# Josh Smith Can't Score?



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

This is yet another post directed to those (rather one individual in particular) who made some ridiculous comments a few months ago about Josh Smith not being able to be a solid double digit scorer. To that I submit to him, the 19.9ppg on 47% shooting (42% from beyond the arch). In addition to that, Smith is also posting 9.7rpg, 3.3 apg and an astonishing 3.5bpg and 1.6spg over a span of 12 games, a majority of which was without Joe Johnson. Feel free to take the foot out of your mouth and watch this guy play to fimilarize yourself with his game. Needless to say, Smith would be an excellent addition at the 4 spot with the Knicks along with Josh Childress.


----------



## urwhatueati8god (May 27, 2003)

Great, so we can have Josh Smith's 3.2 turnovers per game in addition to Eddy Curry's 3.5 turnovers per game. Cement him in the starting lineup with Marbury, Crawford, Richardson, and Curry, and the result is 13.3 turnovers per game just from the starters. That's more than four entire teams put up per game. The bottom line is obtaining Josh Smith does not make the Knicks better. Obtaining another imbecile who has absolutely know idea what the concept of a team offense is doesn't help. Everyone seems to feel that addressing the defense is going to help this team, but the Knicks offense isn't all that much better if it's better at all. It's middle of the pack. Comparatively, this team is actually in the top half of the league in post defense, the biggest problem is perimeter defense. Also, the team already puts up the fifth worst turnover numbers in the league and the third worst in the conference. Given those numbers, acquiring a low post defender at the cost of ball control is not at all worth it. It's no secret that the teams that turn the ball over the most are the teams that are the most inconsistent. If he could be obtained for a decent to great value, then sure, acquire him, but as of right now he's not worth really trading away the farm for. 

Childress I will agree with you one hundred percent on. If he could be obtained for a decent or even poor value, he would make a great deal of difference cementing down the two spot and would be a tremendous upgrade from Crawford especially considering the Knicks perimeter defense is amongst the worst in the league. Teams shoot 37.7% from beyond the three point line against this team. That's good for second worst in the league. Childress would greatly improve that and he is absolutely worth looking at in the off season.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

urwhatueati8god said:


> Great, so we can have Josh Smith's 3.2 turnovers per game in addition to Eddy Curry's 3.5 turnovers per game. Cement him in the starting lineup with Marbury, Crawford, Richardson, and Curry, and the result is 13.3 turnovers per game just from the starters. That's more than four entire teams put up per game. The bottom line is obtaining Josh Smith does not make the Knicks better. Obtaining another imbecile who has absolutely know idea what the concept of a team offense is doesn't help. Everyone seems to feel that addressing the defense is going to help this team, but the Knicks offense isn't all that much better if it's better at all. It's middle of the pack. Comparatively, this team is actually in the top half of the league in post defense, the biggest problem is perimeter defense. Also, the team already puts up the fifth worst turnover numbers in the league and the third worst in the conference. Given those numbers, acquiring a low post defender at the cost of ball control is not at all worth it. It's no secret that the teams that turn the ball over the most are the teams that are the most inconsistent. If he could be obtained for a decent to great value, then sure, acquire him, but as of right now he's not worth really trading away the farm for.
> 
> Childress I will agree with you one hundred percent on. If he could be obtained for a decent or even poor value, he would make a great deal of difference cementing down the two spot and would be a tremendous upgrade from Crawford especially considering the Knicks perimeter defense is amongst the worst in the league. Teams shoot 37.7% from beyond the three point line against this team. That's good for second worst in the league. Childress would greatly improve that and he is absolutely worth looking at in the off season.


So Josh Smith turns the ball over, big deal? Over that stretch where he has averaged 3.2 turnovers per game, he has also averaged 38mpg which is alot of time on the court; this help explains why his turnovers have gone up. The Hawks without Joe Johnson, a ballhandler and best player on the team offensively/overall, certainly has put pressure on Smith to carry the burden and forces him to commit turnovers. These things are too be expected, especially from a young player. What matters is that the guy can produce for us on both ends of the floor. He might even be able to cover the perimeter defenders that you mention burn us everynight, whether it be on isolation sets or on help defense where his shot blocking would help emmensely. Anyway you cut it IMO, Smith is an excellent fit at the 4 because unlike Channing Frye, he can effect the game in several other facets besides his scoring. Even the manner in which Smith scorers however, makes him a competent player alongside Curry because he can get the hustle points that Frye often does not and can put the ball on the floor better.

Like I said, I'd try and trade Channing Frye, (acquire to trade) Brevin Knight and drop either cash or first rounder in there to try and get the deal done. That would not come at the cost of ball handlers and would not really be giving up the farm for.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Don't be an instigator*

I never said he could not score....never. I would like you to point out that post. I said he was not a great shooter..which he is not. I also said I would love to have him at SF, not PF. Lee had a several game stretch last year where he shot over 70% from the perimeter. Does that make him a good shooter? 
It is tiring to have you spin, exaggerate, manipulate stats, and misrepresent other's (mine in particular) posts in order to make yourself look good. OK..great..you're a guru..all knowing.. and we should all bow to you. But let's look closer.....

last 12, you say?

TO.....4.2
fg.... 47 (good but not perimeter oriented.
3fg... 36, but because of the small sample size, remove the best and worst and it is around 29%..wow...impressive. His boards have also dropped. Take out his best and worst and he is around 8rpg. You need to learn how to make a case without stretching the truth. Last week I cited a shooting % and you made 40.2% into a 41. I could have just as easily said 39 and it would have been nearly as true. If you can't be more true to the facts, just post your crap and everyone will clap and cheer and I'll let you enjoy your moment. If you would have bothered to look closer, you would see Josh has been playing the 3, not the 4, as you keep touting. Since I have ALWAYS said I like him at the 3, I thank you for yet again proving me right.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Don't be an instigator*



alphaorange said:


> *I never said he could not score....never. I would like you to point out that post. I said he was not a great shooter..which he is not.* I also said I would love to have him at SF, not PF. Lee had a several game stretch last year where he shot over 70% from the perimeter. Does that make him a good shooter?
> It is tiring to have you spin, exaggerate, manipulate stats, and misrepresent other's (mine in particular) posts in order to make yourself look good. OK..great..you're a guru..all knowing.. and we should all bow to you. But let's look closer.....
> 
> last 12, you say?
> ...


Guess whose got who in another lie again. A few weeks ago I suggested that the Knicks should look into acquiring both Josh Smith and Josh Childress. To one of those posts titled "What The Knicks Need At The Deadline" on 2/7/2007 at 10:17am you stated:

*"Josh Smith is limited offensively, as is the other Josh. Smaller doesn't always mean shorter. Childress is a lot like Jeffries with an occasional jumper. You're putting 2 guys that would have trouble averaging 25-30 combined on the Knicks and making Smith guard PFs every night."*

I personally have never heard of a scorer whose offensive game is limited. Obviously if they are scoring, then they have to have some kind of versatility to their game to keep the defense guessing. You can't even make the argument otherwise because you even implied that both Josh's couldn't averaged 25-30 a game. Ironically, Josh Smith alone is averaging 19.9ppg as a scorer; together they average 35.8 ppg. To make matters worse, you continued to commenting in this same thread stating on 2/7/2007 at 5:59 PM:

*"As far as scoring, I've watched those guys and they don't really have an offensive game. They score because somebody has to other than Joe Johnson and they get a ton of garbage. Garbage pickers are fine but someone has to be a real offensive threat on your team. Considering they have every opportunity to put up real numbers, they are not."*

"They score because somebody has to other than Joe Johnson and they get a ton of garbage." Really? So you mean to tell me that they are getting a ton of garbage with teams focusing on stopping them without Joe Johnson in the mix? I guess they must be getting more garbage points because their points ironically went up; either that, or they are actually solid offensive players when given the oppurtunity and you really haven't watched those guys close enough.


As for Josh Smith, he is getting his minutes at the SF position but by no means does that mean he does not guard the opposing PF. I think your problem is that your concept of the game has been extremely restricted; your more Larry Brown and I'm more Don Nelson. You don't believe Smith can play the PF position because he has some perimeter game but I believe he can for the exact same reasons. The spacing that his game can provide would help accelerate our offensive growth with Curry as our main option. Smith is guarding guys bigger than him anyway, right now, so I still do not see the problem here considering the guy plays big. 

By the way, David Lee is a good shooter because in addition to his 70% shooting stretch last year, he also shoots 57% from the field this year which is good enough to be considered top 3 in the league. Board members, let's have a slow clap for Mr. alphaorange....1....2....3....."ALPHAORANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


As for me stretching the truth, I think you need to guess again. The post in question regards Josh Childress and is titled "Childress Can't Be A Starter?" In it, you did state that Childress shot 38% from the field at 6:30 pm on 3/20/2007 and I correctly stated (and you acknowledge) he shot 40% from the field at 6:20 pm.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I'll try to keep it simple for you*

They are averaging 80 minutes a game between them during this stretch. This translates into more of everything...by around 25%. Take 20-25% off that 36 points/game and you have what? I know...27 points, which is in the range I posted. Turnovers are up, shooting % from the outside are down. Last 12 from 3..Ssmith 29% and Childress 22%. Smith takes 53% of his shots from the perimeter and has a % of 32% (4.5pts). Childress takes 37% of his shots from the outside and makes them at 39% at 2.7 pts/game. Twist this around to make a case for well-rounded offensive players. Lee shooting 57% does not mean he is a great shooter. It means he is an effective scorer. Curry shoots nearly 60%. Is he also a great shooter? Saying that you never have heard of a scorer who was limited offensively is one of the dumbest things ever...even by your standards. Look no further than Curry or Shaq. The only reason they continued is because Shaq overpowered everyone and Curry...well...he isn't doing so well now, is he? Don't even bothering to suggest Smith is guarding the PFs..you have no idea and neither do I. So STFU. Perhaps I took too much for granted when I posted those Childress stats. I supposed you had some moderate level of comprehension. I never posted he shot 38%. I posted he took jumpers 38% of the time while actually shooting 39.2%. You can check...I did. You are the one who rounded up to 40%. I didn't check the previous thread until now but I posted 39.2%, which you rounded up to 40%. I should he posted that it would be nearly as accurate to round down to 38%. Now tell me again....who is a great shooter? NOTHING that you posted supports your assertions. 
*Edit*


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

*Re: I'll try to keep it simple for you*

Who needs Josh Smith to score when he can do so much more than that? He's a muscular version of Andrei Kirelinko, or at least what the guy used to be.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Not the issue, Gotham*

I stated he was not a very good scoring player and Twink is trying to make a case that he and Childress are. I have been wanting Smith for over a year...but at SF. he wants him at PF. I would welcome Childress as an important 2-3 off the bench and twink wants him starting at the 2.

As a GM, I would be willing to play Smith at the 3 and Lee at the 4 for dominating rebounding and off the ball shot-blocking. The problem is that Curry would HAVE to be replaced with a perimeter center (Frye?), which ain't going to happen.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Not the issue, Gotham (alpha is off base)*



alphaorange said:


> I stated he was not a very good scoring player and Twink is trying to make a case that he and Childress are. I have been wanting Smith for over a year...but at SF. he wants him at PF. I would welcome Childress as an important 2-3 off the bench and twink wants him starting at the 2.
> 
> As a GM, I would be willing to play Smith at the 3 and Lee at the 4 for dominating rebounding and off the ball shot-blocking. The problem is that Curry would HAVE to be replaced with a perimeter center (Frye?), which ain't going to happen.



"...Twink is trying to make the case that he (Smith) and Childress are (a scoring option)?" Funny, because I recall stating on 2/7/2007 at 1:07PM:

*"Why does Josh Smith have to be an offensive player for this team? The idea of getting him is to acquire a shot blocker that is going to make our defense formidable down the line. The same goes for a guy like Josh Childress who plays pretty tight defense and can also block a couple shots while operating the offense on occassion. This game ain't all about scoring."*

...Since making that statement, I have maintained a similar stance but just stated that both of their offensive games would be magnified by the presence of a post player like Eddy Curry. I do believe that these players could score the ball but not necessarily be go to guys on a team. The purpose of this post was to educate lesser informed posters like alphaorange who believe these guys just figured out that their exists an offensive side of the floor.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I'll try to keep it simple for YOU alphaorange*



alphaorange said:


> They are averaging 80 minutes a game between them during this stretch. This translates into more of everything...by around 25%. Take 20-25% off that 36 points/game and you have what? I know...27 points, which is in the range I posted. Turnovers are up, shooting % from the outside are down. Last 12 from 3..Ssmith 29% and Childress 22%. Smith takes 53% of his shots from the perimeter and has a % of 32% (4.5pts). Childress takes 37% of his shots from the outside and makes them at 39% at 2.7 pts/game. Twist this around to make a case for well-rounded offensive players. Lee shooting 57% does not mean he is a great shooter. It means he is an effective scorer. Curry shoots nearly 60%. Is he also a great shooter? Saying that you never have heard of a scorer who was limited offensively is one of the dumbest things ever...even by your standards. Look no further than Curry or Shaq. The only reason they continued is because Shaq overpowered everyone and Curry...well...he isn't doing so well now, is he? Don't even bothering to suggest Smith is guarding the PFs..you have no idea and neither do I. So STFU. Perhaps I took too much for granted when I posted those Childress stats. I supposed you had some moderate level of comprehension. I never posted he shot 38%. I posted he took jumpers 38% of the time while actually shooting 39.2%. You can check...I did. You are the one who rounded up to 40%. I didn't check the previous thread until now but I posted 39.2%, which you rounded up to 40%. I should he posted that it would be nearly as accurate to round down to 38%. Now tell me again....who is a great shooter? NOTHING that you posted supports your assertions.*EDIT*


In response to those players stats going up because of an increase in minutes.... no ****. The issue here is the fact that you did not believe an increase was possible; you were foolish enough to believe these guys were actually worse than advertised because the presence of Joe Johnson INFLATED there overall value. If I recall correctly, you did state on 2/7/2007 at 5:59PM that:

"*They score because somebody has to other than Joe Johnson and they get a ton of garbage. Garbage pickers are fine but someone has to be a real offensive threat on your team. Considering they have every opportunity to put up real numbers, they are not*."

I'd really like for you to bull**** your way out of that little statement; and it just never seems to end. "Take 20-25% off that 36 points/game and you have what? I know...27 points, which is in the range I posted(?)" I know that but the thing is that you claimed those "2 guys would have trouble averaging 25-30combined," without the presence of Joe Johnson. Let's break down the math. On the year Josh Smith averages 36mpg and has played about 38mpg without Joe Johnson. Josh Childress averaged 36mpg as well but has seen his playing time inflated to 40mpg without Joe Johnson. *With Joe Johnson that would mean they average 27ppg and without him during that same time span would average 29.25 ppg.* *Knowing that, I guess your whole B.S. statement about both being garbage scorers is incorrect because those guys actually shoot and score better without Joe Johnson there, evidence that they have offensive skills.*If you were translate that kind of play next to Eddy Curry, a guy who draws double or triple teams, those numbers would easily be inflated during that very same time span.

Perimeter shooting percentages are down but that is to be expected with teams playing them much closely without Joe Johnson's offensive presence there. That along with the fact that as the primary offensive options of the Hawks team, they now have to take shots closer to the basket and have less perimeter shots should explain that recent trend. In either case, both have still managed to maintain similar shooting percentages from the field.

As for scorers being limited offensively, that is the most stupidest thing I ever heard even by your standards. You point to Shaq being your main example to support your ignorant beliefs but by no means is his game based solely on overpowering his opponents. If that were the case, guys like Erick Dampier, Jerome James and Danny Fortson, would have murdered people by simply backing them down. That has certainly been far from the case as all the aforementioned are pathetic offensive players. Shaq on the other hand has developed several offensive moves that has made him one of the most dominating centers in NBA history. While he may focus on his go to moves, all successful offensive players do and is why your taught at a young age to develop them; I wouldn't expect a Pat Burke to know much about that. Just watch the all-star game from time to time and you'll notice that Shaq is an adept offensive player in the post. So do yourself the favor and STFU.

As for me having no proof that Josh Smith is not playing the 4 position, I submit to you this reasoning. The Hawks frontcourt has not seen very much of increase in minutes since Joe Johnson has been out. On the other hand, the Hawks backcourt has had notable increase in minutes with the addition of Anthony Johnson who is a capable starter and Salim Stoudemire from a mere 8mpg to nearly 20mpg. Those guys certainly don't make up all of Joe Johnson's minutes but help to suggest that much has not changed in terms of the roles of Josh Smith and Childress. As I mentioned before, with both Marvin Williams and Josh Smith starting at the forward spots, it does not take a genius to figure out that the bigger, stronger and better defender Josh Smith defends the 4 spot. 

As for Josh Childress, fine, he takes 39% of his shots are jumpers but he's still shooting about 40% from 3 point land, good enough for one of the best in the league. So essentially after all those numbers, it took me just one sentence to correctly defend the assertion that he is a solid perimeter shooter. *EDIT*

Before I close, I feel I need to clarify matters. You might be older than me but don't ever get things twisted. *EDIT*


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

what makes yall think yall can get him, theres no one yall have on yall roster that the hawks would want.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> what makes yall think yall can get him, theres no one yall have on yall roster that the hawks would want.


There's Channing Frye who drew interest from most of the league just last year. His talent and skill did not just evaporate this year. He's bigger and stronger but his main issue is the fact that he does not mesh with our offensive and defensive schemes. On a team like the Hawks however, where he'll not only be given the opportunity to be a 4 but a chance to be the primary offensive post player. The overall trade would have to be creative on our part but I believe it can be done. From the rumors I heard, the Hawks are interested in acquiring veterans and the Knicks might have the assets to facilitate a 3 way trade where we can give you that veteran ie Brevin Knight. That in addition to a talented big men might tbe able to get the job done.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

TwinkieFoot said:


> There's Channing Frye who drew interest from most of the league just last year. His talent and skill did not just evaporate this year. He's bigger and stronger but his main issue is the fact that he does not mesh with our offensive and defensive schemes. On a team like the Hawks however, where he'll not only be given the opportunity to be a 4 but a chance to be the primary offensive post player. The overall trade would have to be creative on our part but I believe it can be done. From the rumors I heard, the Hawks are interested in acquiring veterans and the Knicks might have the assets to facilitate a 3 way trade where we can give you that veteran ie Brevin Knight. That in addition to a talented big men might tbe able to get the job done.



you could offer anything you want, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Joe Johnson are UNTOUCHABLE...you have a better chance aquiring Childress, but he has shown time and time again that he's a vauleable asset to this team, if we can get a Corey Brewer in the draft, he'll be more touchable.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> you could offer anything you want, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Joe Johnson are UNTOUCHABLE...


I think your definition of "untouchable" is flawed. Marvin Williams isn't exactly producing all-star numbers. I doubt the Hawks will trade him because his value is low, but if another team offered a high lottery selection for him, I don't think the Hawks would hesitate in trading him for a chance at Oden or Durant.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

o.iatlhawksfan said:


> you could offer anything you want, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Joe Johnson are UNTOUCHABLE...you have a better chance aquiring Childress, but he has shown time and time again that he's a vauleable asset to this team, if we can get a Corey Brewer in the draft, he'll be more touchable.


Thing is that Channing Frye is relatively an untouchable quality player in the sense he is a guy that carries the kind of promise to be a special player in the league. For a guy like Frye, I think the names of a Josh Smith enters the discussion especially when you have a shotblocker/defender in your front court with Sheldon Williams.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i tend to think a trade between the hawks and the knicks looks like a decent idea.

the hawks are the 29th best offensive team in the league , to be a better team they need to move beyond their current offensive setup in which its essentially Joe johnson and every1 getting garbage baskets off of him.

he's really good, in fact excellent but he's not Kobe he cant do it all by himself, they need to diversify, the knicks have good offensive players that are being wasted to some degree in nate robinson and channing frye, who if were on the hawks would instantly be their 2nd and 3rd best scorers. 

a fair deal would be frye and nate for the josh smith and childress.

in the end the hawks would be a better offensive team , the way it is now they cant play shelden williams any real minutes because he is a poor offensive option although he has shown good things in rebounding and defense, frye is a good post up option who can really shoot and nate is a gifted scorer .

the knicks would be a better defensive team because both childress and smith are good defenders , they guard multiple positions and they are basically high % garbage basket type players , they are best when they hit the boards, run the floor and cut to the rim for passes. thats more what the knicks need , guys to play off of curry, crawford and marbury ...josh smith would have less responsibility offensively which would likely dramatically improve his fg%

next year a team with 
frye
shelden...with zaza backing up the power spots
marvin
jjohnson, they have the draft and free agency to find a 20 minute a game backup for marvin and joe.
nate, /lue or anthony johnson 

this team would be more balanced with good youth at all 5 positions 

the knicks 
curry /morris
josh smith /david lee
qrich/balkman
josh childress/crawford
marbury /collins


----------

