NBA trade that may affect some former Dukies

[CDu]

The Clippers just traded Matt Barnes and Spencer Hawes for Lance Stephenson. Fro LA, Stephenson presents a clear threat to the minutes of Rivers and Redick. He is, when his head is on straight, a true complete two-way player on the wing (not the case with Redick and Rivers, who are both just passable on defense and primarily are just shooters on offense). That said, he just did not seem to fit in in Charlotte, and was very disappointing. The Clippers clearly hope moving back to a contender will get him back on track. But if it does, that will likely mean a smaller role for Redick or Rivers.

For Charlotte, the move appears to open up minutes for Henderson, as he and Stephenson were somewhat superfluous. They are clearly hoping that Hawes can regain his old form and give Big Al some scoring help inside.

[jimsumner]

The Clippers just traded Matt Barnes and Spencer Hawes for Lance Stephenson. Fro LA, Stephenson presents a clear threat to the minutes of Rivers and Redick. He is, when his head is on straight, a true complete two-way player on the wing (not the case with Redick and Rivers, who are both just passable on defense and primarily are just shooters on offense). That said, he just did not seem to fit in in Charlotte, and was very disappointing. The Clippers clearly hope moving back to a contender will get him back on track. But if it does, that will likely mean a smaller role for Redick or Rivers.

For Charlotte, the move appears to open up minutes for Henderson, as he and Stephenson were somewhat superfluous. They are clearly hoping that Hawes can regain his old form and give Big Al some scoring help inside.

Rivers can carve out a niche as a back-up PG. But the Clippers also have Jamal Crawford, so they really do seem to be a bit over-stocked at the 2. I wonder if they might not be through making moves.

And, yes, Stephenson was a huge flop in Charlotte. He has a rep for being not the greatest teammate.

[roywhite]

Rivers can carve out a niche as a back-up PG. But the Clippers also have Jamal Crawford, so they really do seem to be a bit over-stocked at the 2. I wonder if they might not be through making moves.

And, yes, Stephenson was a huge flop in Charlotte. He has a rep for being not the greatest teammate.

Yeah, epic flop....37% FG, including 17% from 3-pt; it doesn't get much worse for a "Shooting Guard".

[CDu]

Yeah, it is definitely a move that could backfire, as Stephenson seems to be a jerk. And given the Clips' lack of a backup PG (Rivers did play some there, but it isn't a good fit) and excess of SG would seem to suggest more moves coming.

[devildeac]

Yeah, epic flop....37% FG, including 17% from 3-pt; it doesn't get much worse for a "Shooting Guard".

"Shooting guard?" Did you ever read the story about, nah, never mind;):rolleyes:?

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9353187/police-seized-gun-ammunition-arrest-pj-hairston

[sagegrouse]

The Clippers just traded Matt Barnes and Spencer Hawes for Lance Stephenson. Fro LA, Stephenson presents a clear threat to the minutes of Rivers and Redick. He is, when his head is on straight, a true complete two-way player on the wing (not the case with Redick and Rivers, who are both just passable on defense and primarily are just shooters on offense). That said, he just did not seem to fit in in Charlotte, and was very disappointing. The Clippers clearly hope moving back to a contender will get him back on track. But if it does, that will likely mean a smaller role for Redick or Rivers.

For Charlotte, the move appears to open up minutes for Henderson, as he and Stephenson were somewhat superfluous. They are clearly hoping that Hawes can regain his old form and give Big Al some scoring help inside.

In my view, CDu, you are once again too casual with criticism of Duke players (not "former Duke players"). JJ has made himself into an excellent defensive player in the NBA, as opposed to "just passable." Where do you come up with this stuff? This one is almost in the category of "bum slayer." I value your basketball knowledge, I just wonder about how your communication style.

[Des Esseintes]

In my view, CDu, you are once again too casual with criticism of Duke players (not "former Duke players"). JJ has made himself into an excellent defensive player in the NBA, as opposed to "just passable." Where do you come up with this stuff? This one is almost in the category of "bum slayer." I value your basketball knowledge, I just wonder about how your communication style.

For my own part, I think Redick is a solid off-ball defender and really knows how to execute team concepts. However. Nothing CDu said could be interpreted as gratuitously insulting to JJ. There has to be room here for folks calling it like they see it in plain English, provided any claim is backed up by cogent argument. Especially from posters with established track records of insight and love for the program. CDu has both in spades. If he thinks Redick is "just passable," I might quibble with that particular conclusion, but questioning his right to voice it in those terms? Unfair and against the spirit of free inquiry on this board.

[Duvall]

Bumslayer. Now there's a bit of ancient history from last fall.

[Wander]

In my view, CDu, you are once again too casual with criticism of Duke players (not "former Duke players"). JJ has made himself into an excellent defensive player in the NBA, as opposed to "just passable." Where do you come up with this stuff? This one is almost in the category of "bum slayer." I value your basketball knowledge, I just wonder about how your communication style.

I think you're using the term "excellent defensive player" way too loosely. I mean, the Clippers had the best defensive players in the league at PG and C, yet were still only average on defense as a team overall. I don't think that really adds up with any of their other major minute getters being excellent on defense.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

By the way, there are no FORMER Dukies. If they're not Dukies for life, they didn't attend Duke in the first place! ;)

[CDu]

In my view, CDu, you are once again too casual with criticism of Duke players (not "former Duke players"). JJ has made himself into an excellent defensive player in the NBA, as opposed to "just passable." Where do you come up with this stuff? This one is almost in the category of "bum slayer." I value your basketball knowledge, I just wonder about how your communication style.

I am going to have to disagree. Redick is by no means an excellent defender. He is decent, and definitely far from a liability now, but excellent is way too glowing a statement about Redick's defense. He is passable there: you can play him without fear of getting completely abused, but he isn't a noteworthily positive defender either. That is not a criticism not Redick. It is just reality. He has worked very hard on his game to become passable defensively, and that is certainly worthy of praise. But let's not get carried away with that praise and call him an excellent defender.

[superdave]

Barnes played SF for Clips last year alongside Paul and Redick. Stephenson will likely play the 3 next year. I dont know that Redick will be affected unless the Clippers bring in a SF and move Stephenson to the 2.

This can be an upgrade for LA if Stephenson can get his head on straight and act like an adult.

[NYBri]

Nothing like an NBA trade thread devolving into a semantics discussion to prove that we are in the summer swoon of off season. 😎

[Billy Dat]

This can be an upgrade for LA if Stephenson can get his head on straight and act like an adult.

The definition of a big IF.

This trade may make some sense on paper, but not too much and I think is further evidence of the shortcomings of Doc the GM.

Paul and Griffin apparently have a very tenuous relationship and Paul is a big mouth. Amidst this fragile chemistry they introduce one of the most mercurial personalities in the league and ask him to play out of position? I read it as a recipe for disaster.

[sagegrouse]

I am going to have to disagree. Redick is by no means an excellent defender. He is decent, and definitely far from a liability now, but excellent is way too glowing a statement about Redick's defense. He is passable there: you can play him without fear of getting completely abused, but he isn't a noteworthily positive defender either. That is not a criticism not Redick. It is just reality. He has worked very hard on his game to become passable defensively, and that is certainly worthy of praise. But let's not get carried away with that praise and call him an excellent defender.

You may have watched the clippers more than I have, but I thought JJ did a good job against James Harden, one of the best offensive players in the league, holding Harden to just under 40 percent FG shooting. I observed that Doc was always willing to have JJ on the court. Of course, if the Clips had advanced and JJ got to play against the quicker Klay Thompson, he would have had a different kind of test than against the more powerful Harden.

As I said above, my main problem is that you occasionally make careless and "dismissive" remarks about Duke players on a Duke fan board -- c.f., "just passable on defense," "bum slayer." etc. Duke players are gonna be defended here by at least a few of us..

[SilkyJ]

Barnes played SF for Clips last year alongside Paul and Redick. Stephenson will likely play the 3 next year. I dont know that Redick will be affected unless the Clippers bring in a SF and move Stephenson to the 2.

This can be an upgrade for LA if Stephenson can get his head on straight and act like an adult.

We'll see what happens with other players, but I would agree that I don't think this cuts into JJ's minutes a ton. JJ is clearly very valued by the clips & doc, is a significant part of their offense, and is in his prime. His 1on1 defense is solid and he understands how to play team defense as well.

I watch a decent amount of clips games and Austin was primarily used as a backup PG, so not sure how this would materially affect him either.

[GGLC]

The definition of a big IF.

This trade may make some sense on paper, but not too much and I think is further evidence of the shortcomings of Doc the GM.

Paul and Griffin apparently have a very tenuous relationship and Paul is a big mouth. Amidst this fragile chemistry they introduce one of the most mercurial personalities in the league and ask him to play out of position? I read it as a recipe for disaster.

I think this is exactly right.

[CDu]

You may have watched the clippers more than I have, but I thought JJ did a good job against James Harden, one of the best offensive players in the league, holding Harden to just under 40 percent FG shooting. I observed that Doc was always willing to have JJ on the court. Of course, if the Clips had advanced and JJ got to play against the quicker Klay Thompson, he would have had a different kind of test than against the more powerful Harden.

As I said above, my main problem is that you occasionally make careless and "dismissive" remarks about Duke players on a Duke fan board -- c.f., "just passable on defense," "bum slayer." etc. Duke players are gonna be defended here by at least a few of us..

One probably shouldn't use a small sample size to generalize a larger point. Harden shot a bit below his average in the Clips series, especially from 3. But he still got to the line and still had strong scoring efficiency. So it isn't like Redick and company locked him down. Sometimes shots don't fall.

As for Redick, he had a defensive real plus/minus of 0.26 this year (basically league average). His defensive rating was 111 (well below average). He had a defensive box plus/minus of -2.7 (below average). The best stats we have suggest he was average or below average defensively. So I stand by my statement that he is just passable defensively. A seven game sample during which Harden simply missed a whopping 4 more jumpers than normal (out of 118 attempts) but was otherwise his usual stellar self is not going to sway me from the season-long and career-long resume. I am not being critical in saying Redick is just passable defensively. That is what he is. He won't kill you, but he isn't a go-to defender. Heis just okay/mediocre/passable. If that bothers you, then perhaps you are too sensitive to Duke guys to see it objectively. Or maybe you are too hung up still on the term bumslayer.

Redick is one of my favorite Duke guys ever. But he is just passable defensively.

[Turk]

It's a weird trade on the surface. The question is really whether Stephenson is an upgrade over Barnes, and I think the answer is yes if he plays the way he did in Indiana. Stephenson is a lot younger than Barnes too.

For Charlotte, I actually liked Hawes' shooting and passing when he was stuck in the Sixers swamp, but I don't think his game really fit well with the Clips, plus he's overpriced. I hope he does well. They can cut Barnes and it will only (?) cost them $1 million next season.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Clips aren't done yet. They still have the question of whether they can sign DeAndre Jordan, and they are obviously in "win now" mode with Blake and CP3.

From the Duke perspective, JJ and Austin will still do what they do. The Clippers have bigger needs elsewhere.

[sagegrouse]

One probably shouldn't use a small sample size to generalize a larger point. Harden shot a bit below his average in the Clips series, especially from 3. But he still got to the line and still had strong scoring efficiency. So it isn't like Redick and company locked him down. Sometimes shots don't fall.

As for Redick, he had a defensive real plus/minus of 0.26 this year (basically league average). His defensive rating was 111 (well below average). He had a defensive box plus/minus of -2.7 (below average). The best stats we have suggest he was average or below average defensively. So I stand by my statement that he is just passable defensively. A seven game sample during which Harden simply missed a whopping 4 more jumpers than normal (out of 118 attempts) but was otherwise his usual stellar self is not going to sway me from the season-long and career-long resume. I am not being critical in saying Redick is just passable defensively. That is what he is. He won't kill you, but he isn't a go-to defender. Heis just okay/mediocre/passable. If that bothers you, then perhaps you are too sensitive to Duke guys to see it objectively. Or maybe you are too hung up still on the term bumslayer.

Redick is one of my favorite Duke guys ever. But he is just passable defensively.

I'm cool with you, Mickey. You have well-thought out points.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'I tend to be wary of advanced stats when I can watch the player on the court, but they clearly have their place... and I am clearly a codger whose offspring finished Duke before you enrolled'

[Eternal Outlaw]

One probably shouldn't use a small sample size to generalize a larger point. Harden shot a bit below his average in the Clips series, especially from 3. But he still got to the line and still had strong scoring efficiency. So it isn't like Redick and company locked him down. Sometimes shots don't fall.

As for Redick, he had a defensive real plus/minus of 0.26 this year (basically league average). His defensive rating was 111 (well below average). He had a defensive box plus/minus of -2.7 (below average). The best stats we have suggest he was average or below average defensively. So I stand by my statement that he is just passable defensively. A seven game sample during which Harden simply missed a whopping 4 more jumpers than normal (out of 118 attempts) but was otherwise his usual stellar self is not going to sway me from the season-long and career-long resume. I am not being critical in saying Redick is just passable defensively. That is what he is. He won't kill you, but he isn't a go-to defender. Heis just okay/mediocre/passable. If that bothers you, then perhaps you are too sensitive to Duke guys to see it objectively. Or maybe you are too hung up still on the term bumslayer.

Redick is one of my favorite Duke guys ever. But he is just passable defensively.

Jamal Crawford has a defensive rating of 109 and also a defensive box plus/minus of -2.7 so in two of those metrics it seems to say Jamal Crawford is as good as a defender as Redick which is mind boggling to me. Only defensive real plus/minus really seems to show how truly awful Crawford is at putting him last at -4.38 for SG. But the fact he is even a smudge ahead on one metric is puzzling, what goes into this stuff?

For a non-Duke example, it looks like the better defender of the Splash brothers by those metrics is Curry over Thompson. Seriously? I can't imagine what those metrics see that says Thompson isn't a better defender. Love Curry and still one of the biggest disappointments is the Knicks missing him by 1 but no way could I pick him over Thompson for defensive purposes.

I don't know the answer for this but do these things consider stuff like Thompson will normally be matched up against the better offensive player because he is better on defense? Does it account that Redick can be matched up against a starter who is good on offense while Crawford might be matched up against a bench player whose role isn't to score?

James Harden was a -.15, 103, -1.1, in what universe is James Harden a better defender than Redick or Klay Thompson? He beats each in 2 of 3 metrics. And even if you call that close to a draw in what world is he even with either man?

This type of thing is why I have trouble believing all this advanced stuff.

[Li_Duke]

Jamal Crawford has a defensive rating of 109 and also a defensive box plus/minus of -2.7 so in two of those metrics it seems to say Jamal Crawford is as good as a defender as Redick which is mind boggling to me. Only defensive real plus/minus really seems to show how truly awful Crawford is at putting him last at -4.38 for SG. But the fact he is even a smudge ahead on one metric is puzzling, what goes into this stuff?

For a non-Duke example, it looks like the better defender of the Splash brothers by those metrics is Curry over Thompson. Seriously? I can't imagine what those metrics see that says Thompson isn't a better defender. Love Curry and still one of the biggest disappointments is the Knicks missing him by 1 but no way could I pick him over Thompson for defensive purposes.

I don't know the answer for this but do these things consider stuff like Thompson will normally be matched up against the better offensive player because he is better on defense? Does it account that Redick can be matched up against a starter who is good on offense while Crawford might be matched up against a bench player whose role isn't to score?

James Harden was a -.15, 103, -1.1, in what universe is James Harden a better defender than Redick or Klay Thompson? He beats each in 2 of 3 metrics. And even if you call that close to a draw in what world is he even with either man?

This type of thing is why I have trouble believing all this advanced stuff.


I don't think anyone considers Redick, Crawford, Curry, Thompson, or Harden good defenders. The best you can say for Redick, Curry, Thompson, and Harden is that they aren't as bad as they used to be. I'm pretty sure the metrics will show that Leonard, Iguodala, J Butler, D Green, D Howard, C Paul, and T. Allen are all very good defenders though.

Stephenson doesn't threaten Redick's minutes much. With Paul (elite distributor) and 2 guys who are best close to the basket, the Clippers desperately need Redick to spread the floor. Redick also is an ideal complement when Paul sits and Stephenson is in the game. If anything, I think Stephenson is a threat to Crawford's minutes, as they both are best as the primary offensive option for the 2nd unit. But they could coexist, their games are different in that Stephenson is best attacking the basket while Crawford is the better shooter. I don't think daddy Doc will trade or not play baby Doc.

Overall though, I think they were too quick to get rid of Barnes, who was an effective 3 and D option and the better fit in the starting line-up. Barnes' contract was very nice. I like Charlotte's side of the deal -- they get 2 shooters to help with their spacing which was very very bad.

[CDu]

I don't think anyone considers Redick, Crawford, Curry, Thompson, or Harden good defenders. The best you can say for Redick, Curry, Thompson, and Harden is that they aren't as bad as they used to be. I'm pretty sure the metrics will show that Leonard, Iguodala, J Butler, D Green, D Howard, C Paul, and T. Allen are all very good defenders though.

Right. I'm not suggesting that Redick is a bad defender. Just that he's not out there for his defense. His defense has improved to the point that he's not a problem on that end, but it's not a strength of his game. That was my original point: a dialed-in Stephenson (and there is a huge caveat that there's no guarantee they get a dialed-in Stephenson) has legitimate two-way skills. He can be dynamic offensively and has the intensity and athleticism to be a really good defender. At times in Indiana, he was great on that end. The big question, as others have noted in this thread, is whether the Clippers get Mr. Hyde or Dr. Jeckyll. If they get the good version, they'll find a way to tolerate his jerkiness. If they get the bad version, it could be cancerous.


Stephenson doesn't threaten Redick's minutes much. With Paul (elite distributor) and 2 guys who are best close to the basket, the Clippers desperately need Redick to spread the floor. Redick also is an ideal complement when Paul sits and Stephenson is in the game. If anything, I think Stephenson is a threat to Crawford's minutes, as they both are best as the primary offensive option for the 2nd unit. But they could coexist, their games are different in that Stephenson is best attacking the basket while Crawford is the better shooter. I don't think daddy Doc will trade or not play baby Doc.

I agree that Redick shouldn't see a loss of minutes (for exactly the reasons you list - namely, he's the best shooter on the team and their best floor-spacer). I think that the guy whose minutes SHOULD suffer would be Rivers, as in theory Stephenson does everything Rivers does but better (again, with the caveat that we're talking about the good version of Stephenson, which they may or may not get). Crawford also does everything Rivers does but better (at least right now). However, he's getting old (34) and he's not the coach's son, so he probably will be the guy who loses time. Perhaps he's traded?

Either way, the one glaring need for the Clips is a backup PG. They now have 3 guys (Stephenson, Rivers, and Crawford) who can handle the ball but are not really PGs. That makes their second unit very mercurial, and puts a lot of pressure on Paul. It would make sense if possible to move one of those three SGs for a PG, or to draft one in the draft this year.


Overall though, I think they were too quick to get rid of Barnes, who was an effective 3 and D option and the better fit in the starting line-up. Barnes' contract was very nice. I like Charlotte's side of the deal -- they get 2 shooters to help with their spacing which was very very bad.

I also like the deal for Charlotte, assuming Hawes returns to form. A pairing of Hawes and Jefferson is a near-perfect inside-outside combo at PF/C, with Hawes floating around the 15-18 foot range and Big Al eating up space on the blocks. And Barnes plays nicely off of the slashing Henderson and Walker as a floor-spacing alternative to MKG.

I think the Clips just wanted to (a) get rid of Hawes to clear space to retain Jordan and (b) take a gamble on a rejuvenated Stephenson. But it is a risky gamble for sure.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Charlotte, assuming Hawes returns to form. A pairing of Hawes and Jefferson is a near-perfect inside-outside combo at PF/C, with Hawes floating around the 15-18 foot range and Big Al eating up space on the blocks. And Barnes plays nicely off of the slashing Henderson and Walker as a floor-spacing alternative to MKG.

Yeah, offensively. Defensively, this is about as effective as Ed Curry guarding point guards. Charlotte still lacks that defensive complement to Jefferson.

[CDu]

Yeah, offensively. Defensively, this is about as effective as Ed Curry guarding point guards. Charlotte still lacks that defensive complement to Jefferson.

Yeah, unfortunately that is absolutely still a problem.

[SoCalDukeFan]

It's a weird trade on the surface. The question is really whether Stephenson is an upgrade over Barnes, and I think the answer is yes if he plays the way he did in Indiana. Stephenson is a lot younger than Barnes too.

For Charlotte, I actually liked Hawes' shooting and passing when he was stuck in the Sixers swamp, but I don't think his game really fit well with the Clips, plus he's overpriced. I hope he does well. They can cut Barnes and it will only (?) cost them $1 million next season.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the Clips aren't done yet. They still have the question of whether they can sign DeAndre Jordan, and they are obviously in "win now" mode with Blake and CP3.

From the Duke perspective, JJ and Austin will still do what they do. The Clippers have bigger needs elsewhere.

I think Doc had grown very tired of Barnes and his technicals among other things. Hawes did not fit. Stephenson has only one guaranteed year left on his contract so he might be very motivated to grow up, in any case kind of low risk.

SoCal

[darthur]

I don't think anyone considers Redick, Crawford, Curry, Thompson, or Harden good defenders. The best you can say for Redick, Curry, Thompson, and Harden is that they aren't as bad as they used to be. I'm pretty sure the metrics will show that Leonard, Iguodala, J Butler, D Green, D Howard, C Paul, and T. Allen are all very good defenders though.

Huh? Thompson is pretty much universally considered an excellent defender, and has been considered that way since the beginning. Curry was 4th in the league in steals and 4th in defensive real +/- among point guards. Golden State did not become the most efficient defensive team in the league by starting a backcourt that can't defend.

For reference, I searched for "ranking shooting guards defenders" on google and came up with this (also augmented with point guards):

Allen with 39/40 on defense: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2396358-br-nba-200-ranking-the-top-shooting-guards-of-2014-15-season/page/16

"One of six players at any position to receive a 39-of-40 in this category, Allen is an immaculate defender. He knows this is his bread and butter, and he savors every second that he gets to spend locking down the league's best, often switching onto the toughest wing assignment. Here, he's losing a single point for his off-ball work, as he was caught up in a few too many screens while tracking his man. Perfection on the less glamorous end is rather tough to achieve, even for the Grindfather."

Paul with 37/40 on defense: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2396318-br-nba-200-ranking-the-top-point-guards-of-2014-15-season/page/34

"Thanks to his smarts and undying intensity, Paul remains one of the very best defenders at his position. Going up against him in an isolation setting is a terrible idea, but it's not like it's much easier to confuse him in a pick-and-roll situation. Paul has seen all the tricks, and he knows how to control a game while his team is on defense as well as anyone, even if his off-ball work was a bit more undisciplined than normal this year."

Thompson with 36/40 on defense: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2396358-br-nba-200-ranking-the-top-shooting-guards-of-2014-15-season/page/25

"On the ball, Thompson is absolutely phenomenal, and his ability to guard dangerous wing players is a major reason that the Golden State Warriors were so adept at preventing points. However, the 25-year-old shooting guard can still be a bit sloppy when guarding someone without possession, as he's particularly prone to giving up buckets against spot-up shooters and marksmen curling off screens."

Curry with 36/40 on defense: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2396318-br-nba-200-ranking-the-top-point-guards-of-2014-15-season/page/35

"This was a huge weakness of Curry's last year, but he's put in the work necessary to become a plus defender. Though he's far better off the ball than on it, he now holds his own by understanding the system he's operating in. Curry is quite adept at pushing his man into traps and ensuring that a help defender is in place to aid the cause."

Harden with 33/40 on defense: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2396358-br-nba-200-ranking-the-top-shooting-guards-of-2014-15-season/page/26

"Harden was rightfully criticized for his defensive—how do we put this politely?—disappearances during the 2013-14 season, but that narrative didn't hold true in the follow-up campaign. Though the bearded 2-guard was prone to charging past spot-up shooters and letting them have easy paths to the lane, he made a concerted effort throughout the year and didn't need to be hidden at all times. Harden isn't—and won't ever be—a defensive star, but he actually spent the year serving as an asset, not a liability."

Redick with 28/40 on defense: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2396358-br-nba-200-ranking-the-top-shooting-guards-of-2014-15-season/page/17

"Redick is by no means a standout defender, but he's not always a liability, either. He did some solid work off the ball throughout the year, remaining highly active and doing what he could to compensate for his limited physical gifts by learning how to read passing lanes and disrupt set plays. "

Crawford with 27/40 on defense: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2396358-br-nba-200-ranking-the-top-shooting-guards-of-2014-15-season/page/12

"Crawford has been a negative on the defensive end during every season of his lengthy NBA career. He's remarkably porous in just about every situation, and it sometimes appears as if the Los Angeles Clippers are trying to defend five players with just four men when he's on the court."

I love JJ, but few outside of Duke think of him as more than an average defender in the NBA.

[Edouble]

I love JJ, but few outside of Duke think of him as more than an average defender in the NBA.

Some of us around here may be suffering from a small sample size too.

I saw JJ play in exactly two games this year... both against the Rockets in the Western Semis. In one game, I saw JJ go for 31. In the other game, I saw his man, James Harden, commit 12 turnovers. These two games made JJ look like an All Star.

[sagegrouse]

Some of us around here may be suffering from a small sample size too.

I saw JJ play in exactly two games this year... both against the Rockets in the Western Semis. In one game, I saw JJ go for 31. In the other game, I saw his man, James Harden, commit 12 turnovers. These two games made JJ look like an All Star.

The other thing is, Doc Rivers thinks JJ is a good defender, which is why he's always on the floor in crunch time.

[darthur]

The other thing is, Doc Rivers thinks JJ is a good defender, which is why he's always on the floor in crunch time.

JJ is a good player. He is one of the top shooters in the league who is so active on offense that he gets points almost no matter what the defense does, and he is extremely dangerous to help off. He also has nice playmaking abilities, as shown by his positive assist/turnover ratio in every season. And he has no glaring weaknesses in the rest of his game. That is already bringing a lot to the table.

To put things in perspective, the Clippers have only one guard on the bench who is widely considered a good NBA player: Jamal Crawford. Crawford is fun to watch, but he is (a) outright bad at defense, and (b) near the bottom of the team in offensive efficiency too. High volume and low efficiency is good to combine with a second unit that probably can't create its own shot well, and is good to bring in off the bench if the starters can't get things going. However, it's really not something you won't to mix with the starting lineup in general. And, despite all that, Crawford averaged only 4 minutes less than Redick.

Very few players are good at everything. The few players who come close (e.g. Draymond Green) are borderline stars. JJ is not that. He is really good at one thing and (by the extremely high standards of NBA players) decent at the rest. That's enough to make him the clear 4th best player on a team with arguably the best starting 5 in basketball, and is not an insult.

[CDu]

JJ is a good player. He is one of the top shooters in the league who is so active on offense that he gets points almost no matter what the defense does, and he is extremely dangerous to help off. He also has nice playmaking abilities, as shown by his positive assist/turnover ratio in every season. And he has no glaring weaknesses in the rest of his game. That is already bringing a lot to the table.

To put things in perspective, the Clippers have only one guard on the bench who is widely considered a good NBA player: Jamal Crawford. Crawford is fun to watch, but he is (a) outright bad at defense, and (b) near the bottom of the team in offensive efficiency too. High volume and low efficiency is good to combine with a second unit that probably can't create its own shot well, and is good to bring in off the bench if the starters can't get things going. However, it's really not something you won't to mix with the starting lineup in general. And, despite all that, Crawford averaged only 4 minutes less than Redick.

Very few players are good at everything. The few players who come close (e.g. Draymond Green) are borderline stars. JJ is not that. He is really good at one thing and (by the extremely high standards of NBA players) decent at the rest. That's enough to make him the clear 4th best player on a team with arguably the best starting 5 in basketball, and is not an insult.

Exactly. Redick is not on the floor in crunch time because he is a good defender. He is on the floor in crunch time because he is the best SG option on the team. He is an elite shooter/floor spacer and good enough at defense to not be a problem on that end. As you said, he is on the floor because he is a good player, not because he is a good defender. He's by no means a bad defender, but his defense is most certainly not the reason he's on the floor.