PDA

View Full Version : Is Stephen Jackson really that good?



aceace
01-28-2006, 11:19 AM
I've been debating with myself this question for about a month. Several times over the last month he just decided that he was going to take a 3 pt shot late in the game when he was not exactly lighting the scoreboard up. Cleveland was the latest example, he got the ball beyond the arc with about 18 on the shot clock and dribbled around for 10 seconds or so before launching a 3 a couple feet behind the line. I knew he was going to pop it as soon as he got the ball. He's a career 33% 3pt shooter (36% this year, 43% overall) It was a terrible shot. I will mention his love affair with the officials is somewhat distracting too. I think he's the next guy to get rid of before the deadline.

pacerwaala
01-28-2006, 11:40 AM
I've been debating with myself this question for about a month. Several times over the last month he just decided that he was going to take a 3 pt shot late in the game when he was not exactly lighting the scoreboard up. Cleveland was the latest example, he got the ball beyond the arc with about 18 on the shot clock and dribbled around for 10 seconds or so before launching a 3 a couple feet behind the line. I knew he was going to pop it as soon as he got the ball. He's a career 33% 3pt shooter (36% this year, 43% overall) It was a terrible shot. I will mention his love affair with the officials is somewhat distracting too. I think he's the next guy to get rid of before the deadline.

where have you been aceace? your are right on. SJax is one guy I would like to get off this team. I have been saying this from the day they brought him in here and have been flamed for it. He is not good for chemistry, does not have the fundamentals, he is kind of a blackhole, erratic passer, does not have the focus and concentration needed, whines to the refs on everything, is a technical drawing machine, breaks plays left and right, etc etc etc. When his head is screwed straight he plays good defense, only once in a while. If we can get rid of him I think this team will be cleansed of all cancers. I still have hope that Tins will mature and play some team ball.

Young
01-28-2006, 11:41 AM
I sure hope he is gone by the deadline. I can't stand to watch this guy play. His basketball IQ (or lack of one) makes him retarded.

aceace
01-28-2006, 12:22 PM
It was really hard to tell last year because the whole season was in disarray. RC/Walsh/Bird have to be seeing this, its obvious to me and obvious to many on here. If I were coach I would seriously consider taking him out of a close game in the last minute. We are up 3 with 2 minutes to go and lose by 4 thanks to JackOne... which is what he does when he feels it, even though he's 6-18 in the game.

Unclebuck
01-28-2006, 12:29 PM
I'd be shocked if Jax is still around when next season starts. Although I do wonder what his trade value is right now. Maybe he'll play well the rest of this season so we can get something good for him

ChicagoJ
01-28-2006, 12:38 PM
He's a SG that is a very streaky shooter, and he's turnover prone.

He'll make a great first option on a losing team next season. Its a testament to Duncan, Robinson, Parker, and an up-and-coming Ginobolli that they were able to win in spite of him.

Young
01-28-2006, 01:10 PM
I'd be shocked if Jax is still around when next season starts. Although I do wonder what his trade value is right now. Maybe he'll play well the rest of this season so we can get something good for him

I think we could get Andre Miller for him. Denver needs a shooting guard and Jackson would be a nice fit.

Minnesota is another team that would probably have interest in him. They need another quality player.

The Clippers might even have some interest in him with Core Maggette still injured. (I think he still is atleast.) Maybe a deal with Wilcox and Quinton Ross?

The Cavs might have some interest in him too because of Mike Brown being their head coach and all.

Those are the only teams I think would really have any serious interest in Jackson.

SoupIsGood
01-28-2006, 01:48 PM
He's really good at making bad shots. When he's on, he looks pretty impressive. Wish he were on more. Wish he took less bad shots.

rexnom
01-28-2006, 02:01 PM
I'm usually the guy defending Jack but I am starting to wonder as well. When he is on he is very, very good. He is a top-notch defender, shooter, and slasher. But he isn't on most of the time...I would really like to see us pull the trigger on an Andre Miller trade...it does make sense for both teams and it would free up minutes for Danny once J.O. comes back (we would be playing Peja, J.O. and Danny all at once more comfortably). I say this because it seems to be in the Pacers' best interest. It would finally give us a legit starting pg too. (I love Tinsley but he is injured too often). However, I think Tinsley needs to be moved too if a deal like this were too happen and because of the BYC I don't think it's happening til summer. My prediction is Jack stays til summer. We need him for now plus this is an opportunity for his value to grow a bit, like UB said. Also, at this point, I'm really not sure if Jack is a much better scorer than Fred...and I think Freddie still has room to grow.

denyfizle
01-28-2006, 03:41 PM
the answer is yes! if you compare him to a D-Leaguer or an And-1 player, but HELL NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ive criticised him enough in the past so I won't even bother anymore to state the reasons. Please move him Larry. Take JT with him too since they're good friends. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tate
01-28-2006, 04:32 PM
He's a SG that is a very streaky shooter, and he's turnover prone.

He'll make a great first option on a losing team next season. Its a testament to Duncan, Robinson, Parker, and an up-and-coming Ginobolli that they were able to win in spite of him.


To say that the spurs were able to win in spite of Jackson is just plain wrong IMO. To me he without a doubt helped them win the chamionship in 02-03. In the playoffs he played at least as well if not better than both Parker and Ginobili and shot better than both, not to mention he hit lots of big shots when they needed them.

Shade
01-28-2006, 04:56 PM
It's fitting that we traded Al for Jack, because they're basically the same damn player. Al is a 4/3 while Jack is a 3/2.

rexnom
01-28-2006, 05:08 PM
To say that the spurs were able to win in spite of Jackson is just plain wrong IMO. To me he without a doubt helped them win the chamionship in 02-03. In the playoffs he played at least as well if not better than both Parker and Ginobili and shot better than both, not to mention he hit lots of big shots when they needed them.

He does well in the playoffs...see most of last years playoffs...what makes me mad is that he doesn't have that every night.

tate
01-28-2006, 05:27 PM
He does well in the playoffs...see most of last years playoffs...what makes me mad is that he doesn't have that every night.


Well its always nice to have a guy that steps up in the playoffs rather then not be able to handle the pressure like some of our players seem to not be able to. But I agree with you it would be nice if he could always play the way he does when he is on, but thats just the way he is, thats why he is a third option type of player and is paid as one.

rexnom
01-28-2006, 05:33 PM
Well its always nice to have a guy that steps up in the playoffs rather then not be able to handle the pressure like some of our players seem to not be able to. But I agree with you it would be nice if he could always play the way he does when he is on, but thats just the way he is, thats why he is a third option type of player and is paid as one.

As long as he accepts that third option role we'll be fine but will he accept it? Something almost always happens to not force the Pacers to deal with this issue. We finally get another scorer in Stojakovic and J.O. goes down...Jack could still mesh nicely with Peja and J.O. but then there is Danny too...like I said, I think this will wait til summer so A LOT will be determined in the next few months...

Eindar
01-28-2006, 05:40 PM
I think we're all expecting too much out of him. He was supposed to be the 3rd option on a defensive team, much like his role for San Antonio. Due to Artest and Injuryville, he's been forced to resume his role with the Hawks the past 2 seasons, primary scorer. Even once everyone is healthy, it'll take him a while to go back to his old role of 3rd option. He's essentially a perimeter version of Al, and Al would struggle just as mightily if he was forced to be the 1st option, just look at his W-L record as a Hawk :)

Shade
01-28-2006, 05:43 PM
I think we're all expecting too much out of him. He was supposed to be the 3rd option on a defensive team, much like his role for San Antonio. Due to Artest and Injuryville, he's been forced to resume his role with the Hawks the past 2 seasons, primary scorer. Even once everyone is healthy, it'll take him a while to go back to his old role of 3rd option. He's essentially a perimeter version of Al, and Al would struggle just as mightily if he was forced to be the 1st option, just look at his W-L record as a Hawk :)

Wasn't he b!tching about being the #3 option behind JO and Ron?

Well, now he'll be the #3 option again behind JO and Peja.

Roy Munson
01-30-2006, 04:26 PM
It's sadly laughable to look back and remember how the Pacers were touting SJax as Reggie Miller's replacement. He's not a fun player to watch.

Fool
01-30-2006, 04:34 PM
He's a SG that is a very streaky shooter, and he's turnover prone.

He'll make a great first option on a losing team next season.

Which is exactly what he had shown himself to be prior to the Pacers trading for him. Where is the accountability?

Kstat
01-30-2006, 04:36 PM
Which is exactly what he had shown himself to be prior to the Pacers trading for him. Where is the accountability?

It got traded to the Kings last week for Peja.

NaptownBound
01-30-2006, 04:53 PM
He'll make a great first option on a losing team next season. Its a testament to Duncan, Robinson, Parker, and an up-and-coming Ginobolli that they were able to win in spite of him.

Question for you... did you even watch the Spurs when Jackson was on their team a few years ago? You would know the difference in his play between his Spurs' days and Pacers' days

Kstat
01-30-2006, 04:55 PM
The SPurs definately didn't win in SPITE of Jackson in 2003.

His role was much more limited there, and they got a lot of good things out of him.

ChicagoJ
01-30-2006, 04:58 PM
Somewhere, not that long ago, I re-posted Jackson's box scores from the Spurs' championship.

He played one great, great game in the Finals, and was awful in the other five. His "role" on that team is a myth that has grown by leaps and bounds in recent seasons.

* off to find/ link that thread. *

NaptownBound
01-30-2006, 05:08 PM
The SPurs definately didn't win in SPITE of Jackson in 2003.

His role was much more limited there, and they got a lot of good things out of him.

exactly the point i was trying to make. thanks kstat.

Jackson's role was to come off the bench, hit open jumpers when Duncan was double teamed, and play good defense against the other team's best wing player When Duncan was on the bench. Jackson got his chance to do some isolation things, however it was within the constraints of the Spurs' system and he thrived in it because Pop has a short leash. If he was doing the stuff with the Spurs that he does with us, he would've been chained to the bench.

SoupIsGood
01-30-2006, 05:11 PM
Somewhere, not that long ago, I re-posted Jackson's box scores from the Spurs' championship.

He played one great, great game in the Finals, and was awful in the other five. His "role" on that team is a myth that has grown by leaps and bounds in recent seasons.

* off to find/ link that thread. *


/Goes off to find the thread where Jay told Seth that stats aren't everything/

Kstat
01-30-2006, 05:15 PM
Soup 1, Btown -2.

CableKC
01-30-2006, 05:29 PM
I don't think that SJax is that great...or at least consistent enough to be a #2 scoring option behind JONeal. But he is very serviceable as a 3rd scoring option.

IMHO, the 2nd scoring option on the team HAS TO BE FAIRLY consistent. You can look at his stats after Tinsley went down at the end of December......whether he is the #1 to #3 scoring option on the team......SJax shoots below 36% ( with the exception of one game where he shot 40% ) or above 50% ( with the exception of one game where he shot 47% ). There literally is no "middle" ground for SJax.....he is either hot ( shooting about 50%) or ice cold ( shooting below 36% )...which strikes me as kind of wierd. The problem is that he has a bad tendency to take as many shots as he sees fit to get himself out of any scoring dryspell. Sometimes I think its warranted simply cuz....whether we like it or not....he is the best offensive option that we have on the floor ( with JONeal and Tinsley out with injuries ).....but its not warranted when he is ice cold from the field and he doesn't passup the ball to Croshere, Freddie, Granger, Sarunas or even AJ.

The funny thing is that he is athletic and fast enough to drive to the hoop to draw the foul.....but doesn't take advantage of this as often as he should given his streakiness on the offensive end. There was only 3 game in the last month that I can recall where SJax had drawn several fouls and redeemed himself at the FT line despite his poor performance from the field.

I don't even know whats gonna happen with playing both Peja and SJax on the floor. I don't expect Peja to dominate the ball...but I hope that we can see an even split of 18/16 split of FGA from both SJax and Peja. I just don't want SJax to hoist up another contested 3pt shot when Peja is standing around on the wing.

BTW......the only thing that is worth noting is that SJax is the most durable of the starting lineup. I will give him props for that.....but mark him down on his selfish and inconsistent play.

Los Angeles
01-30-2006, 05:38 PM
To say that the spurs were able to win in spite of Jackson is just plain wrong IMO. To me he without a doubt helped them win the chamionship in 02-03. In the playoffs he played at least as well if not better than both Parker and Ginobili and shot better than both, not to mention he hit lots of big shots when they needed them.


Green Mind is one of my all-time favorite albums.

:cool:

ChicagoJ
01-30-2006, 06:06 PM
/Goes off to find the thread where Jay told Seth that stats aren't everything/

:laugh:

True. But sometimes they are enough. Especially when the games were long enough ago that everyone's memory is fuzzy (and in this case, a bit distorted.)

SoupIsGood
01-30-2006, 06:09 PM
:laugh:

True. But sometimes they are enough. Especially when the games were long enough ago that everyone's memory is fuzzy (and in this case, a bit distorted.)

I just thought Jax meant a bit more than stats to that team. I really took a liking to Jax during that series.... what happened to him? :shrug: This has been a dissappointing season for Jax.


I think it's the hair, he needs to go back to the shaven Jax.

ChicagoJ
01-30-2006, 06:16 PM
Fair enough. I thought Jax's turnovers, shot selection, and low FG% were bothering the Spurs more than New Jersey in that series.

It was clear, as that series progressed, that Ginobolli already meant more to them even though Jackson was still starting ahead of Ginobolli. He certainly wasn't, as NaptownBound says above, coming off the bench.

ChicagoJ
01-30-2006, 06:20 PM
This one is interesting, from the archives...

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4870

At least I'm consistent. :blush:

SoupIsGood
01-30-2006, 06:26 PM
We were crazy high on Luke Jackson then. Has that guy done anything yet??

ChicagoJ
01-30-2006, 06:31 PM
Hmmm... I can't find it. And for a guy that rarely reads box scores, I specifically remember researching this a few months ago...

:banghead:

EDIT - I just remembered, we ended up losing about three weeks of stuff from the beginning of this season. Damn.

Los Angeles
01-30-2006, 06:38 PM
Hmmm... I can't find it. And for a guy that rarely reads box scores, I specifically remember researching this a few months ago...

:banghead:
could be in the three-week bermuda (arcade) triangle. Maybe. :shrug:

SoupIsGood
01-30-2006, 06:39 PM
could be in the three-week bermuda (arcade) triangle. Maybe. :shrug:

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was, if I remember right, it was around that time....

ChicagoJ
01-30-2006, 06:40 PM
Bingo... I just figured that out as I was going through my own archive and saw the time gap between posts.

Harddrive7
01-30-2006, 06:56 PM
I never cared for the guy either, Always reminded of a Jalen Rose with defense.

This has to be the first thread I've seen on this board where everyone has agreed on something.

But then everybody hasn't posted yet either so...

skyfire
01-30-2006, 08:14 PM
If we could get Jax to come off the bench in a similar way to what Jerry Stackhouse does for Dallas I think he could be pretty productive. But his lack of consistency means that he isn't suited to being a complimentary player which he was signed to be.

NaptownBound
01-31-2006, 09:32 AM
It was clear, as that series progressed, that Ginobolli already meant more to them even though Jackson was still starting ahead of Ginobolli. He certainly wasn't, as NaptownBound says above, coming off the bench.

Glad you only took one series into consideration.
I was talking about the entire season.
He wasn't always the starter that season.
Most of the time he came off the bench.
Pop went to Ginobili off the bench in the playoffs for more scoring punch and energy from the 2nd unit.

However, whether Jack was starting or coming off the bench, it doesn't change the essence of my point. he was more effective with the Spurs because he had a consistent role and had a short leash.

ChicagoJ
01-31-2006, 11:22 AM
I hate to point simply at stats to say I'm right, but Manu started five whole games as a rookie that season. Even Steve Smith started more games than Manu.

Jackson started 58 regular season games, and all 24 playoff games. I guess starting 58 out of 82 does prove that "He wasn't always the starter that season". :shrug:

http://www.nba.com/spurs/stats/2002/index.html

Jackson averaged 28 minutes per game in the regular season, 34 minutes per game in the playoffs, and 36 minutes per game in The Finals. He also averaged four turnovers per game in The Finals and had to go 7-13 in Game #6 to raise his FG% in The Finals to 37%. In games 1, 2

You can say they had him on a tight leash all you want, but Jackson also showed in the playoffs the same thing he's showing here. And that's why they had him on a tight leash in the first place - he's turnover prone, and he doesn't shoot a very high percentage. And then once every five game or so he can light it up.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2003.html

If you're suggesting that the Pacers would be better off keeping him on a much tigher leash and well under thirty minutes per game, then I'd agree with you. He doesn't deserve the 36 minutes per game he's averaged for the Pacers. At most, IMO, he should be playing 24-26 minutes per game. Preferably off the bench where his erratic (some might be generous and call it "streaky") play is less likely to hurt the Pacers.

naptownmenace
01-31-2006, 02:38 PM
I don't think that SJax is that great...or at least consistent enough to be a #2 scoring option behind JONeal. But he is very serviceable as a 3rd scoring option.

IMHO, the 2nd scoring option on the team HAS TO BE FAIRLY consistent. You can look at his stats after Tinsley went down at the end of December......whether he is the #1 to #3 scoring option on the team......SJax shoots below 36% ( with the exception of one game where he shot 40% ) or above 50% ( with the exception of one game where he shot 47% ). There literally is no "middle" ground for SJax.....he is either hot ( shooting about 50%) or ice cold ( shooting below 36% )...which strikes me as kind of wierd.

I love him one night and then I'm embarrassed to be a fan of his the next. He's either great or wiggidy wiggidy whack! (I haven't said that in about 14 years :grin: )

I guess I'm okay with him remaining with the team unless he can be traded for a good PG like Andre Miller, Mike James, or Earl Watson.