quentin richardson

[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.

EJ said that " House is one of three players on the team that when you watch their jumpshot, you think its always gonna go in" He went on to elaborate (paraphrase) that his shot motion is that of a very good jump shooter. The other two players on the team that have that kind of motion, as per EJ, are James Jones, and Nash. Sometimes, it takes one to know one. EJ was known for his jumpshot as a pro, he was one of the best jump shooters of his era. My evaluation of House was also based alot on his motion. As a high school player I remember running into guys like that, that shoot like machines, I hated it. House shoots like a machine, appears to have a highly reproducible stroke, and he rarely shoots with his feet out of position. I like House as a quick offense bench player, and I am glad that our coaching staff could envision his usefulness in our system, unlike some fans. But then again, many of us were wondering why they insisted on Diaw in the JJ trade instead of Childress or smith, and why not trade Barbosa. I guess it just says that the suns coaching staff are better judges of talent than most of us. Its a good thing.

 

[elindholm]

I guess it just says that the suns coaching staff are better judges of talent than most of us. Its a good thing.

Sing it, Martha.

Tell you what. Let's agree to remember this post when House has fallen out of the rotation later this year, and most of the board is up in arms over what a moron D'Antoni must be for letting such a potent scorer rot on the bench.

 

[boisesuns]

Shouldn't we move this to the "former suns thread"?

 

[nowagimp]

Q didnt play last night in the knicks win over the bulls(coaches decision). Me thinks that Marbury, Crawford and Q are too shot happy to play at the same time, or maybe even in the same game, for extended minutes. Of the three, at least Q doesn't generally "dribble the shot clock down" as much as the other two. This is a test for Larry Brown, who struggles coaching shot happy players.

 

[Amare32]

Larry Brown once again leaned heavily on a three-guard set, but usual starter Quentin Richardson was not anywhere near the rotation in the Knicks' 109-101 victory over the Bulls last night at the Garden.
Stephon Marbury, first-time starter Nate Robinson and Jamal Crawford (game-high 28 points) combined for 60 points and each logged at least 32 minutes of playing time. Richardson, who said he "could've played" despite Brown's assertion he had a stiff back, was the only player in uniform not to enter the game for the Knicks.

"I thought he was hurting (Tuesday). He complained about his back in practice," Brown said. "I didn't feel comfortable watching him."

Richardson, who started 10 of the Knicks' first 13 games, arrived with well-publicized back issues when the Knicks acquired him from Phoenix for Kurt Thomas over the summer. Richardson, who is shooting just 36.5% from the field after leading the NBA in three-pointers made last season, said he and Brown never discussed the possibility of sitting out the game. Instead, he said, he learned from the training staff that Brown didn't plan on playing him.

"I was a little stiff (Tuesday) and that's probably why he didn't play me," said Richardson, who is averaging 6.8 points. "I think I could've gone out there, but at the same time it's always good to get some rest."

Robinson came to the Knicks in the same offseason trade with the Suns, and the jitterbug rookie - whom Brown has called "a little nutty" on the offensive end - was inserted into the lineup for his first NBA start.

Brown said he thought starting Robinson would allow Crawford to continue providing a boost off the bench, while giving Marbury a break from guarding whoever was manning the point for the Bulls. The 5-9 Robinson netted 14points (on 4-for-12 shooting) and, more important, committed no turnovers in 35 minutes, the most he has played in one game this season.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/370635p-315280c.html

 

[Errntknght]

Eric, "...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."

I've followed this whole thread and the only objective evidence you mentioned that supports your contention that EH is not a good shot was his 3pt shooting % on 27 attempts that you selected. You have to know that is statistically unsound reasoning, which is one of the main reasons I thought you were just funning. On top of that he isn't a 3pt shooter - he tries his best to get in closer - so it's not terribly relevant.


"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 can't say I remembered that but I don't follow college basketball either - nearly everything I know about Eddie's college and NBA career I read on this board. I did look at his stats before I wrote my post to verify that what you guys were claiming was approximately right. I do recall thinking a few years ago that it was strange for Riley to have such a notorious gunner on his roster.


Eric, quoting me, "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."

Eric, "Of course, it's not a fair list."

What do mean, it's not fair? It's everyone you could possibly pick except for Steve. Did you miss the part about 'anyone else not named Nash'? (I meant anyone on our team not named Nash, in case anyone wonders.) My point was that if he is the second best shooter of contested jump shots on the team, regardless of how he stacks up against players on other teams, he is a useful guy to have on this team. Now, at any rate - we'll see how things progress over the season.


Eric, quoting me again, "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.

Eric, "I made this point before."

Good analysis. I suggested in a post here, before D'A tried it, that Eddie would respond favorably to the responsibility of subbing for Nash in Leandro's absence. I'm not trying to one up you, exactly - I just want you to realize I do watch the games and pay attention to what I see... even think about it a bit.

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.

 

[elindholm]

I've followed this whole thread and the only objective evidence you mentioned that supports your contention that EH is not a good shot was his 3pt shooting % on 27 attempts that you selected.

That, and his career FG percentages (either from distance or not), which are based on rather larger samples. I bring up his poor 3FG numbers so far this season only as a counter to those specifically talking about what wonders House has accomplished since donning the Suns uni.

On top of that he isn't a 3pt shooter

I guess he missed the memo, since he's third in the entire league in three-point attempts per 48 minutes (Edit: no, that's for overall attempts, sorry; 3FGA per 48 stats don't seem to be available, but since House is 4th in three-point makes per 48 and doesn't shoot a terribly good percentage, I'd guess that his attempts are right up there as well) and almost 30% of his career attempts are from behind the arc.

What do mean, it's not fair? It's everyone you could possibly pick except for Steve. Did you miss the part about 'anyone else not named Nash'?

I can't figure out whether your omission of Marion is an oversight or if you're making some subtler point that I'm just not getting. I'd rather have Marion with his hands on the ball in crunch time than House.

What I mean by it not being a fair list is that you've omitted the team's three best players, one of whom happens to be injured at the moment. (For that matter, you've also omitted Barbosa, who would also be preferable.) It's not all that common that any team, under any circumstances, is going to ask their fourth-best or lower player to take the final shot with the game on the line. So you're invoking a yardstick that has no practical application.

 

[Errntknght]

Eric, quoting Nowagimp, "I guess it just says that the suns coaching staff are better judges of talent than most of us. Its a good thing."

Eric >>Sing it, Martha.

Tell you what. Let's agree to remember this post when House has fallen out of the rotation later this year, and most of the board is up in arms over what a moron D'Antoni must be for letting such a potent scorer rot on the bench.<<

No way. I reserve the right to second guess D'Antoni and any other coach we might have, on any matter that comes up.

The coaches have far more information than we have access to and spend nearly all their time, one assumes, involved in the team so you would think they'd always be right. But, we have our advantages over them - we only see the really important information, the games - so there isn't any chance of it getting lost among less important information. Also, we don't have our livelihood depending on short term results, which has been known to cloud peoples' judgement.

Besides, what fun would it be coming in here if we just assumed the coaches, GM and staff were right about everything. Of course, I do think it is okay to use the words or actions of those people to lend support to an argument you might have, but if that is your whole argument, I will never buy it. And if I ever use it that way... well, just shoot me because I'm essentially dead already.

 

[elindholm]

No way. I reserve the right to second guess D'Antoni and any other coach we might have, on any matter that comes up.

Well, right. I just meant that if anyone is going to appeal to the unimpeachable authority and infallible judgment of the coaching staff, he has to be prepared to take the bad with the good.

 

[nowagimp]

Eric, quoting Nowagimp, "I guess it just says that the suns coaching staff are better judges of talent than most of us. Its a good thing."

Eric >>Sing it, Martha.

Tell you what. Let's agree to remember this post when House has fallen out of the rotation later this year, and most of the board is up in arms over what a moron D'Antoni must be for letting such a potent scorer rot on the bench.<<

No way. I reserve the right to second guess D'Antoni and any other coach we might have, on any matter that comes up.

The coaches have far more information than we have access to and spend nearly all their time, one assumes, involved in the team so you would think they'd always be right. But, we have our advantages over them - we only see the really important information, the games - so there isn't any chance of it getting lost among less important information. Also, we don't have our livelihood depending on short term results, which has been known to cloud peoples' judgement.

Besides, what fun would it be coming in here if we just assumed the coaches, GM and staff were right about everything. Of course, I do think it is okay to use the words or actions of those people to lend support to an argument you might have, but if that is your whole argument, I will never buy it. And if I ever use it that way... well, just shoot me because I'm essentially dead already.

Of course EVERONE has the right to second guess the coaching staff, even call them morons, if it is fun or desired. As for "always being right", well if you expect that from anyone, prepare to be disappointed. As for " the advantage of only seeing the games", I find that funny, as is my right. Less observation, better information. It is entertaining to hear fans going ballistic about trades that, in the end, work out well, and about players that we fail to evaluate as effectively as the coaching staff. I'd rather have that situation than a "good trade" that works out badly for the fans. The great part is the we can say a whole lot of things about basketball decisions and never be called on it. It is better to be a fan, as it should be. As fans, it is our right and the function of this network to express ourselves, though it is healthy to, every now and then, mention the before and after of controversial situations. There is no crime in being wrong, and disagreements should not be taken personally. If that can't happen this network is dysfunctional as a discussion medium.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

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.

not so much interested in this argument overall, but i have to take umbrage with you e on this one. anyone that sticks in the nba, even if it's with multiple teams has "survived." i mean, we're talking only 400-450 players in the WORLD stick in the nba. i'd say eddie has survived. nay, he's even prospered compared to a lot of ballers. he gets minutes. they may not be consistent, but he gets a lot more than some, which puts him in a VERY exclusive club.

 

[Errntknght]

Eric, quoting me, "What do mean, it's not fair? It's everyone you could possibly pick except for Steve. Did you miss the part about 'anyone else not named Nash'?"

Eric, >>I can't figure out whether your omission of Marion is an oversight or if you're making some subtler point that I'm just not getting. I'd rather have Marion with his hands on the ball in crunch time than House.

What I mean by it not being a fair list is that you've omitted the team's three best players, one of whom happens to be injured at the moment...<<

I did not omit Marion. Explain to me how this sentence that you are responding to, does not include Marion: "he'd pick Eddie over Bell, Jackson, KT, Jones, Grant and anyone else not named Nash."

Other than meaning what I said, there is nothing subtle going on.

 

[elindholm]

I did not omit Marion. Explain to me how this sentence that you are responding to, does not include Marion: "he'd pick Eddie over Bell, Jackson, KT, Jones, Grant and anyone else not named Nash."

Sorry, you're right, I did misread it.

I would not pick House over Marion or Barbosa. I probably wouldn't pick him over Bell, but I'm not sure.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Eddie House's job description is to

come off the bench
fly up and down the court at lightning speed
gun without shame
change the tempo of the game
infuse life into a team (and a crowd) that has become stagnant

He does it perfectly. He has changed the tempo so significantly in at least 3 games that we likely would not have had wins in those games without his work.

He lights the crowd up. Sitting in the crowd I watched it.

I also watch the opposition scramble to keep from him from getting off his 3's. He strikes fear in the heart of a defense. He's capable of putting alot of points on the board in a very short amount of time.

So, I'm with EK on this one.