PDA

View Full Version : Why 43%



Hicks
07-24-2004, 01:39 AM
Ever since that alleged quote from hong kong about JO supposedly implying he was better than Tim Duncan (which even if he said something, I don't buy for a second he intentionally tried to say he was better than Duncan), Spurs fans have been picking JO apart. Most criticims I roll my eyes at, but one that stands out that's thrown at JO a lot is that he shot 43% from the field. That made me cringe.

My question is, why is it so low? His career average is about 46%, and looking at his stats it's clear this past year's % was the exception, not the rule, as of now.

But all the same that's one thing I've yet to find a way to defend Jermaine about. Those that are learning to hate him like to tout it as a cry for saying he sucks or is overreated. Obviously we know JO is NOT overrated, but I can't explain the low #. I will say it certainly doesn't seem like he shoots that low, but obviously there the number is.

So I'm asking for some analysis about this. Why is it that low, and is it important that it is? Is it a legit reason to rip JO?

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Here's his profile:

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jermaine_oneal/

Kstat
07-24-2004, 01:51 AM
see, by writing his FG% off as a fluke, you leave the door open for other people to say the GOOD things he did last year were flukes too.....

I think his shooting% came from not having brad to space the floor for him. JO got more touches, but also drew a lot more defensive attention with only Jeff at center.

Anthem
07-24-2004, 02:02 AM
I thought it was the absense of Mark Aguirre.

Hicks
07-24-2004, 02:23 AM
I guess to me, it makes JO look really bad, when I know he's not, and I still want him to get the most touches on offense, and when he goes to work in the post I expect the ball to go in. But the % makes him look like he sucks or something.


see, by writing his FG% off as a fluke, you leave the door open for other people to say the GOOD things he did last year were flukes too.....

I see what you're saying, but disagree. His other stats have remained consistent the past 3 years.

Bball
07-24-2004, 02:45 AM
Teams focused their defense on him and forced him out of his comfort zone? :whoknows:

Missed Brad Miller taking some inside heat off him? :whoknows:

Reggie playing decoy wasn't as effective as some would argue? :whoknows:

-Bball

indygeezer
07-24-2004, 07:53 AM
You're argueing the difference between 43% and 46%???? Statistically insignificant, especially considering it's 1 year. We had 10% less snow last year than our average, does that mean we're becoming a desert garden spot??? You're letting them set the debate boundaries...stop defending JO and yourself. Instead attack the arguement itself. The lack of clear lingual understanding, the writers motives, etc. BTW, I've never read, How did a hack from Hong Kong get and interview with Jo in the first place? Was it here? In HK? Jamaica? What were the circumstances and how much validity does the writer carry. Was JO really where it was reported to have occured. Remember, Peter Vescey says a lot of crap in the paper too.

Finally remember this, you are on their board trying to defend your man. Impossible task unless you can prove he didn't say whatever he was reported to have said. Nothing you can say will change their mind about JO. The only hope you have is to attack the original article and discredit it. Argueing statistics and moral ethics will get you no where.

MSA2CF
07-24-2004, 08:53 AM
I also thought that even though his mid-range jumper was better than ever last year, he took more of those shots than in previous years.

This is what I think also. It's a lower-% shot from that distance as compared to his 3-foot turnaround. He took a lot of mid-range jumpers, and although he made many of them, he didn't make all of them.

Unclebuck
07-24-2004, 09:43 AM
Here is my theory why his FG % was lower last season.

he led the league in getting his shot blocked, and one reason why he got his shot blocked so often is because he had contant knee/leg type injuries all season long. Therefore he was not able to get the lift on his shot as he had in the past.

J.O is always going to get his shot blocked quite often because of his body type. He is thin in the shoulders, thin around the waist. That is just a fact and there is nothing that can be done about that. Having a big butt, broad shoulder, large waist is very important in being a good low post scorer. This is another situation where height is very overrated.


I want to adrdress a couple of other "reasons" that have been mentioned. When teams doubled J.O, it was not off of Foster, it was not off of Reggie, and it certaionly was not off of Al or Ron. it was off of AJ of Tinsley. I would say over 95% of the time that J.O was doubled he was doubled off the point guard. So I don't buy the theory that the loss of Brad had much effect or that Reggie being less effective had much effect. Maybe a slight effect.

Believe it or not but teams did not leave Foster. No they did not guard him out past about 10 feet, and yes they sagged off Jeff, but teams really concentrated on keeping Jeff off the offensive boards, plus teams don't double with their power forward or center anyway.

I really wish we all could get together and watch game film and you would see that rightly or wrongly teams never doubled off of Reggie, or if they did it was a mistake by the defense..


The way teams defended J.O has very little to do with the other Pacers on the floor. teams bodied him out of his sweet spots prior to J.O getting the ball. The first thing teams gamplanned for agaisnt the Pacers I would bet is to get to J.O early and keep him from getting position before he gets the ball, teams were effective fronting the post, or at least denying J.O the ball and once again becaue J.O is thin he is much easier to front or deny the ball to.

Ultimate Frisbee
07-24-2004, 09:48 AM
I actually kinda do think that JO is overrated to an extent. He has proved himself to be a solid player and a team leader, but he is not the #3 player in the league.

indytoad
07-24-2004, 10:54 AM
Are they still on that kick? Sheesh, they must really be bored this offseason...

IndyToad
With him in it

Will Galen
07-24-2004, 10:55 AM
You're argueing the difference between 43% and 46%???? Statistically insignificant, especially considering it's 1 year. We had 10% less snow last year than our average, does that mean we're becoming a desert garden spot??? You're letting them set the debate boundaries...stop defending JO and yourself. Instead attack the arguement itself. The lack of clear lingual understanding, the writers motives, etc. BTW, I've never read, How did a hack from Hong Kong get and interview with Jo in the first place? Was it here? In HK? Jamaica? What were the circumstances and how much validity does the writer carry. Was JO really where it was reported to have occured. Remember, Peter Vescey says a lot of crap in the paper too.

Finally remember this, you are on their board trying to defend your man. Impossible task unless you can prove he didn't say whatever he was reported to have said. Nothing you can say will change their mind about JO. The only hope you have is to attack the original article and discredit it. Argueing statistics and moral ethics will get you no where.

:applaud:

Is that really you Geezer? To be truthful you usually seem to play to the comedy crowd. Here you are coming across as very wise!

Anthem
07-24-2004, 11:07 AM
He never claimed to be #3 in the league... just #3 forward in the league. Behind KG and Duncan. That's not bad company.

ChicagoJ
07-24-2004, 11:57 AM
He gets his shot blocked a lot but his FTA's are lower than many comparable Cs and PFs.

In my book, that means he doesn't get enough foul calls. He's not Chris Webber, shooting twenty-footers and three-pointers and playing soft.

He did use the mid-range jumper (facing the basket) more than I wanted him to last season. I attribute that to two reasons: he took what the defense was giving him instead of forcing his way into the higher percentage back-to-the-basket moves; and his leg injuries impacted his ability to make his regular moves "with authority".

He was #3 in MVP voting in spite of a poor shooting season. Since he's taking this summer off to let the leg recover, just how good can he be next season when he's closer to 100% healthy?

And if ever learns to quit b!tC#ing to the officials about the no-calls, he'll get some much-deserved respect and he'll get to the line - add four free-throws and take away two missed field goals per game and I believe his stats are in-line with the other top players.

Roaming Gnome
07-24-2004, 12:09 PM
I know Jermaine has claimed in the past that not having George Glymph to work on his shot has hurt him. I don't know if that was more emotion then reality, but I do know that this was the first year without having Glymph right at his side!

Kegboy
07-24-2004, 12:39 PM
Some good points.

I don't look at is as a difference between 43% and 46%, because IMO the first 4 years of his career doesn't count. Let's look at his pecents as a Pacer:

.465
.479
.484
.434

Now, 5% in one year is a big dropoff. Anthem makes a good point about Mark Aguirre, and I'm reminded of a point midseason where JO was shooting bad, and he said he got a voice mail from George Glymph telling him what he was doing wrong, form wise. As much as people blast Isiah and his staff, I believe that staff was much better at skills development, though Chuck Person has offset that to a good degree.

Plus, people (UB) are gonna hate me for this, but you need to look at Rick's system. The team's FG% fell from .441 to .435 under Rick, which is a marginal percentage, to be sure. But, like so many other times, I wish there were stats for two years ago that just went up to the All Star break. However much you may hate the Isiah era, you have to admit that before The Great Meltdown, his system was working. Also, I think we can also agree that the player least affected individually by The Great Meltdown was JO, which was amazing after what he went through.

Anyway, that's my long convoluted way of saying when the team was on the right track last year, they were shooting around 46%, IIRC. And I don't believe JO's percentage fell when the rest of the team's did. Just look at the monster performances he had against Boston in the playoffs.

So, as many have pointed out, the biggest difference for JO from the previous season is that Brad's not there anymore. Brad got shots in the flow of the offense, and he was the perfect compliment to JO, in that and many other areas.

Now, Ron is the second option, and offensively, he just doesn't mesh with JO that well. Yes, he gets his assists, but I don't recall many instances where Ron was Jermaine's set up man. He doesn't draw double teams away, and he's not as smart with the basketball as Brad was.

But I still don't think that tells the whole story. I think part of the fault lies with the fact that Rick's offensive structure is too restrictive. Make fun of the The Quick all you want, but when it worked, it REALLY worked, and opened up a number of opportunities for Jermaine.

But we simply don't run anymore. Now, to get JO in one-on-one situations, we have to run a series of rather convoluted picks (like Reggie picking big men) to get him in good position on the block. We'd run the same sets over and over, and I think Jermaine got in a rut. Dribble, backstep, dribble, backstep, turn-around jumper. Effective, but not the shot with the highest percentage. He himself admitted he needed to go back to his hook or going with his left to the basket.

Do I see this being a problem in the future. Probably not. Jermaine's still hasn't reached his potential, and I see this past year as adjustment to a radically different system. Jeff will hopefully be better offensively, and if Tinsley keeps up the good shooting, teams are gonna have to come up with new ways to defend us, and by extention, Jermaine.

Also, I want to say on the topic of who gets double teamed off of, UB's right, Reggie NEVER gets left alone. And the only time I even remember an opponent consistently sagging off was against Detroit. And I don't believe that was a product of Reggie not shooting well, but due to Detroit's excellent ability to cut off passing lanes. Brown's defensive structure made it very difficult to pass out to shooters, and it was obvious that Detroit put an emphasis of knowing where Reggie was at all times. If the ball came to him, even off picks, someone would be there. If you want to fault Reggie, you could say if he had still had any slashing ability, he would of had an effective weapon to combat it. But he lost that years ago, not recently.

And lastly, one quibble. I do think teams double-team off Jeff. In high post situations, teams would leave him out there, which would open him up to offensive rebounds against bad teams.

I'd say, players left undefended the most, accounting for playing time, would be as follows:

Jamaal
Fred
Jeff
AJ
Austin
Bender
Pollard

Kegboy
07-24-2004, 12:51 PM
He gets his shot blocked a lot but his FTA's are lower than many comparable Cs and PFs.

In my book, that means he doesn't get enough foul calls. He's not Chris Webber, shooting twenty-footers and three-pointers and playing soft.

He did use the mid-range jumper (facing the basket) more than I wanted him to last season. I attribute that to two reasons: he took what the defense was giving him instead of forcing his way into the higher percentage back-to-the-basket moves; and his leg injuries impacted his ability to make his regular moves "with authority".

He was #3 in MVP voting in spite of a poor shooting season. Since he's taking this summer off to let the leg recover, just how good can he be next season when he's closer to 100% healthy?

And if ever learns to quit b!tC#ing to the officials about the no-calls, he'll get some much-deserved respect and he'll get to the line - add four free-throws and take away two missed field goals per game and I believe his stats are in-line with the other top players.

Jay makes a good point about Jermaine's jumper. I was gonna address that but got lost in my system stuff. And while I agree the back-to-the-basket is a higher percentage for JO than most, I think he could go to his left and get to the basket more. But that might be due to his leg problems. Or, as Jay also points out, that might be a product of him thinking he won't get the call. :whoknows:

unstandable
07-24-2004, 02:59 PM
The 82games site is very helpful in answering this question. Check out these two links - the first is for the past season and the second is for the one before:

http://www.82games.com/03IND13A.HTM

http://www.82games.com/02IND13A.HTM

In 02-03 JO shot 68% jumpers, 21% close shots, 10% dunks, and 1% tips. In 03-04 those numbers were 73% jumpers, 19% close, 7% dunks, and 1% tips. So already you see he took more jumpers which would lead to a lower overall shooting percentage.

What's even more instructive is looking at his shooting percentages from various distances. He was about the same on jumpers (dropped from 38.8% to 37.8%) but there was a massive decrease in his percentage on close shots. Two years ago he shot them at 58.4% and was blocked 18% of the time. Last year his percentage dropped to 46.0% and he was blocked 26% of the time.

So, for whatever reasons, JO shot more jumpers and was much less accurate on close in shots this past season.

indygeezer
07-24-2004, 05:05 PM
You're argueing the difference between 43% and 46%???? Statistically insignificant, especially considering it's 1 year. We had 10% less snow last year than our average, does that mean we're becoming a desert garden spot??? You're letting them set the debate boundaries...stop defending JO and yourself. Instead attack the arguement itself. The lack of clear lingual understanding, the writers motives, etc. BTW, I've never read, How did a hack from Hong Kong get and interview with Jo in the first place? Was it here? In HK? Jamaica? What were the circumstances and how much validity does the writer carry. Was JO really where it was reported to have occured. Remember, Peter Vescey says a lot of crap in the paper too.

Finally remember this, you are on their board trying to defend your man. Impossible task unless you can prove he didn't say whatever he was reported to have said. Nothing you can say will change their mind about JO. The only hope you have is to attack the original article and discredit it. Argueing statistics and moral ethics will get you no where.

:applaud:

Is that really you Geezer? To be truthful you usually seem to play to the comedy crowd. Here you are coming across as very wise!





Nope that was my evil twin...the sober one. He tried to study law for a while but found it too civil for him. :p