Allen Crabbe signs offer sheet with Nets

[jlprk]

Starting to understand what I mean by riding the wave? He is filler, not initiator. You need guys like him, but don't get impressed/depressed when they feed off of the team's success/failure trend. They are a reflection of the team, not vice versa.
------------------
On another note, if you look at ESPN efficiency points per minute (you have to divide the far right column by minutes), you see that last season he was 12th on the team (ahead of Vonleh and the bottom four on the list), but was 4th in minutes per game. Olshey's contract made fans expect too much.

http://www.espn.com/nba/seasonleaders/_/team/por/year/2016

 

[BonesJones]

Starting to understand what I mean by riding the wave? He is filler, not initiator. You need guys like him, but don't get impressed/depressed when they feed off of the team's success/failure trend. They are a reflection of the team, not vice versa.
------------------
On another note, if you look at ESPN efficiency points per minute (you have to divide the far right column by minutes), you see that last season he was 12th on the team (ahead of Vonleh and the bottom four on the list), but was 4th in minutes per game. Olshey's contract made fans expect too much.

http://www.espn.com/nba/seasonleaders/_/team/por/year/2016

So you're blaming Crabbe missing wide open shots on the team playing poorly?

 

[jlprk]

He always did miss shots. That's why I keep saying he was never a lights-out shooter. After a 3-year career, late last season he finally ascended to being an average rotation bench player, only because the team's roller coaster temporary success enabled it. The quality of his play didn't cause the team's temporary success. A caused B. B didn't cause A.

 

[Nate]

How would one numerically support the hypothetical that if Crabbe started and McCollum were our star sub, the team might do better?



The link shows you're both right. It depends on whether you include the players with insignificant minutes.

Hey, don't use common sense. Our two best shooters are Tim quarterman, and pat connaughton. They shoot .78% and 100%

Best shooters in the league.

 

[STOMP]

Try again.

NATE

try again LOL! Your claim is provably complete BS and somehow thats irrelevant? Whatever dude, massive fail. Enjoy your man crush.

STOMP

 

[Nate]

try again LOL! Your claim is provably complete BS and somehow thats irrelevant? Whatever dude, massive fail. Enjoy your man crush.

STOMP

Alright genius.
I guess using common sense is too hard for you.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Alright genius.
I guess using common sense is too hard for you.

LOL, common sense, from the guy who thinks Crabbe should be starting over McCollum:

Crabbe:    8.5 pts/g, 2.8 reb/g, 1.4 ast/g, 0.5 stl/g, 0.3 blk/g, PER =  8.7, 3FG% = .353, WS/48 = .018
McCollum: 22.3 pts/g, 3.8 reb/g, 3.6 ast/g, 1.3 stl/g, 0.5 blk/g, PER = 19.9, 3FG% = .445, WS/48 = .111

The main reason Crabbe should not be starting over C.J. is because C.J. is our best 1st quarter player. He has more made 1st quarter 3-pointers than any player in the entire league (more than Curry, more than Love, more than Harden, more than Durant, more than Lillard, more than EVERYONE) and has the highest 1st quarter 3FG% of any player who has made more than ten 1st quarter 3-pointers (again, higher than Curry, Love, Durant, Lillard, etc.). Crabbe shoots a very Andre Milleresque 30% from downtown in the 1st quarter.

Here's how their 1st quarter production compares:

Crabbe:   MIN = 102, PTS =  31, FGM = 12, FGA = 30, FG% = 40.0, 3FGM =  6, 3FGA = 20, 3FG% = 30.0, FTM =  1, FTA =  3, FT% = 33.3, ORB =  0, DRB =  12, TRB = 12, AST =  7, TOV = 6, STL = 0, BLK = 0
McCollum: MIN = 164, PTS = 131, FGM = 50, FGA = 87, FG% = 57.5, 3FGM = 21, 3FGA = 35, 3FG% = 60.0, FTM = 10, FTA = 12, FT% = 83.3, ORB =  5, DRB =  16, TRB = 21, AST = 23, TOV = 7, STL = 9, BLK = 3

Tell us again why Crabbe should be starting over C.J. C.J. McCollum is one of the best SGs in the league. If Crabbe was starting, he'd be the worst starting SG in the league.

C.J. is the best 1st quarter player on our team and one of the best in the entire league. He flat out does everything better than Crabbe. Don't believe me? Just look at those 1st quarter numbers. They don't lie.

C.J.'s hot shooting is usually the only thing keeping us in games at the beginning. If we take him out of the starting lineup, we'd be starting every game with a double digit deficit. Please explain how that would be a good thing.

Yeah, we need to do something, but benching our second best player and best 1st quarter performer is not the answer. Especially when the guy you are proposing to start in his place has never been more than an average bench player, at his best, and is having an absolutely horrible season.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

LOL, common sense, from the guy who thinks Crabbe should be starting oover McCollum:

Crabbe:    8.5 pts/g, 2.8 reb/g, 1.4 ast/g, 0.5 stl/g, 0.3 blk/g, PER =  8.7, 3FG% = .353, WS/48 = .018
McCollum: 22.3 pts/g, 3.8 reb/g, 3.6 ast/g, 1.3 stl/g, 0.5 blk/g, PER = 19.9, 3FG% = .445, WS/48 = .111

The main reason Crabbe should not be starting over C.J. is because C.J. is our best 1st quarter player. He has more made 1st quarter 3-pointers than any player in the entire league (more than Curry, more than Love, more than Harden, more than Durant, more than Lillard, more than EVERYONE) and has the highest 1st quarter 3FG% of any player who has made more than ten 1st quarter 3-pointers (again, higher than Curry, Love, Durant, Lillard, etc.). Crabbe shooots a very Andre Milleresque 30% from downtown in the 1st quarter.

Here's how their 1st quarter production compares:

Crabbe:   MIN = 102, PTS =  31, FGM = 12, FGA = 30, FG% = 40.0, 3FGM =  6, 3FGA = 20, 3FG% = 30.0, FTM =  1, FTA =  3, FT% = 33.3, ORB =  0, DRB =  12, TRB = 12, AST =  7, TOV = 6, STL = 0, BLK = 0
McCollum: MIN = 164, PTS = 131, FGM = 50, FGA = 87, FG% = 57.5, 3FGM = 21, 3FGA = 35, 3FG% = 60.0, FTM = 10, FTA = 12, FT% = 83.3, ORB =  5, DRB =  16, TRB = 21, AST = 23, TOV = 7, STL = 9, BLK = 3

Tell us again why Crabbe should be starting over C.J. C.J. McCollum is one of the best SGs in the league. If Crabbe was starting, he'd be the worst starting SG in the league.

C.J. is the best 1st quarter player on our team and one of the best in the entire league. He flat out does everything better than Crabbe. Don't believe me? Just look at those 1st quarter numbers. They don't lie.

C.J.'s hot shooting is usually the only thing keeping us in games at the beginning. If we take him out of the starting lineup, we'd be starting every game with a double digit deficit. Please explain how that would be a good thing.

Yeah, we need to do something, but benching our second best player and best 1st quarter performer is not the answer. Especially when the guy you are proposing to start in his place has never been more than an average bench player, at his best, and is having an absolutely horrible season.

BNM

BTW, this isn't an isolated trend. C.J. was also our best 1st quarter player last year, by a wide margin. I won't bother to list all the stats, as I know you ignore any actual data that doesn't support you opinions, but here's a couple nuggets:

C.J. shot 49.6% 3FG% in first quarters last season. Last season, C.J. was 6th in the league in made 1st quarter 3-pointers and was second in the league in 1st quarter 3FG% (trailing only J.J. Reddick's 50.4%).

His 1st quarter +/- was +103. Here's how that compared to our other starters. plus Crabbe:

2015-16 season, 1st quarter +/-:

C.J. McCollum: +103
Mason Plumlee: +50
Noah Vonleh: +22
Al-Farouq Aminu: +18
Maurice Harkless: +15
Allen Crabbe: -3
Damian Lillard: -7

Both this year and last, C.J, is the one keeping us in games in the 1st quarter. Yanking him from the starting line up would be insane and totally counter productive.

BNM

 

[Nate]

LOL, common sense, from the guy who thinks Crabbe should be starting over McCollum:

Crabbe:    8.5 pts/g, 2.8 reb/g, 1.4 ast/g, 0.5 stl/g, 0.3 blk/g, PER =  8.7, 3FG% = .353, WS/48 = .018
McCollum: 22.3 pts/g, 3.8 reb/g, 3.6 ast/g, 1.3 stl/g, 0.5 blk/g, PER = 19.9, 3FG% = .445, WS/48 = .111

The main reason Crabbe should not be starting over C.J. is because C.J. is our best 1st quarter player. He has more made 1st quarter 3-pointers than any player in the entire league (more than Curry, more than Love, more than Harden, more than Durant, more than Lillard, more than EVERYONE) and has the highest 1st quarter 3FG% of any player who has made more than ten 1st quarter 3-pointers (again, higher than Curry, Love, Durant, Lillard, etc.). Crabbe shoots a very Andre Milleresque 30% from downtown in the 1st quarter.

Here's how their 1st quarter production compares:

Crabbe:   MIN = 102, PTS =  31, FGM = 12, FGA = 30, FG% = 40.0, 3FGM =  6, 3FGA = 20, 3FG% = 30.0, FTM =  1, FTA =  3, FT% = 33.3, ORB =  0, DRB =  12, TRB = 12, AST =  7, TOV = 6, STL = 0, BLK = 0
McCollum: MIN = 164, PTS = 131, FGM = 50, FGA = 87, FG% = 57.5, 3FGM = 21, 3FGA = 35, 3FG% = 60.0, FTM = 10, FTA = 12, FT% = 83.3, ORB =  5, DRB =  16, TRB = 21, AST = 23, TOV = 7, STL = 9, BLK = 3

Tell us again why Crabbe should be starting over C.J. C.J. McCollum is one of the best SGs in the league. If Crabbe was starting, he'd be the worst starting SG in the league.

C.J. is the best 1st quarter player on our team and one of the best in the entire league. He flat out does everything better than Crabbe. Don't believe me? Just look at those 1st quarter numbers. They don't lie.

C.J.'s hot shooting is usually the only thing keeping us in games at the beginning. If we take him out of the starting lineup, we'd be starting every game with a double digit deficit. Please explain how that would be a good thing.

Yeah, we need to do something, but benching our second best player and best 1st quarter performer is not the answer. Especially when the guy you are proposing to start in his place has never been more than an average bench player, at his best, and is having an absolutely horrible season.

BNM

Hmmm... this CJ character you speak of... he sounds like he would be great off the bench.

So basically, you've got nothing.

NATE

 

[Boob-No-More]

Hmmm... this CJ character you speak of... he sounds like he would be great off the bench.

So basically, you've got nothing.

NATE

Right, we should bench the guy who keeps us in games at the beginning in favor of a guy who sucks.

If only we had the luxury of bringing C.J. off the bench. Unfortunately, we do not.

BNM

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Right, we should bench the guy who keeps us in games at the beginning in favor of a guy who sucks.

If only we had the luxury of bringing C.J. off the bench. Unfortunately, we do not.

BNM

Crabbe is WAY, WAY better than CJ, the most improved player in the world!!! Furthermore, Crabbe should be starting!!
-Olshey when talking to the Kings about trading for Boogie....

Ha!

 

[Boob-No-More]

Ha!

Something tells me not even the Kings are that dumb.

BNM

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Something tells me not even the Kings are that dumb.

BNM

Of course they're not - which is why it was funny.

 

[Nate]

Right, we should bench the guy who keeps us in games at the beginning in favor of a guy who sucks.

If only we had the luxury of bringing C.J. off the bench. Unfortunately, we do not.

BNM

Maybe he can keep us in the game a little later? Idk though, if Crabbe starts, we might have the worst defense in the league.... oh wait...

 

[BonesJones]

Maybe he can keep us in the game a little later? Idk though, if Crabbe starts, we might have the worst defense in the league.... oh wait...

Lmao. We'd be out of the game a little earlier. Your logic is flawed.

But with starting Crabbe, you either you want CJ playing less, or you want him playing 18 straight minutes to end each half. Both are awful ideas.

 

[Nate]

Lmao. We'd be out of the game a little earlier. Your logic is flawed.

But with starting Crabbe, you either you want CJ playing less, or you want him playing 18 straight minutes to end each half. Both are awful ideas.

Oh, so CJ won't be able to score if he comes off the bench. Gotcha.

And sure, that's how it's always works when good players come off the bench. It's always awful, just ask Manu, or Iggy, or Crawford, or... fuck it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Oh, so CJ won't be able to score if he comes off the bench. Gotcha.

And sure, that's how it's always works when good players come off the bench. It's always awful, just ask Manu, or Iggy, or Crawford, or... fuck it.

In this millennium, there have been precisely zero players who have averaged more than 34 mpg coming off the bench. So, yes, that's exactly how it works when good players come off the bench: they play fewer minutes than CJ currently does.

 

[BonesJones]

Oh, so CJ won't be able to score if he comes off the bench. Gotcha.

And sure, that's how it's always works when good players come off the bench. It's always awful, just ask Manu, or Iggy, or Crawford, or... fuck it.

It's basic fucking math dude. CJ gets around 36mpg. How would he comes off the bench, play 36mpg, and not play 18 straight minutes to end the half?

 

[BonesJones]

Oh, so CJ won't be able to score if he comes off the bench. Gotcha.

And sure, that's how it's always works when good players come off the bench. It's always awful, just ask Manu, or Iggy, or Crawford, or... fuck it.

We'd lose points at the start. Sure, our 2nd unit would make a better run but that would just be making up points lost at the start by starting Crabbe.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Oh, so CJ won't be able to score if he comes off the bench. Gotcha.

And sure, that's how it's always works when good players come off the bench. It's always awful, just ask Manu, or Iggy, or Crawford, or... fuck it.

We've been through this all before. None of those guys you mentioned came off the bench when they were young and in their primes. I know guys like Manu and Crawford have been doing it for so long people tend to forget that they used to start. Of the three examples you give, Crawford was the youngest to make the move to the bench, and the age of 29. Iggy didn't move to the bench until he was 31 and Manu started 79 games at the age of 33 and was an all star.

Those guys currently play less than 25 MPG each, about 10 MPG less than C.J. The last time Manu played more than 24 MPG was when he was a starter. The last time Iggy played more than 27 MPG, he was a starter. Crawford is the only one of the three to ever average more than 30 MPG coming off the bench (31.1 MPG 8 years ago, his first season as a non-starter compared to the 38 - 39 MPG he averaged as a starter).

Anyway you slice it, if you move C.J. to the bench, he will play fewer minutes and I have no idea how on earth playing our second best player fewer minutes benefits the team - especially when the guy you want to give those minutes to is a below average bench player having an absolutely terrible season.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's basic fucking math dude. CJ gets around 36mpg. How would he comes off the bench, play 36mpg, and not play 18 straight minutes to end the half?

To play devil's advocate...
1Q
12:00-9:00 Dame/AC
9:00-6:00 Dame/CJ
6:00-3:00 Shabazz/CJ
3:00-0:00 Dame/CJ
2Q
12:00-9:00 Dame/CJ
9:00-6:00 Dame/AC
6:00-3:00 Shabazz/CJ
3:00-0:00 Dame/CJ

Dame/CJ each get 18 minutes in the half, but are never off the floor simultaneously. Counting the q1/q2 switch, Dame actually gets 3 breaks in his 18 minutes (to help keep him fresh), and CJ gets a couple as well.

So, it could be done, but it's pretty choppy. Starting them together makes it a lot simpler.

 

[Boob-No-More]

We'd lose points at the start. Sure, our 2nd unit would make a better run but that would just be making up points lost at the start by starting Crabbe.

Yep, C.J. is a fast starter. As I showed in my previous post, he's not just our best 1st quarter player he's one of the best in the entire league.

Why we'd want give that up in favor of a guy with a single digit per is beyond me. Do we really want to intentionally start every game by digging ourselves into a double digit hole? Comebacks are fun for the fans, but exhausting for the players. Especially when you fall behind at the start of the game and have to spend the rest of the night clawing your way back just to make it close and hope to pull one out at the end.

BNM

 

[BonesJones]

To play devil's advocate...
1Q
12:00-9:00 Dame/AC
9:00-6:00 Dame/CJ
6:00-3:00 Shabazz/CJ
3:00-0:00 Dame/CJ
2Q
12:00-9:00 Dame/CJ
9:00-6:00 Dame/AC
6:00-3:00 Shabazz/CJ
3:00-0:00 Dame/CJ

Dame/CJ each get 18 minutes in the half, but are never off the floor simultaneously. Counting the q1/q2 switch, Dame actually gets 3 breaks in his 18 minutes (to help keep him fresh), and CJ gets a couple as well.

So, it could be done, but it's pretty choppy. Starting them together makes it a lot simpler.

If CJ gets subbed in 3 minutes into the game, then what's the point in not starting him? It makes no sense to not start him just to bring him in by the 9 minute mark.

 

[Boob-No-More]

To play devil's advocate...
1Q
12:00-9:00 Dame/AC
9:00-6:00 Dame/CJ
6:00-3:00 Shabazz/CJ
3:00-0:00 Dame/CJ
2Q
12:00-9:00 Dame/CJ
9:00-6:00 Dame/AC
6:00-3:00 Shabazz/CJ
3:00-0:00 Dame/CJ

Dame/CJ each get 18 minutes in the half, but are never off the floor simultaneously. Counting the q1/q2 switch, Dame actually gets 3 breaks in his 18 minutes (to help keep him fresh), and CJ gets a couple as well.

So, it could be done, but it's pretty choppy. Starting them together makes it a lot simpler.

Yeah and zero continuity. In that scenario no one would be able to get into any kind of rhythm. But, you get an A (and a like) for effort.

The only good thing about that breakdown is that Crabbe sees his minutes cut from 28 MPG to 12 MPG, and that's a good thing.

BNM

 

[Nate]

It's basic fucking math dude. CJ gets around 36mpg. How would he comes off the bench, play 36mpg, and not play 18 straight minutes to end the half?

He plays 34 but I Don't think there would be a drop off in production if he played 33 or 32. But he can always start the second half, if the first didn't go well.

 

[Boob-No-More]

He plays 34 but I Don't think there would be a drop off in production if he played 33 or 32. But he can always start the second half, if the first didn't go well.

And the number one reason the first half won't go well - Allen Crabbe starting. If he's not good enough to be starting the second half, he shouldn't be starting the first.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yeah and zero continuity. In that scenario no one would be able to get into any kind of rhythm. But, you get an A (and a like) for effort.

The only good thing about that breakdown is that Crabbe sees his minutes cut from 28 MPG to 12 MPG, and that's a good thing.

BNM

That's only because I'm the president of the Shabazz Napier fan club, and would love to see him snake a bunch of AC's minutes.

 

[Boob-No-More]

For the last time, would you please just explain why making our starting line up worse benefits the team?

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

That's only because I'm the president of the Shabazz Napier fan club, and would love to see him snake a bunch of AC's minutes.

Actually, I'd like to see Jake the Snake Layman start to take some of Crabbe's minutes. Give Turner the back-up SG minutes and let Layman play some back up SF. We all know Turner can't shoot, but neither can Crabbe. At least Turner contributes in other ways when he's on the court. So, let Layman take the spot up, wide open 3s Crabbe is currently bricking. I don't see how he could possibly do any worse in that role than Crabbe is.

BNM

 

[BonesJones]

I actually feel like Layman could defend better than Crabbe. Layman also does all the little things Crabbe doesn't, such as getting rid of the ball right away if he doesn't have anything as well as passing with zip. He is miles ahead of Crabbe at finishing and is even a better ball handler. Layman is a glue guy that needs a chance. I love the way he plays.

I wouldn't mind trading Crabbe to Dallas for Wesley Matthews right now. At least Wesley has done ACTUAL STUFF before, and brings some much needed heart and soul to the team, and his contract expires sooner. Dallas sucks and they're rebuilding so maybe they would be willing to swap Wesley for the younger Crabbe.