quentin richardson

[Arizona's Finest]

He's shooting 52% in the Suns 3 game winning streak. Yeah it was against subpar teams and it's stretching that he'll even be shooting over 35% for the season, but he's a bargain for 900k. One of those outbursts a month is fine with me, maybe he'll even gain enough confidence to have one in the playoffs. When Barbosa comes back, I hope D'Antoni throws out some rotations that include Eddie and the Blur in the backcourt. The two fastest players on the team can raise hell on the D.

Im not even worried about your post but i have one question:

Is your screen name for real or are you just looking for attention.....

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Getting somewhat back to the subject of this thread. House on the other hand is a crappy version of Q.

Yeah Neo, the difference is that Q started and House is the tenth man off the bench. I dont know how we can even argue about House being a viable 9th or 10th man.......He scored 31 points a game against Utah and won the game for us....He could go scoreless the rest of the season and that would have made him worth it...How many tenth men in this league are good for even winning a team one game. I am very happy with the House signing so far and you should be too. Dont expect too much............

 

[George O'Brien]

House bounced around and did not really show much until last season with the Kings. Good and bad, he reminds me of Tony Delk.

Quentin Richardson
New York Knicks
Position: G-F
Height: 6-6 Weight: 230
College : DePaul
Player file | Team stats

2005-06 Statistics
PPG 6.8
RPG 3.8
APG 1.3
SPG .75
BPG .08
FG% .365
FT% .600
3P% .400
MPG 23.2

Eddie House
Phoenix Suns
Position: G
Height: 6-1 Weight: 175
College : Arizona State
Player file | Team stats

2005-06 Statistics
PPG 7.9
RPG .9
APG 1.4
SPG .42
BPG .33
FG% .488
FT% .600
3P% .378
MPG 12.8

 

[elindholm]

Good and bad, he reminds me of Tony Delk.

I was going to say he reminded me of Joe Crispin, and then cite Eddie Johnson's statistics to reinforce the point.

 

[hcsilla]

I was going to say he reminded me of Joe Crispin, and then cite Eddie Johnson's statistics to reinforce the point.

Although House is quicker I give my vote to the Crispin-comparison because Delk was bigger and more of a slasher than House (which isn't saying much).

 

[nowagimp]

Well let me see, he shot 46% from 3 last year for the Kings and even those who dont like him say he shoots a "respectable percentage".... I guess its all in the eye of the beholder.

Not really. The question is whether he can sustain his dramatically improved numbers from last season, or whether that was just a fluke. If he shoots 40+%, then I say sure, fire away baby, and we'll take the misses as part of the package. But he's already down to 38% this year, which is still good, but not really anything to write home about. And if you subtract out the insane game against Utah -- which was spectacular, but was, after all, only one game -- he's shooting a paltry 7-26, which is 27%.

So basically we're talking, so far, about someone who shoots a terrible percentage (no way is 27% "respectable"), but once a month blows up and can't miss. To me, that's not the kind of weapon any good team should be excited about.

Wow, a statistically relevant estimation of shot accuracy from 27 shots! I am in awe. No sense in playing the rest of the season, trade him!!

 

[elindholm]

Wow, a statistically relevant estimation of shot accuracy from 27 shots!

Well, that's why I said "so far," of course.

It's not like he shot a whole lot more (62 attempts) with the Kings last season, which is what everyone wants to point to as proof of his improvement. If you want a big sample, you have to look at his career 3FG%, which is .362. Other than that, there's no reason to prefer one small sample over another.

 

[myrondizzo]

last season he took 97 shots from three and averaged 45%. id rather base my judgement on 97 shots than 27.

 

[justAndy]

I have fond memories of C Jacobson attempting to drive the ball and his no hops layup attempts getting swatted with regularity.

 

[nowagimp]

Wow, a statistically relevant estimation of shot accuracy from 27 shots!

Well, that's why I said "so far," of course.

It's not like he shot a whole lot more (62 attempts) with the Kings last season, which is what everyone wants to point to as proof of his improvement. If you want a big sample, you have to look at his career 3FG%, which is .362. Other than that, there's no reason to prefer one small sample over another.

The same argument could be used against Joe Johnson as a 3 pt shooter: 1 good year, otherwise 30-35%. He's probably not shooting a better percentage from 3 than House this year or for his career. But I know that JJ is a very good shooter. Eddie House is obviously a good shooter, to say otherwise is just overlooking the facts. The question is can he get his shot off in the offense that he plays in. Maybe, Maybe not. I submit that the Kings offense is an offense that provides open perimter shooting due to good ball movement on the perimeter. In that offense, he thrived, like JJ thrived in PHX. If eddie has possesion of the ball with the defender on him and 6 seconds on the shot clock, its not gonna be a high percentage shot. I think that his worst minutes are when he is responsible for moving the ball around in the offense. If he's playing PG and Diaw is moving the ball around, I like him as an offensive option. If he's doing alot of ball handling and has to create his own shot I dont like it at all. All the analogies: a crummy version of Q, a poor mans Delk are irrelevant. Those guys were paid alot and were used as starters or 6-7th men. Eddie may not even get significant minutes when Barbosa and Amare come back.

So House had only one outstanding game and maybe 2 other very productive games(9-13pts). Realize that the scouts for future opponents know this and will not leave him alone at the 3pt line. This is good, it creates better spacing for our other offensive options when he is in the game. The opposing zone defenses will be a little more stretched, opening up the penetrations(hopefully Barbosa comes back soon) and passing lanes. Casey Jacobsen never did this for the suns or any NBA team.

 

[nathan]

I have fond memories of C Jacobson attempting to drive the ball and his no hops layup attempts getting swatted with regularity.

I remember one time he actually drove and dunked it and I was shocked. I don't think I ever saw him do anything close to that again.

 

[elindholm]

last season he took 97 shots from three and averaged 45%. id rather base my judgement on 97 shots than 27.

Fine, but wouldn't basing the judgment on 602 shots be even better?

The same argument could be used against Joe Johnson as a 3 pt shooter: 1 good year, otherwise 30-35%.

Joe Johnson shot 370 three-pointers last season. It's really not a valid comparison.

He's probably not shooting a better percentage from 3 than House this year or for his career.

Johnson is a career .378 shooter from three-point range, compared to .362 for House. House has the edge so far this season.

Eddie House is obviously a good shooter, to say otherwise is just overlooking the facts.

Which "facts" would I be overlooking? The fact that you say he's a good shooter? Or that once in a blue moon he "gets hot" and makes a bunch?

Realize that the scouts for future opponents know this and will not leave him alone at the 3pt line.

It depends on how smart the scouts are. If they realize that having House fire away is more likely to hurt the Suns then help them, they'll give him just enough room to attempt ill-advised shots. I know that's what I'd do.

I submit that the Kings offense is an offense that provides open perimter shooting due to good ball movement on the perimeter. In that offense, he thrived, like JJ thrived in PHX.

That's entirely possible. I'm not saying that House can't prove to be an adequate shooter in the Phoenix offense -- only that, so far, the evidence isn't very encouraging.

Casey Jacobsen never did this for the suns or any NBA team.

This would be relevant if I had many any reference at all to Jacobsen, which I haven't. I suppose I'd pick Jacobsen if I had to have one and those were the only two options, but that's only because Jacobsen was more successful at driving to the basket and drawing fouls. (Over his career, House shoots less than a pair of free throws every 48 minutes, which is an amazing statistic.) I was never a big fan of Jacobsen's long-distance shooting.

 

[nowagimp]

Wow, a statistically relevant estimation of shot accuracy from 27 shots!

Well, that's why I said "so far," of course.

It's not like he shot a whole lot more (62 attempts) with the Kings last season, which is what everyone wants to point to as proof of his improvement. If you want a big sample, you have to look at his career 3FG%, which is .362. Other than that, there's no reason to prefer one small sample over another.

Actually playing fast and loose with statistics has its shortcomings. I dont think that a single sports statmeister can defend the significance of his stats with statistical rigor. What distribution do the population statistics follow? Never heard an answer by any "sports statistician" to that one.

Calling a game "insane" does not mean it can be removed from the sample population, especially one with a small number of games(samples) overall. Secondly, last years data came against a larger number of opposing defenses, and is therefore even more reliable in a general sense than the 3X more samples would indicate. Third, any pro scout would tell you that FG% depends on the defense and the type of offense that is used to break down that defense. Are these last second, heavily defended shots? Since the Kings offense of last year is more similar to the Suns offense than the other teams that House played for, it is probably a substantially better indicator of House's expected performance in the suns offense. Fourth, if a player is developing(a sliding mean), the more recent performances(not the first two years of his career) are probably more indicative of where that player is now. If he is learning a new offensive system or playing with new teammates, it make take some time for the adjustments.

Because of these concerns, we are all playing fast and loose with sports statistics. Its just that failure to consider these influencing factors makes the stats faster and looser. In actuality, the performance of athletes should be broken into a number of smaller populations, considering the influences that change the population statistics. Averaging across all populations is especially ineffective if a player has played in a number of different teams/systems, like House. So yes, there is a difference between the 27 shots this year and the 97 last. I would even say that with Barbosa or Nash in the game, House would get more open shots since Barbosa's (or Nash's) presence will cause Houses' defender to stay closer to the lane.

If one says I don't like the ability of House to take a shot while defended, I tend to agree, he's obviously a better catch and shoot guy. But "House is not a good shooter" is a trivialized evaluation.

 

[haverford]

Actually playing fast and loose with statistics has its shortcomings. I dont think that a single sports statmeister can defend the significance of his stats with statistical rigor. What distribution do the population statistics follow? Never heard an answer by any "sports statistician" to that one.

Calling a game "insane" does not mean it can be removed from the sample population, especially one with a small number of games(samples) overall. Secondly, last years data came against a larger number of opposing defenses, and is therefore even more reliable in a general sense than the 3X more samples would indicate. Third, any pro scout would tell you that FG% depends on the defense and the type of offense that is used to break down that defense. Are these last second, heavily defended shots? Since the Kings offense of last year is more similar to the Suns offense than the other teams that House played for, it is probably a substantially better indicator of House's expected performance in the suns offense. Fourth, if a player is developing(a sliding mean), the more recent performances(not the first two years of his career) are probably more indicative of where that player is now. If he is learning a new offensive system or playing with new teammates, it make take some time for the adjustments.

Because of these concerns, we are all playing fast and loose with sports statistics. Its just that failure to consider these influencing factors makes the stats faster and looser. In actuality, the performance of athletes should be broken into a number of smaller populations, considering the influences that change the population statistics. Averaging across all populations is especially ineffective if a player has played in a number of different teams/systems, like House. So yes, there is a difference between the 27 shots this year and the 97 last. I would even say that with Barbosa or Nash in the game, House would get more open shots since Barbosa's (or Nash's) presence will cause Houses' defender to stay closer to the lane.

If one says I don't like the ability of House to take a shot while defended, I tend to agree, he's obviously a better catch and shoot guy. But "House is not a good shooter" is a trivialized evaluation.

Which may be another way of saying (as I, an English professor rather than stats person, would prefer) that discussing the merits of players and teams at this level is also a matter of art, in addition to science. And that is not to say that the "gut" has the final say, but that we can talk persuasively about the value of a player without reducing all conversations to numbers. Not that there's anything wrong with numbers, but that they are one part of a fuller analysis.

 

[nowagimp]

Which may be another way of saying (as I, an English professor rather than stats person, would prefer) that discussing the merits of players and teams at this level is also a matter of art, in addition to science. And that is not to say that the "gut" has the final say, but that we can talk persuasively about the value of a player without reducing all conversations to numbers. Not that there's anything wrong with numbers, but that they are one part of a fuller analysis.

Essentially you have captured the meaning, with an emphasis that all number are not equal and that often numbers are not sufficient in evaluating the impact of a player. Thats why they have pro scouts, not just stats guys.

 

[elindholm]

Actually playing fast and loose with statistics has its shortcomings... (long analysis deleted)

This is all very well argued, but you still haven't explained why it's a "fact" that House is a good shooter.

 

[nowagimp]

Actually playing fast and loose with statistics has its shortcomings... (long analysis deleted)

This is all very well argued, but you still haven't explained why it's a "fact" that House is a good shooter.

I believe I said its "obvious he's a good shooter". He is a career 80.7% foul shooter(these are open shots, of course), and it appears that the only reason he's stayed in the NBA is because he can shoot. I only said he is a "good shooter" not very good or great. What is a good shooter according to you, anyway? How would you explain his survival in the NBA? It surely cant be his ball handling, passing, rebounding, defense, or dribble penetration moves have kept him in the NBA. You almost have to be a UA fan to think that House can't shoot. And you have to be an ASU fan to think that he can pass, dribble, rebound, defend. I am neither, and only call it like I see it. He is shooting only 38% from 3 this year, but 58% from inside the arc. I havent seen him go to the hoop much, so I'm betting that the 58% are primarily mid range jumpers. Of course, he has tailed off since Barbosa went down. I guess we'll see as the season progresses.

 

[elindholm]

I believe I said its "obvious he's a good shooter".

You followed that up by saying that to argue otherwise would be "overlooking the facts," but I concede the point.

What is a good shooter according to you, anyway?

It depends on the position, of course, but basically I would define a good shooter in the NBA as someone who is better than the NBA average at his position on the shots that he takes. I don't think 80% is particularly good for a PG/SG (or whatever we call House), but I could be wrong. We've argued his FG% to death, so I won't go back there.

How would you explain his survival in the NBA?

He hasn't survived. His original team gave him three years, then gave up. The Clippers let him shoot 36% overall for a season, then sent him packing. He split time between three different squads last year, failing to catch on with any of them. And now the Suns picked him up only because they knew he'd appeal to the local fan base, and they had to do something to throw more wood on the fire once Stoudemire went down. Once Barbosa comes back, House's time figures to all but disappear, and I can pretty much guarantee that he won't do any better with the next club that takes a flyer on him.

 

[nowagimp]

I believe I said its "obvious he's a good shooter".

You followed that up by saying that to argue otherwise would be "overlooking the facts," but I concede the point.

What is a good shooter according to you, anyway?

It depends on the position, of course, but basically I would define a good shooter in the NBA as someone who is better than the NBA average at his position on the shots that he takes. I don't think 80% is particularly good for a PG/SG (or whatever we call House), but I could be wrong. We've argued his FG% to death, so I won't go back there.

How would you explain his survival in the NBA?

He hasn't survived. His original team gave him three years, then gave up. The Clippers let him shoot 36% overall for a season, then sent him packing. He split time between three different squads last year, failing to catch on with any of them. And now the Suns picked him up only because they knew he'd appeal to the local fan base, and they had to do something to throw more wood on the fire once Stoudemire went down. Once Barbosa comes back, House's time figures to all but disappear, and I can pretty much guarantee that he won't do any better with the next club that takes a flyer on him.

So he's played 5000 minutes(309 games 16 mins a game) over six years in the NBA and he "hasn't survived". I guess he needs to make more money so he can feed his family, so they can survive. House cant play D, cant rebound, cant pass, cant handle the ball, and according to you can't shoot. I guess all these stupid NBA types aren't as smart as you, since they kept him around for 6 years so far. By the way, Dwayne Wade shoots 75.6% free throws for his career so I guess he can't shoot, either. Fortunately, Dwane can do other things, I guess.

 

[elindholm]

I guess all these stupid NBA types aren't as smart as you, since they kept him around for 6 years so far.

Considering that four different teams have dumped him in the last year and a half, I'd say they're plenty smart.

So he's played 5000 minutes ... over six years in the NBA

You make that sound like a lot. Jacobsen, this board's favorite dumping boy, has played 4800 in just three years. Jake Tsakalidis, whom most everyone regards as the ultimate stiff, has played just short of 4000. So that's the category of "survivor" that House is in.

 

[Errntknght]

It is obvious that Eddie House is a very good shot. The opponents aren't busting their behinds to try to keep him tightly covered because he's a lousy shot! And he's still knocking down 48%, according to the stats you all seem to agree on. To top it off, EJ says House can flat out shoot. What more do you need.

Frankly, I don't think Eric believes what he's saying... I think he's just having fun trying to see if he win an argument when he knows he's wrong. I'll bet if he actually had to pick the guy to take the final determining, contested jump shot in a game now and he'd pick Eddie over Bell, Jackson, KT, Jones, Grant and anyone else not named Nash. Maybe he'd pick Diaw who is proving to be cool under fire. I know I'd pick House - at least if the game was at home.

EJ said a couple times during the game that House is shooting much better at home than on the road - I hadn't noticed that breakdown but looking back it seems to fit. I don't mind that at all - the rest of the guys seem to play better on the road so it's a nice balance to have someone who shoots better in Phoenix. Heck, our improvement on the home court of late coincides with EH playing more minutes... could be something to that.

In any case, he has had a significant contribution to several winning games so I'm happy he's on the team - regardless of his history or stats.

Since Leandro went down, Eddie has been the PG relieving Nash and doing a pretty fair job - much better than Barbosa did last year, for example. Of course, it helps a lot to have Boris doing most of the play making but Eddie is making some plays, too... he's had games with 5 and 4 assists which I'd guess is right up there with Barbosa's best assist games. The main thing is that the whole team seems comfortable with House running the show and during those stretches he stops playing the designated gunner role. I congratulate D'Antoni for making that smart(so far) move. Note that he did not choose Jackson or Bell for the job - and before the season I'd wager that we'd have all agreed he'd give them the nod ahead of Eddie.

The one thing I don't like is Nash and House on the floor together for very long. Sometimes it's necessary but two short guards who are not ball hawks will be taken advantage of if you go too long with them. In the second half tonight Indiana got to doing it, I thought.

I suppose I'd better put a caveat in here that I'm not trying to claim or insinuate that I think House is better than Barbosa - I made the comparison because they've played similar roles. Some people will leap at anything to put words into your mouth and then gleefully refute them.

 

[elindholm]

I think he's just having fun trying to see if he win an argument when he knows he's wrong.

Not a chance. I can't even understand how you'd come up with such a theory. I'm not saying I'd never do such a thing, because I might, but in this case my position is so obviously supported by the objective evidence I'd expect any rational person to reach the same conclusion. Obviously I'm wrong in that respect, but it doesn't mean I'm shadow boxing just for a kick.

Remember, I don't follow college sports. I haven't seen the brilliant House of several years ago that seems to have burned an indelible scar on everyone else's memories. All I have is the book of his NBA career. In fact, I'll admit right now that I had barely heard of House before the Suns picked him up, and I doubt I'd ever seen him play. I started with a blank slate, and this is what I see.

I'll bet if he actually had to pick the guy to take the final determining, contested jump shot in a game now and he'd pick Eddie over Bell, Jackson, KT, Jones, Grant and anyone else not named Nash.

Of course, it's not a fair list. Jackson and Thomas aren't very quick, so they aren't likely to be able to create space for a buzzer-beater. Grant is glacial and so is only an option when he would catch the defense completely by surprise, as in the Kings (?) game earlier this season. Jones has very little experience in any setting with the game on the line. I guess that leaves Bell, but he's not a very attractive option either. Saying that House can make a case for being in the same company is hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

[nowagimp]

It is obvious that Eddie House is a very good shot. The opponents aren't busting their behinds to try to keep him tightly covered because he's a lousy shot! And he's still knocking down 48%, according to the stats you all seem to agree on. To top it off, EJ says House can flat out shoot. What more do you need.

Frankly, I don't think Eric believes what he's saying... I think he's just having fun trying to see if he win an argument when he knows he's wrong. I'll bet if he actually had to pick the guy to take the final determining, contested jump shot in a game now and he'd pick Eddie over Bell, Jackson, KT, Jones, Grant and anyone else not named Nash. Maybe he'd pick Diaw who is proving to be cool under fire. I know I'd pick House - at least if the game was at home.

EJ said a couple times during the game that House is shooting much better at home than on the road - I hadn't noticed that breakdown but looking back it seems to fit. I don't mind that at all - the rest of the guys seem to play better on the road so it's a nice balance to have someone who shoots better in Phoenix. Heck, our improvement on the home court of late coincides with EH playing more minutes... could be something to that.

In any case, he has had a significant contribution to several winning games so I'm happy he's on the team - regardless of his history or stats.

Since Leandro went down, Eddie has been the PG relieving Nash and doing a pretty fair job - much better than Barbosa did last year, for example. Of course, it helps a lot to have Boris doing most of the play making but Eddie is making some plays, too... he's had games with 5 and 4 assists which I'd guess is right up there with Barbosa's best assist games. The main thing is that the whole team seems comfortable with House running the show and during those stretches he stops playing the designated gunner role. I congratulate D'Antoni for making that smart(so far) move. Note that he did not choose Jackson or Bell for the job - and before the season I'd wager that we'd have all agreed he'd give them the nod ahead of Eddie.

The one thing I don't like is Nash and House on the floor together for very long. Sometimes it's necessary but two short guards who are not ball hawks will be taken advantage of if you go too long with them. In the second half tonight Indiana got to doing it, I thought.

I suppose I'd better put a caveat in here that I'm not trying to claim or insinuate that I think House is better than Barbosa - I made the comparison because they've played similar roles. Some people will leap at anything to put words into your mouth and then gleefully refute them.

Nah, I disagree. House can't shoot, EJ can't evaluate shooters better than Eric, and I dont really mean what I'm saying.

 

[elindholm]

The main thing is that the whole team seems comfortable with House running the show and during those stretches he stops playing the designated gunner role.

I made this point before. I've been less annoyed with House since Barbosa went down, because he has scaled back his shot frequency somewhat. He's fallen all the way to #3 in the league in shots per 48 minutes.

I couldn't watch last night's game, but I can see House put up excellent numbers. Maybe he's found a role in which he can really flourish, but it will take more than a few games to convince me.

 

[myrondizzo]

he also dropped #9 in points per min.