I'm not prepared to do a three- or four-year rebuilding period and win 25 or 30 games

[ASUCHRIS]

Tmac? The guys is the furthest thing from a winner and injury prone. Sorry, I would prefer to keep JRich and his contract. At least you know the guy will stay on the court.

Sure, J-Rich will be out there, but you might as well give AI minutes, because they bring about the same contribution. Richardson is a dud and a loser...he's exactly what we don't need, a chucker who doesn't contribute anything but lots of shots.

I was excited at the prospect of him coming over, but his addition is pure fools gold. I'd rather sit him on the bench and start Leandro, at least Leandro still has room for improvement.

 

[Covert Rain]

Sure, J-Rich will be out there, but you might as well give AI minutes, because they bring about the same contribution. Richardson is a dud and a loser...he's exactly what we don't need, a chucker who doesn't contribute anything but lots of shots.

I was excited at the prospect of him coming over, but his addition is pure fools gold. I'd rather sit him on the bench and start Leandro, at least Leandro still has room for improvement.

I don't believe we used JRich properly IMO. Also, TMac is the very definition of fools gold and he doesn't play on the other side of the ball either. We don't need another guy like Amare commanding touches but not playing on the other side of the ball. With TMac your getting the same "chucker" mentality but with him bitching about not getting enough touches. That guy has never seen a shot he didn't like.

 

[elindholm]

Sure, J-Rich will be out there, but you might as well give AI minutes, because they bring about the same contribution. Richardson is a dud and a loser...he's exactly what we don't need, a chucker who doesn't contribute anything but lots of shots.

Boy, that's pretty harsh. Richardson shot 49% overall and 38% from three-point range after the trade last season, percentages Iverson couldn't sniff if he was all by himself in an empty gym. It's true that the Suns didn't figure out how to best use Richardson's talents, but by the numbers he was a top-ten SG in the league, easily.

 

[mojorizen7]

JRich:
The words anti-clutch come to mind.
I'd rather give the bulk of the minutes to Barbosa who ,unlike JRich, can actually force the opponent to adjust their defense and cause matchup problems with his speed and ability to FINISH at the rim.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Boy, that's pretty harsh. Richardson shot 49% overall and 38% from three-point range after the trade last season, percentages Iverson couldn't sniff if he was all by himself in an empty gym. It's true that the Suns didn't figure out how to best use Richardson's talents, but by the numbers he was a top-ten SG in the league, easily.

My opinion on Richardson may be a bit harsh, but I think watching him play on a consistent basis gave me a much different opinion of him. (Iverson may not be as good a shooter, but I would consider both players one trick ponies at this point.)

When we traded for Richardson I was positive he would be a big improvement at the SG position. Based on his numbers over the last couple years, I was sure he would be an improvement and a natural fit for our wide open offense. He really wasn't.

While J Rich is a perfect fit for the Suns philosophy (runs the floor,excellent scorer) those are really his only skills, which is exactly what we didn't need.

In addition, he's a hopeless defender, missing several key defensive assignments.

Worst of all, when it matters most, he is at his worst. I remembered that somebody did research about his play in the clutch, and it was Bob Young.

"Doink!

When was the last time your remember Jason Richardson hitting a shot that really mattered? We couldn't recall one, so we looked up a chart they keep at 82games.com - "clutch stats."

It tracks the production of players in either the final five minutes of regulation or in overtime when neither team leads by more than five points.

J-Glitch is shooting 23.5 percent overall this season in those stretches and 28.6 percent from 3-point range in "clutch" situations.

In other words, about what we expected"

While his stats are that of a top 10 sg, I doubt anyone would really consider him that.

 

[elindholm]

It tracks the production of players in either the final five minutes of regulation or in overtime when neither team leads by more than five points.

J-Glitch is shooting 23.5 percent overall this season in those stretches and 28.6 percent from 3-point range in "clutch" situations.

You know who else is routinely at the bottom of those "clutch" lists? Kobe Bryant. Look it up.

 

[mojorizen7]

You know who else is routinely at the bottom of those "clutch" lists? Kobe Bryant. Look it up.

Oh please....LOL

 

[ASUCHRIS]

You know who else is routinely at the bottom of those "clutch" lists? Kobe Bryant. Look it up.

So is your argument that Kobe isn't clutch, or that the stats are meaningless in regard to Jason Richardson?

After watching Richardson play the months he was here, I doubt anyone that follows the team closely would say that the stats lie in his case.

 

[mojorizen7]

So is your argument that Kobe isn't clutch, or that the stats are meaningless in regard to Jason Richardson?

After watching Richardson play the months he was here, I doubt anyone that follows the team closely would say that the stats lie in his case.

They don't IMO. JRich rarely hit a shot when we needed it. He also was horrible around the rim unless he was all alone on a breakaway.
There are some on this board that would debate their mother about their own birthdate just to be "that guy."

 

[elindholm]

So is your argument that Kobe isn't clutch, or that the stats are meaningless in regard to Jason Richardson?

The latter. I don't remember very many "clutch" situations that Richardson was put in one way or the other. If the stats say he did poorly in them, okay. ("28.6 percent" sounds suspiciously like 2-for-7, by the way.) But in any case, you're talking about a small, distorted sample, which is why I made the Bryant comparison.

Richardson was almost never higher than the third offensive option, and it seemed clear to me that he wasn't comfortable after the trade. So far, I'd say that he has been a disappointment. But branding him "a dud and a loser" when he shot almost 50/40 seems a gross and unhelpful exaggeration.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

The latter. I don't remember very many "clutch" situations that Richardson was put in one way or the other. If the stats say he did poorly in them, okay. ("28.6 percent" sounds suspiciously like 2-for-7, by the way.) But in any case, you're talking about a small, distorted sample, which is why I made the Bryant comparison.

Richardson was almost never higher than the third offensive option, and it seemed clear to me that he wasn't comfortable after the trade. So far, I'd say that he has been a disappointment. But branding him "a dud and a loser" when he shot almost 50/40 seems a gross and unhelpful exaggeration.

It was just one of those stats that really made sense to me, I remember time after time in the 4th quarter when he would make a stupid mistake, or couldn't make a shot to save his life, to see that he shot statistically so poorly in those situations was no surprise. Because he does so poorly in important situations, it makes his overall impressive shooting performance more of an empty statistic to me.

Maybe calling him a dud and loser is a bit much, but boneheaded certainly wouldn't be a stretch. Between getting a dui, driving 85 in a 50 zone with a unrestrained child, and his many memorable defensive lapses, his judgment so far has been less than impressive.

 

[elindholm]

Maybe calling him a dud and loser is a bit much, but boneheaded certainly wouldn't be a stretch. Between getting a dui, driving 85 in a 50 zone with a unrestrained child, and his many memorable defensive lapses, his judgment so far has been less than impressive.

I agree that his off-court behavior has been unacceptable. However, sometimes that's a price that an NBA team must pay to be successful.

As for his "many memorable defensive lapses," there were a couple of well publicized ones right after he joined the team, but other than that, I haven't found him to be any worse than most of the roster. A team with no defensive identity, no defensive system, and several players with no defensive clue is going to make nearly everyone look bad.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

A team with no defensive identity, no defensive system, and several players with no defensive clue is going to make nearly everyone look bad.

Exactly, but his presence certainly didn't improve the situation. What to do to improve the current defensive situation is a much bigger issue. Beyond the addition of at least one superior defender (really hope it's Tyson Chandler) I really expect next year to be more of the same.

That's why I'd also be fine with blowing it up and starting over, although that is a scary proposition with Kerr at the helm. Unfortunately blowing it up also means giving up a high lottery pick next year, making the rebuilding part all the more difficult.

 

[elindholm]

Exactly, but his presence certainly didn't improve the situation. What to do to improve the current defensive situation is a much bigger issue. Beyond the addition of at least one superior defender (really hope it's Tyson Chandler) I really expect next year to be more of the same.

Yes, there's no quick fix. Richardson is gone in two years. Whether it's trading him at a big loss or getting all worked up over his weaknesses in the meantime, neither panicked response seems warranted. This team can't do anything until the summer of 2011 anyway.

That's why I'd also be fine with blowing it up and starting over, although that is a scary proposition with Kerr at the helm.

No matter who is at the helm now, the franchise has almost no assets.

 

[Covert Rain]

This clutch talk is total crap. How many times to JRich actually see a clutch situation all season? That stat is meaningless. The only time that Stat means anything is when that player is your go to player down the stretch or your super star.

JRich's numbers were top 10. He's better then most SG. If you want him to perform better then you need to use him right or run plays through him. The coaching staff even admitted they didn't run plays through JRich. I am impressed he put up the numbers he did considering.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

This clutch talk is total crap. How many times to JRich actually see a clutch situation all season? That stat is meaningless. The only time that Stat means anything is when that player is your go to player down the stretch or your super star.

JRich's numbers were top 10. He's better then most SG. If you want him to perform better then you need to use him right or run plays through him. The coaching staff even admitted they didn't run plays through JRich. I am impressed he put up the numbers he did considering.

Where to start? I guess you aren't much of a fan of statistical analysis, and maybe you don't find it important that a player shoots well when games are close, especially near the end. Personally, I think those things matter.

Apparently in your mind, the only player on the court that counts in the last 5 minutes of a game is a super star...interesting.

J-Rich's numbers may be top ten, but I doubt you'd find anyone who would argue that he is a top ten shooting guard. Again, you have to look at what else he brings to the table, which unfortunately isn't much.

 

[elindholm]

J-Rich's numbers may be top ten, but I doubt you'd find anyone who would argue that he is a top ten shooting guard.

You've already found two people who are arguing exactly that.

So the ball's in your court. Which ten SGs are clearly better than Richardson? Here, I'll start:

Bryant
Wade
Johnson
Roy
Kevin Martin

Five more?

 

[mojorizen7]

^Leandro Barbosa

 

[ASUCHRIS]

You've already found two people who are arguing exactly that.

So the ball's in your court. Which ten SGs are clearly better than Richardson? Here, I'll start:

Bryant
Wade
Johnson
Roy
Kevin Martin

Five more?

I was under the impression that both of you were of the opinion that his numbers were top 10, not that he is.

Anyway, I'll put the obvious ones in a list, followed by players I would take over Richardson.

Better:
Ray Allen
Vince Carter
Manu
Ben Gordon
Igoudala
Rip Hamilton
OJ Mayo
Michael Redd

Can Make a Strong Argument:
Jamal Crawford
Leandro
Iverson
McGrady
Pietrus


Still think he is a top 10 sg?

 

[Bufalay]

You've already found two people who are arguing exactly that.

So the ball's in your court. Which ten SGs are clearly better than Richardson? Here, I'll start:

Bryant
Wade
Johnson
Roy
Kevin Martin

Five more?

Manure

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

While he didnt meet my hopes of what he could do for this team, JRich did just fine considering he was thrown to a team already in turmoil. I think he will do much better in a fresh new season with Gentry allowing him to do what he does best.

 

[elindholm]

Better:
Ray Allen
Vince Carter
Manu
Ben Gordon
Igoudala
Rip Hamilton
OJ Mayo
Michael Redd

Allen, now, yes. He's at the end of his career, but as of now, he's better.

Carter -- you complain about Richardson not bringing intangibles to the table? Please.

Ginobili, yes.

Gordon is a chucker, but I guess you could say he's more dynamic.

Iguodala is a SF, but if you want to call him a SG, then yes, he's better.

Hamilton is a better defender than Richardson, but shoots less well. I consider that one a tossup.

Mayo, not yet, but maybe soon.

Redd, no. One-dimensional, can't stay healthy, and his percentages go down every year.

So on that list, the only clear winners are Allen and Ginobili. Iguodala requires a position change, and obviously if you throw the competition open to any SG/SF, cracking the top ten becomes more difficult. With Carter, Gordon, and Hamilton, it's personal preference. Mayo and Redd are, at this moment, below Richardson's level, and by the time Mayo overtakes him (or Redd finds the fountain of youth), Allen will be out of the picture.

Jamal Crawford
Leandro
Iverson
McGrady
Pietrus

Crawford, you must be joking. The guy shoots 40% from the field. Anyone can put up big numbers if he takes 20 shots a game on a team that always loses.

Barbosa -- wait a minute, I thought you were down on Richardson because he's bad defensively and doesn't convert in the clutch? It's not fair to hold different players to different sets of expectations.

Iverson and McGrady can't play anymore.

Pietrus can't even earn the starting position on his own team, so that ought to tell you something.

Still think he is a top 10 sg?

Top 10, top 12, somewhere around there.

 

[cly2tw]

I believe JRich's main problem is similar to Amare's and Marion's: Relying too much on pure athletism. His body is on par with MJ and Kobe, but the latter worked hard to develop ball handling and all around game. JRich only has limited ball handling ability and his drives to hoops are as predictable as LB's and Amare's, without actually having the finishing touch of Amare who convert a lot of +1s.

 

[Covert Rain]

Where to start? I guess you aren't much of a fan of statistical analysis, and maybe you don't find it important that a player shoots well when games are close, especially near the end. Personally, I think those things matter.

Apparently in your mind, the only player on the court that counts in the last 5 minutes of a game is a super star...interesting.

J-Rich's numbers may be top ten, but I doubt you'd find anyone who would argue that he is a top ten shooting guard. Again, you have to look at what else he brings to the table, which unfortunately isn't much.

Not a fan of stats? You have not read many of my posts have you? Also, I think you have many people on this thread that would argue he is.

A player can't be clutch if he doesn't have the ball during crucial moments or in a closing moment in a game. Nash was our go to guy in crucial moments. Amare or Shaq got the ball down low in close games.

Also, what I said was that being "clutch" is a bogus stat unless your the guy (like your star) who gets the ball ON A REGULAR BASIS during clutch moments in the game. JRich was not that player and that's why it's bogus.

 

[Mulli]

Salmons is better.