojakovic).
- 2006-07 (Warriors, Western semifinals): #3 option during regular season, clear #2 during playoffs.
- 2007-08 (Warriors, 48 wins but lottery): #2 option for most of season. People forget Monta’s scoring average only surpassed Jack’s in literally the last week of the season. And the scoring balance was essentially even between BD, Jack, and Monta anyway.
- 2008-09 (Warriors, lottery): Clear #1 option with horrendous supporting cast.
by ajbry on Jun 12, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
- 2002-03 (Spurs, championship): #3 option, behind Duncan and usually Parker. Ahead of Robinson and Ginobili.
David Robinson was ahead of Jackson.
- 2004-05 (Pacers, Eastern semifinals): #1 option / #2 option / #3 option. First year in Indiana, initially he and Artest were both behind JO. After suspensions became clear #2 option and occasionally #1 option. #1 option in playoffs, advancing to the second round.
- 2005-06 (Pacers, Eastern 1st round): #2 option / #3 option. A weird year. The Artest trade fiasco (and subsequent acquisition of offensive-oriented Stojakovic).
He had great supporting players… such as Reggie Miller, JO, Artest/Peja, Tinsley when healthy, and Jeff Foster. He had a great supporting cast. He wasnt a main reason they were winning.
2006-07 (Warriors, Western semifinals): #3 option during regular season, clear #2 during playoffs.
In the regular season, I would say Harrington and JRICH were bigger scorers and even Monta sometimes.
In the playoffs he sucked in the Utah Series and overall he shot around 38% in the playoffs…. sounds like a good number 2 option.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by montadaboss on Jun 12, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack averaged 4 more FGA per game in the regular season, and a little over 5 more FGA per game in the playoffs than Robinson.
The supporting players argument isn’t relevant to what offensive option he was… Foster was a role player, Tinsley was oft-injured and inconsistent, Reggie pitched in but was a complementary offensive player, and like I said, it would shift depending on situation in regards to JO / Peja / Artest. But at no point was Jack lower than a #3 option (who at worst averaged 16.4 PPG in one of the league’s slowest systems).
by ajbry on Jun 12, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack averaged 4 more FGA per game in the regular season, and a little over 5 more FGA per game in the playoffs than Robinson.
And he averaged 1.5 more FGA than Monta in 06-07, does that mean he was our second option last year? Not hardly, you even said so yourself.
The supporting players argument isn’t relevant to what offensive option he was
Yes and no. On a team where the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th options are all close together and everybody has the ability to do something offensively, you can get away with having a below average option at one or more of those spots. If you’ve got 3 “3rd option” types (like Jax, Reggie, Tinsley), give it to the guy with the best mismatch.
Jax isn’t bad, but for one he was younger and livelier in those days, and for two, he was without a doubt the #1 option for us, which exacerbated his deficiencies. Hopefully he’ll give Monta the reins this coming year and go back to his “beta dog” role.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 12, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Intuitively, both of those guys are a lot better than Jackson. Why? I think it’s necessary to look beyond the usual suspects (TS%, rebound rates, turnovers).
None of these stats reflect the ability to beat a man off the dribble and create open shots for teammates. This is something the other 2 guys do a lot more frequently than Stephen does. Whether or not this is reflected in the statistical record is anyone’s guess. I’m sure jae has something at the ready to show me I’m wrong. :)
by markdash on Jun 12, 2009 7:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand.
I illustrated how well Jack makes difficult passes for teammates, which in turn is indicative of beating a man of the dribble and “creating open shots for teammates.”
This has spiraled into pre-disposed conjecture, once again. Oh well.
by ajbry on Jun 12, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also liked your part about their effectiveness is iso.
by Missing Barry on Jun 12, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I didn’t read the entire link, just the excerpt you posted above. You should probably just include the whole thing in your fanpost next time.
by markdash on Jun 12, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a statistic which would be helpful (if it exists) is what the shooting percentages of the other players on the floor are with and without that player. Theoretically, if a player breaks down the defense a lot, the other players should have a higher FG% as a result (even if the initiator isn’t getting tons of assists, because they might make the pass that leads to the pass that leads to the basket).
by markdash on Jun 12, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That type of analysis will run into many of the same problems that +/- does.
by Missing Barry on Jun 12, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but +/- is purely a points calculation, and I don’t think anyone would argue that your +/- will suffer if the other players on the floor suck. Whereas shooting percentages for players should be relatively similar no matter who’s on the floor, right?
by markdash on Jun 12, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well if a player can have an effect on his teammates FG%, a stat like this will see different substitution packages make an impact, and whether players are usually playing against starters or backups, and the control will be when he’s out of a game (which is dependent on how effective his backup is) and issues like that similar to +/-.
by Missing Barry on Jun 12, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the little bit (and disclaimer, it has only been a little bit) there doesn’t seem to be a big effect of raising a teammate’s FG % except to the degree that assists measure it, at least nothing beyond the random noise.
The quality of the opposition doesn’t seem to have that big an impact vis a vis starters vs reserves. I just read someone else’s study suggesting this, but it too suffered from sample size. Usually, in these cases, if there isn’t an easy to detect effect (and there isn’t) it means that if it’s there, it isn’t big. You can get a pretty good idea of the quality of a player by what he does whether he’s going up against a lineup of opposing starters or whether he’s facing multiple bench players from the other team.
There are differences in FG% with particular teammates, but some of the variation appears to be random and the sample sizes aren’t always substantial enough to tease the signal from the noise. This doesn’t say that there’s not something there, but it says that it isn’t necessarily measured accurately with what we’ve got to work with. In some cases, it’s pretty clear. Just about every Sun has a higher FG% when Nash is on the court, but that seems to be accounted for by his assists and no other measure is really needed.
by jae on Jun 12, 2009 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the thinking goes that for every assist the penetrator loses out on (because of an extra pass), they will actually get some number of assists, so there’s probably a stable ratio there somewhere.
I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the notion that Stephen Jackson is as good a player as either Joe Johnson or Vince Carter, but I suppose if I run into enough statistical dead ends that’s exactly what I’ll have to do.
by markdash on Jun 13, 2009 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the notion that Stephen Jackson is as good a player as either Joe Johnson or Vince Carter
He isn’t as good as either Johnson or Carter. The increased turnovers is the big difference. Whether or not the reason for Jax’s turnovers is because he’s been doing “too much” doesn’t matter. They’re still very costly and the increased assists doesn’t balance them out. Even before he was asked to run the point he was more turnover prone. It’s closer with Johnson, who I believe is overhyped, not as valuable as popular opinion, but even so, he’s more productive than Jax.
by jae on Jun 13, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if you use last season as the definitive statement of Jackson’s ability, then yes, the turnovers make him look a lot worse. But his previous seasons had a much lower turnover rate than last year, in fact the two previous season were quite similar to both Johnson and Carter’s recent performance.
by markdash on Jun 13, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
