2008/09 Player Evaluation: Javaris Crittenton
Previously: Oleksiy Pecherov, Juan DIxon, Etan Thomas.
STATS (Wiz only)
Per-game: 20.2 minutes, 5.3 points, 2.9 rebounds, 2.6 assists, 1.4 turnovers
Per-36 minutes: 9.5 points, 5.1 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 2.5 turnovers
Percentages: 45.9 FG%, 59.3 FT%, 46.3 eFG%, 48.8 TS%
Advanced (explanations): 10.3 PER, 8.4 REB%, 19.7 AST%, 20.5 TO%, 15.5 UsgR, 97 ORtg, 115 DRtg, 0 WSAA (win score above average).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Prada: The good news about Javaris Crittenton is that he is resilient, coachable and hyper-aggressive in creating plays. In other words, despite being only 21 years old, you never have to question his effort. Unfortunately, his on-court production still leaves a lot to be desired. There’s hope, sure, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that Crittenton secured a long-term rotation spot and hence became a significant asset.
That’s not to say there isn’t anything to like about Crittenton. I for one was very impressed by his on-court aggressiveness. He was very good driving to the basket and trying to make plays for other people. He drew fouls on 12.1 percent of his used possessions while with the Wizards, a percentage topped only by Caron Butler, Antawn Jamison and Dominic McGuire. He also did a great job of pushing the ball in transition, which is key for a second unit that will be entrusted with changing the tempo of the game next season, assuming everyone returns. His defensive energy was also very solid, as he did a very good job pressuring point guards as they brought the ball up the floor.Those are all qualities of a good backup point guard, particularly one who must spell one of the team’s best players. Anyone playing behind a healthy Gilbert Arenas won’t be getting starters minutes, but with Arenas’ injured knee a concern, it is important to rest him more than usual next year. Crittenton at least showed that he has the potential to change the tempo of the game in the 10-15 minutes he’ll need to play.
There are also plenty of problems, though. Most of the criticism I’ve read is centered around Crittenton’s awful perimeter shooting. That criticism is well-deserved in some respects—his effective field goal percentage on jumpers was a dreadful 23.9 percent. I’m less concerned about this than most, however, because there are plenty of backup point guards in the NBA that can’t shoot. The Wizards employed one in Antonio Daniels for several years and were plenty successful with him playing a key role.
The far greater problem is Crittenton’s ball-handling. It’s nice that he pushes the ball, but he needs to do a much better job staying in control. He turned it over on 20.5 percent of his used possessions, which is horrendous for any player, much less a point guard. I don’t really mind that he doesn’t score much or shoot well, but I do mind that he’s giving away key possessions. Backup point guards can survive without a shot; they can’t survive if they are turnover machines.
This is not a problem that improved with playing time either. In February, before Crittenton was getting starter minutes, Ed Tapscott said: "The best thing about Javaris is that he has an impact on the game, and sometimes the worst thing about Javaris is that he has an impact on the game." It was typical Tascottese, but the point was pretty clear: slow down, Javaris. I’ve killed Tapscott for a lot this year, but he pinpointed Javaris’ problem perfectly and did a lot of work in trying to fix it. Yet as Kevin Broom pointed out in early April, Crittenton’s turnover problems actually got worse as the season progressed.
"His turnovers went from 2.1 per 40 in January to 3.2 in February to 2.7 in March. His assist/turnover ratio — a key number for any player, but especially PGs — went from 2.7 in January to 1.9 in February to 1.7 in March. Wrong direction."
That’s why, even in Michael Lee’s mostly positive (Kevin would say overly positive) feature on Crittenton, Tapscott still "stressed the importance of Crittenton playing at various speeds rather than just one."
Still, lest you think this is overly negative, there is some historical precedence that shows one can dramatically improve their ball-handling. During his rookie season in 1997/98, Antonio Daniels, then a member with the Grizzlies, turned the ball over on 20.8 percent of his possessions. He feuded with coach Brian Hill and was a major disappointment, in large part because of his inability to control tempo and the ball. Now, he’s known as one of the NBA’s sure-handed ball-handlers, even though he handles it a lot and makes many mad dashes to the rim. Daniels also has never really developed a jumper, getting by because he handles the ball extremely well and plays under control.
For Crittenton to survive in this league, he needs to cut his turnovers way down. Let’s hope he follows Daniels’ path to success.
JakeTheSnake: Javaris Crittenton has some things that are going for him. He's a good rebounder for his size, he's fairly effective scoring in the paint, he's got gobs of athleticism, and he seems to know what he's doing defensively. All of this would be great if he was about 5 inches taller. As it stands, all of those qualities are nice extras, but he still needs some work on the skills that will help him survive in this league playing point guard.
Since he arrived in the trade, he's been called the team's purest point guard. That may be true, but I think it says more about Crittenton's shot-selection than it does about his passing ability. He only averaged 2/10ths of an assist more per 36 minutes than Mike James and he averaged 4/10ths of a turnover more than James did this season. He created some nice scoring opportunities running the fast break this season, but he also squandered other opportunities by trying to do too much in transition.
His shooting could also use plenty of work. An eFG% of .239 on jumpers isn't going to cut it in this league, especially for a point guard. I'd even go so far as to say that it's more important for Crittenton to develop a jump shot this off-season than Dominic McGuire, because the longer that he goes without developing one, the more opposing teams can play off of him and keep him from penetrating, which limits his ability to score and create opportunities for others.
The good news is that Crittenton is still young and he can still work on all of the issues that I just listed. I, for one, am going to be very interested in seeing how he's used next season as a backup point guard and in tandem with Gilbert Arenas at times. I think he'll be ready for the challenge.
Truthaboutit: I really like the move Ernie Grunfeld made to get Javaris Crittenton, even if he doesn't pan out. GM Gruns turned an over-hyped 2002 40th draft pick, who probably would have barely lasted with the Wizards, as he did with the Grizzlies, into a still developing/promising young point guard taken 19th in the '07 draft.*
It's funny, because I think the Wizards need a long distance shooter like Juan Carlos Navarro aka "La Bomba". And JCN did hit just under two treys per game en route to making the '07-08 NBA All-Rookie second team, but got those attempting 5.3 in just under 26 minutes per game. So it's probably good that the Wiz opted out of a gunner who can't really play defense. Not playing D should only be reserved for starters like Arenas, Jamison and Butler.
But back to Crittenton. What I do like about him is his ability to push the ball in transition while remaining relatively under control. The kid has crafty handles when moving fast under pressure, and has the length to finish at the rim. Yes, we all want that 20.5 TOV% to go down, and it will as he gets more comfortable with the ball in his hands. It takes a bit to develop that NBA point guard instinct.
Second thing I like about Javaris is his rebounding out the back-court. He seems to have a nose for the ball, a knack for getting short or long misses and turning on the jets in transition. His 5.1 boards per 36 minutes led all guards (well, tied Arenas' two game per 36 rate), and his 1.7 offensive boards per 36 was a tenth of a point below Darius Songaila and the same amount above Caron Butler. Not sure how Flip Saunders will scheme transition D, and it all depends on situational assignments anyway, but you gotta like when you guard is getting you second chances (just as long as his offensive rebound attempts don't give up more points than they provide).
The downside .... we're all going to talk about Crittenton's jumper. Yep, it needs to improve. And I don't really care that Dave Hopla, the renowned shooting coach, is gone. Getting better is all on Crittenton ... whether he puts in the time, is consistent with his form, and most importantly, has the mental ability to gain confidence via repetition, repetition, and repetition.
On one hand, his FG% improved every month from January to April, going up a total of 4.5%. On the other hand, his eFG% for the entire season on 'Jump Shots' (as defined by 82games.com) was a blasted 23.9% ... ouch. I'd like to see how Crittenton improved on his jumper from month to month, I'm sure that stat is out there in someone's computer.
Methinks Crittenton's ceiling in the league is a decent backup PG. But a lot of guys have made damn good careers playing that role, albeit most all keep teams honest on defense from the perimeter. I've heard that Crittenton is an intelligent guy and a very hard worker. That's great. I'll be excited to see him in the summer league. However, if we go into next season with Javaris and Gilbert (and perhaps Mike James) as the main guys who can play the point, I won't exactly be confident in the team's title contention prospects.
*Grunfeld drafted JC Navarro, but then traded him to Memphis for some obscenely protected first rounder that the Wiz would probably not even seen before the stipulations expired, and then essentially gave that pick back to Memphis for Crittenton as part of the three team deal involving Mike James, Antonio Daniels and the NOLA Hornets.
Rook6980: Javaris Crittenton has a tremendous combination of size, athleticism and playmaking ability. Now he needs to work on putting those tools to good use.
Here's what Javaris Crittenton's evaluation looked like before the 2007 NBA Draft:
Strengths:
Quick first step, Excellent vision and passing skills, Excellent cross over
Terrific ball-handler, Can go left or right
Blazing quickness, Elite level athlete, Excellent body strength and foot speed
Good slashing and scoring ability, Excellent Defensive tools
Great heart, very competitive, Unselfish, Very coachable, Great attitude
Weaknesses:
Needs to improve upon his outside shot, Can be too unselfish at times
Can be too aggressive defensively, Foul prone
Turn over prone, Tends to poor Decision Making
Poor Defensive effort, Gets too flashy and plays out of control
As you can see, very little has changed from 2007. Javaris still has some of the same strengths and weaknesses. His biggest problem is that he does not have a consistent outside jump shot.
The move from Memphis to Washington freed Javaris Crittenton from the "Outhouse of no playing time." As the losses mounted, many of us here at Bullets Forever kept calling for more minutes for Javaris (and McGee, and Young, and .... well, you get the point). Finally in January, Ed Tapscott relented and started doling out some minutes to Crittenton. Once he was able to get consistent, and increasing minutes; he showed real improvement. As his minutes increased, is confidence grew, and his shooting percentages went up each month (Jan=44%, Feb=46%, Mar=47%, Apr=49%). His assists went up as well. He seemed to get better defensively too. However, he still couldn't be counted on to hit the open jumper and he continued to turn the ball over at a high rate. If Javaris had the ball, there was a real chance of something happening, good or bad.
Crittenton is adept at running the break, seeming to make the right pass at the right time. He's especially good at the alley-oop to JaVale McGee (see above). His quickness helps him get into the lane, where he has shown he can finish at the rim, or pass to an open teammate. In the halfcourt offense, he seems to always be looking for seams in the defense to get to the rim, draw contact or dish off to a teammate.
I'm extremely intrigued by Crittenton's defensive abilities. At times last year he showed the ability to shut down his opponent. He has great lateral quickness, and his size makes him hard to shoot over. Unlike in college, he seemed to put forth real effort on defense.
I am much less worried about the decision making and the turnovers, than I am the lack of a jump shot. As young players mature, they normally become less turnover prone. As they become more comfortable playing in the league, and with their teammates, the decision making gets better, and the turnovers decline. (As happened with Nick Young last year). The real problem is that Javaris has had 2-years in the League to work on that terrible jumper (24% efg% for Jump shots in 2008). It's still a work in progress. Two years, and he's still trying to find that consistent form.
In short, Javaris Crittenton has the physical tools to be a very good point; and he still has a tremendous amount of upside. Get working on that jump shot Javaris!
0 recs |
20 comments
|
Comments
I don't disagree with any of the above
But on a team full of players in love with their jumpshots, it’s nice to have a guy determined to take the ball to the basket. Plus, other than Jamison, no non-center on the team had a higher shooting percentage. I recall one hot dog eating point guard around these parts who was a terrible shooter, but highly effective.
Defense, turnovers and FT shooting. If he can be strong in all three, he’ll be fine.
by disgrunted on Jun 5, 2009 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
I don’t think Javaris needs a jumper as much as Jake, Truth or Rook suggest, but he’s pretty poor right now in two of the three categories you mentioned.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 5, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think if he was less turn over prone
He could make a living in the League as a back-up PG, even if he doesn’t have a consistent jumper.
But – a consistent jump shot would open up a ton of possibilities for him (and the Wizards).. As Jake pointed out, if he doesn’t develop at least the threat of a jump shot…. opposing teams will just play off of him and keep him from penetrating.
As for Turn Overs… very few young players have a decent TO ratio; and most young players with a bad TO ratio improve dramatically within a year or two… (so says Hollinger)… So, I’m willing to wait to see if Crittenton can follow Young’s lead, and cut down on his TO’s this year.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 5, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the most universally agreed apon point on this entire site
is that Crit needs a jump shot.
by MR on Jun 5, 2009 5:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I am less concerned about his jump shot....
than I am about his FT shooting. A point guard who penetrates well, as Critt does, is going to get to the line fairly often but once he gets there he has to convert 80% of his opportunities to be a serious contributor. AD had a suspect jump shot too but he was the real deal at the line.
That said, with an improved outside shot and a major improvement in FT %, Critt is going to be a keeper. Let’s see how he looks over the summer league and exhibition season. If he does his homework, and I think he will, our back up PG issues will be resolved.
by khrabb on Jun 5, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is Critt That Much Different
From this guy during his first season? Both players are point guards. Both players had a 20.5 TO% in their first NBA season with meaningful minutes. Both players played on terrible teams in those seasons. Both players shot poorly from the charity stripe. Both players make their living by pushing the ball, penetrating, and setting up their other teammates. Neither player has developed a consistent jump shot yet.
The analogy isn’t perfect, of course, but I see enough similarities to warrant a revaluation of what we want Critt to be. The other player’s team doesn’t seem to mind so much that he does not have a jump shot, so why are we requiring that of Critt? The other player’s team does not seem to mind so much that he is still a poor free throw shooter, so why are we requiring that of Critt? Wouldn’t it be easier for Critt to just be more like that other player, as in simply learn to turn the ball over less (as that other player learned how to do), set up his teammates better, and play better defense? (As far as I can tell, Critt already plays pretty solid defense.)
If Critt simply does those things better, why is his ceiling a backup PG? Why couldn’t he one day start as that other player does now?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 6, 2009 11:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Certainly, Crit does have the talent
The problem is,
1. He cannot shoot
2. He turns the ball over
You cannot do both and survive in this league as a Point Guard. I’m more inclined to believe he can improve his Turn Over situation faster than his jump shot. If he cuts down on his TO’s, then he has a chance to be a good back-up PG (ala Antonio Daniels) even if he cannot shoot.
If he improves BOTH, then I could see him being a starting quality PG.
By the way, only about 37% of Rondo’s shots are 2-point jumpers – and he hits only 36% of those.
Whereas, 43% of Crittenton’s shots were 2-point jumpers – with a putrud eFG of 23.9%.
So – YES. Crittenton should take a page from Rondo’s book – stop shooting 2-point jump shots, and shoot from inside more (drives to the basket); where he has a much better eFG of 61.2%
Why couldn’t he one day start as that other player does now?
1. The Wizards already have an All-Star Point Guard
2. Crittenton cannot play the Shooting Guard position (he cannot hit a jump shot)
3. Gilbert Arenas is not a shooting guard (he needs the ball in his hands).
On a different team, say one with a pure Shooting Guard like a Ray Allen, you can afford to have a PG that can’t shoot a jump shot as your starter.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 7, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One Thing I Don't Think You Are Considering
Critt is almost 6 full years younger than Gil. Gil may not be the starting PG on the Wiz in six seasons, especially if he can’t recover the explosive quick movements that once made him so good. So I don’t see why we should relegate Critt to career backup just because he happens to be behind Gil right now. In 5-6 seasons, we may have a pure SG on our team like Ray Allen, Gil may be old enough to move to the bench or retire, and Critt can be our Rondo, assuming he cuts his turnovers (like Rondo did) and shoots a bit better on his jumpers.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 7, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he shoots a bit better on his jumpers
I’d be all for him being the starting PG…. Especially if the Wizards have a “pure” Shooting Guard – or if Nick Young ever develops into that SG position….
Besides , I said:
he has a chance to be a good back-up PG (ala Antonio Daniels) even if he cannot shoot.
If he “shoots a bit better on his jumpers”, AND “cuts his turnovers” – then he would have improved BOTH
If he improves BOTH, then I could see him being a starting quality PG.
So – I don’t think we’re at a difference here. As a matter of fact, I think we’re contentiously arguing the exact same point.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 7, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think the Only Difference
That we are arguing, if any, is that the general consensus from the player evaluation (although perhaps not yours in particular) is that Critt is shaping out to be a backup PG at best and that he needs to substantially change his game for his future to be any brighter than that. I am trying to point out that Critt’s game already resembles a young Rondo’s, albeit a poor man’s version at this stage. I see the toolset present for Critt to be the future starting PG on this team, assuming he progresses the same as most young players do. Many young PG’s have high turnover rates, there is nothing really alarming to me about that. This should improve naturally with more experience and I would be surprised if it doesn’t. And most players improve their jumpshot, if only by a little bit, with more NBA playing experience.
So I basically see a player on track to be the starting PG on this team in 4-6 seasons, while I think everybody else sees a career backup PG unless Critt gets on a different track. If you agree with me on this, then you’re right, we are not arguing.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 8, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Gil and Crittenton might mesh well together (at times)
Crittenton can bring the ball up the court and defend the 2 spot while Gil can ‘have the ball in his hands’ and create in the half court.
Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It.net and Bullets Forever.
by Truth About It on Jun 8, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defense.
Critt has the tools to improve, but he has a while before he can defend as well as Rondo.
Have you seen Rajon’s hands? They are freakishly huge.
Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It.net and Bullets Forever.
by Truth About It on Jun 8, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Recognize
That now, Rondo is a superior defender, while Critt currently is not. That said, how great was Rondo’s defense when his team was 24-58? I did not watch him carefully that season, so I can not speak on this with authority. Rondo really appeared to break through once the Celtics drastically improved the talent around him. I think the same might happen with Critt.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 8, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Numbers say Rondo was hella good defensively even in 2006/07
Take them for what you will, but the Celtics were 8.5 points worse defensively with Rondo off the court in 06/07. Rondo was tops on the 06/07 Celtics in defensive rating (tied with Al Jefferson, ironically) and second in defensive win score. I also remember him hounding Gilbert Arenas one game where the Celts almost beat the Wiz without Paul Pierce (believe it was this game).
Critt, meanwhile, was 10th on the Wiz this year in Drtg, and the defense was two points worse with Critt out there than with him on the bench. I also don’t remember Critt ever bothering a star player like Rondo with Gilbert.
I agree that Critt’s offensive potential is comparable to Rondo’s, but Rondo’s defense is in another league, which makes the difference.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 8, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's Difficult to Tell
Defensive rating is a sub-component of APM, but I am discovering that it on its own has a high degree of error, so I don’t really trust it yet. And I certainly don’t trust raw defensive plus/minus. Your mentioning of Al Jefferson being tied for the best defensive rating on the 06/07 Celtics is a perfect example. Al Jefferson has always had a really good PER rating, which I believe is a pretty good indicator of offense. But his overall APM is consistently poor for his position, which leads me to believe that it is his defense that must be causing the discrepancy.
Critt, meanwhile, has a poor PER rating but a 2 year APM of only -2.01. While that is certainly not good, it doesn’t seem that bad when you consider how poor his PER is. Subjectively, his defense appears solid, and all of the evaluations above had something positive to say about his defense, so it’s not just me making this observation. While I also don’t remember Critt shutting down another star player, that is a very anecdotal observation. Rook alluded to Critt “at times last year [showing] the ability to shut down his opponent.” So I don’t see how you can authoritatively say that Rondo’s defense is in another league, even though I admit that it is better.
It is encouraging to me though that you believe that Critt’s offensive potential is similar to Rondo’s, because it is my current opinion that good defense can be learned while good offensive is more innate. I’m noticing how good Kirk Hinrich and J.J. Reddick’s defense has gotten, and it makes me think that if they can become good defenders, then Critt can be great.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 8, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PER isn't incorporated into APM, cuppett
And I’d caution against using APM as simply weighing offense and defense (“-2.01 APM isn’t that bad when you consider his PER rating”). It’s a catch-all number to indicate what’s happening in totality. PER is an individual statistic; APM measures team impact. There’s not a direct corolation.
The 2.01 is misleading too, because this year is the first year Critt got any substantial minutes (remember, APM adjusts for opponent’s quality, and Critt was playing in a lot of blowouts before this year). Critt’s APM this year? -7.95. And when you break down his on/off data even further, you’ll find his net +/ effect was pretty equal on both sides of the ball.
Finally, I’d argue the opposite as you re: defense. I think good offense can be learned much more easily than good defense. You can develop your jump shot; you can learn to play under control, but you can’t really develop defense as easily. J.J. Redick’s decent defense speaks more to Stan Van Gundy’s scheming abilities. Kirk was always a good defender even in college.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 8, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, dunno why there are strikethroughs there
Try to ignore it.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 8, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Sure That You Are Going to Catch This
I have been busy the past couple of days. But in case you do see this, here goes.
I never said PER was incorporated into APM. I don’t understand why you would think I was confused about this. In fact, I think you are the one confused about APM.
PER is an individual statistic; APM measures team impact.
Wrong, they are both individual statistics, that is why the PM is adjusted. It is meant to place a value on an individual’s contributions to a team. Therefore I see no problem with saying that APM is a combination of a player’s offense and defense. After all, if a player isn’t on offense or defense, then what exactly is he doing? There is no special teams in basketball. To say that APM is a catch-all number that shows the totality of team effect is to confuse it with raw PM. APM strips out all other factors to focus on the individual.
PER actually tries to accomplish the same thing as APM (evaluate an individual player’s worth), but just doesn’t do as good as a job because it is based on box score statistics. Box score statistics do a pretty good job of evaluating a player’s offensive contributions, I would argue, but fail miserably at incorporating a player’s defense. That is why I compared Critt’s APM to his PER rating.
There’s not a direct corolation.
Only because, like I said, PER does a horrible job of incorporating defense into its value. However, players who have high APM primarily because of their offense also tend to have a high PER rating, so I do believe comparing the two can be useful.
Comparing APM with raw PM, though, as you did above, is completely worthless. Raw PM does not strip away the other factors. Example, James Posey had a negative raw defensive PM when he played for the Celtics in 07-08. So he played terrible defense then, right? Wrong.
The single season APM you pointed to does hurt my argument, but remember that APM has a certain degree of error and becomes more accurate the larger the sample size. Also remember that APM is weighted to 100 possessions, so it is not irrelevant to weight in his contributions from the season before last.
Finally, we are going to have to agree to disagree about defense being harder to learn. J.J. Reddick, regardless of scheme, did an excellent job guarding Ray Allen in one-on-one situations, which was pretty much the entire time he was guarding Allen. That is to say, I don’t recall a single time that the Magic double-teamed Allen on the perimeter. I was probably wrong to lump in Kirk, though I never recall him being an excellent defender before.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 10, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strictly from my subjective view....
Rondo is an excellent defender – - – 1st Team All Defensive quality defender. But Rondo has been a superb defender all along – even in College and High School…
Crittenton, on the other hand, has the tools – but never put forth much effort on the Defensive end in College. I don’t know what he did in L.A. or Memphis, but I do know what I saw this past year with the Wizards. I saw a player that WAS putting forth effort on the Defensive end. Now, suspect it’s because he thought that was the only way he was going to get playing time. Remember, Critt didn’t play very much for the first month he was with the team – and Tapscott kept saying things like he needs to learn how to get over screens in pick-and-roll situations.
Short: I don’t think Critt can be as good a defensive player as Rondo…. I consider Rondo an elite defender.
I do think that Critt can be a good defender… He has the tools… and as long as he continues to work hard and bring effort – it will come.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Jun 11, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I agree that Rondo is an excellent defender, and that Critt is only above-average with the potential to be very good, but probably never as good as Rondo. Still, if he can be 90% as good as Rondo, he would be good enough to start on the Wizards, IMO.
I’m interested to know what most NBA bloggers think is easier to learn, offense or defense. Prada thinks offense. I think defense. A short Web search revealed only one article of use, but it is more geared towards youth basketball I think. Here is what it said:
Defense is, no doubt, the easiest skill to learn. Players can become experts in weeks, rather than the months or years that it takes to improve offensive performance.
…
Defense is much easier to learn than offense. Not only is less skill involved, but there are also fewer skills to learn.
Defense has always been a set of skills I thought was most related to effort and coaching, and not so much raw physical tools. Raw tools can certainly help, but you don’t need mad hops or an explosive first step to stay in front of your man, not bite on pump-fakes, not commit silly fouls, and box out. Good coaching, a lot of practice, and a lot of effort can turn almost any NBA player into at least an average defender, IMO, and in most cases an above-average to really good defender. But I don’t really have any objective evidence to back this theory up, so I’m curious what the general consensus is.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Jun 11, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















