Why did we extend Josh Richardson?

[Moranis]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

[Roy H.]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

[LilRip]

I might be in the minority here but I’ve liked what I’ve seen from Richardson. He competes on defense and takes good shots. I’m curious what the rotation will be like once JB comes back because I think Jrich deserves consistent minutes.

I actually think we have too much talent among our wings as Smart (still not a fan of him as our PG)  Brown, Richardson and Tatum all deserve big minutes and even guys like Langford and Nesmith have looked like they could be solid contributors. That’s 6 guys competing for 2 positions. And since 2 of those guys are practically locks to play heavy minutes, that’s 4 guys competing for backup minutes.

[Moranis]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting. 

[Celtics2021]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting.

Smart is attempting a career-low shots on a per-36 basis, FYI.

[Moranis]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting.

Smart is attempting a career-low shots on a per-36 basis, FYI.

true, but his 3PT attempts are still very high.  He has stopped shooting 2's, which he is actually better at.  Smart should not be anywhere near 5.2 3's a game though.  He has always needed to scale that back to 1 or 2, and it is even more pronounced this year when he is shooting 26%. 

[wdleehi]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting.

Smart is attempting a career-low shots on a per-36 basis, FYI.

true, but his 3PT attempts are still very high.  He has stopped shooting 2's, which he is actually better at.  Smart should not be anywhere near 5.2 3's a game though.  He has always needed to scale that back to 1 or 2, and it is even more pronounced this year when he is shooting 26%.

How many of those are bad shots?   Early in the shot clock or heat check shots?   

Honestly, I am just asking.   

[LilRip]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting.

Smart is attempting a career-low shots on a per-36 basis, FYI.

true, but his 3PT attempts are still very high.  He has stopped shooting 2's, which he is actually better at.  Smart should not be anywhere near 5.2 3's a game though.  He has always needed to scale that back to 1 or 2, and it is even more pronounced this year when he is shooting 26%.

How many of those are bad shots?   Early in the shot clock or heat check shots?   

Honestly, I am just asking.

It seems to vary per game. Smart has had less bad threes from the eye/memory test. It’s only when he makes them consecutively is when he pulls up for bad shots. Otherwise, I think Smart’s threes haven’t been mostly terrible.

The ones that are bad tho do stand out because they’re in the middle of a rally (and he goes for a home run play) or trying to stop the bleeding.

His layups though…I’d say he takes more worse inside shots than outside shots. They’re rarely smooth floaters or euros. They’re usually some circus shot that may or may not go in. Huge diff from Schroders attempts inside

[JohnBoy65]

I think Richardson is exactly the type of player a contending team needs. I think he's playing is role perfectly. Now we need Tatum and Brown to take it up a level. They're just not impacting winning as much as we are going to need them to.

An out of shape Luka has his team at 9-5. If we want to truly be contenders Tatum or Brown needs to take the reigns of the ship and win a few games on their own.

[Hoopvortex]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting.

Smart is attempting a career-low shots on a per-36 basis, FYI.

Yes, and he’s always been a low-usage player (currently at an ultra-low 15.0%).

[Moranis]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting.

Smart is attempting a career-low shots on a per-36 basis, FYI.

true, but his 3PT attempts are still very high.  He has stopped shooting 2's, which he is actually better at.  Smart should not be anywhere near 5.2 3's a game though.  He has always needed to scale that back to 1 or 2, and it is even more pronounced this year when he is shooting 26%.

How many of those are bad shots?   Early in the shot clock or heat check shots?   

Honestly, I am just asking.

It seems to vary per game. Smart has had less bad threes from the eye/memory test. It’s only when he makes them consecutively is when he pulls up for bad shots. Otherwise, I think Smart’s threes haven’t been mostly terrible.

The ones that are bad tho do stand out because they’re in the middle of a rally (and he goes for a home run play) or trying to stop the bleeding.

His layups though…I’d say he takes more worse inside shots than outside shots. They’re rarely smooth floaters or euros. They’re usually some circus shot that may or may not go in. Huge diff from Schroders attempts inside

I've said it on here many times, but basically any 3 point shot Smart takes is a bad shot because he is a terrible shooter.  I don't care if he is wide open with no one around him.  It is a bad shot (which is also why he is wide open).  1 or 2 a game to keep defenses honest is fine, but anything more than that is a bad shot. 

[liam]

Now 15 games in, Richardson has played 12 all off the bench

24.4 mpg, 8.6 ppg (7.1 FGA), 3.0 rpg, 1.3 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.7 bpg, 0.9 tpg, 2.0 fpg, 58.3% 2PT, 32.4% 3PT, 84.6% FT for eFG% 54.1 and TS% 56.8

WS 0.6, WS/48 0.094, BPM -1.3, VORP 0.1


The Knicks are also 15 games in, Fournier has started all 15

28.3 mpg, 12.2 ppg (11.0 FGA), 3.1 rpg, 1.9 apg, 1.0 spg, 0.3 bpg, 1.1 tpg, 1.5 fpg, 47.9% 2PT, 35.1% 3PT, 76.2% FT for eFG% 50.6 and TS% 52.5

WS 0.5, WS/48 0.060, BPM -2.7, VORP -0.1


I know it wasn't necessarily an either or with Richardson and Fournier, but there were only so many available minutes to be had, so in many ways it was.  And it is still not a large sample size, but it is a lot better sample size than just a couple of games and so far Richardson has been the better player overall and that doesn't even account for his much better contract.  So thus far, Stevens made the correct decision in letting Fournier walk and acquiring Richardson.

If the other players who should be shooting better from three would actually shoot better, would we be as focused on Richardson weak outside shot?   Because in my mind, that is the only piece of his game that causes issues.

I think his overall scoring rate is poor, as well.  We need somebody on the bench to step up.

He is scoring at a lot better rate than Fournier is though and Richardson has a different role with a lot less free reign to score.

Richarson's points per shot are 1.211, while Fournier is at 1.109.  So the guy that is supposed to be the better scorer has been a much worse scorer.  Again a small sample size, but even last year in Boston Fournier was only at 1.204 points per shot, when he was shooting a lot better.  The simple reality is, Fournier is a good to great 3 point shooter, but he does literally nothing else well, so when he isn't hitting his outside shot, he is a huge negative on the floor.  That isn't Richardson, who does a lot of things well, but is a mediocre 3 point shooter (career he is at 35.7 and is obviously below that thus far this year).  Richardson will kill you a lot less even when his shot isn't falling

Part of Richardson's issue is that he doesn't take enough shots; he doesn't generate a lot of his own offense.  Therefore, points per shot isn't that relevant.  It's the same issue I had with Romeo last year.  It's a level of offensive passivity.

Unfortunately, we're seeing some of that with Fournier is New York, as well.  He certainly is not a great fit with Kemba, as he doesn't get the ball enough.  He's still quite effective as a floor spacer, though.

It is the role though, which is why Fournier was an 11 shot 13 ppg player for Boston last year.  It is also what those guys should be shooting as they lose their efficiency and effectiveness when they shoot more.  It is also what Smart should be, but he just won't stop shooting.

Smart is attempting a career-low shots on a per-36 basis, FYI.

true, but his 3PT attempts are still very high.  He has stopped shooting 2's, which he is actually better at.  Smart should not be anywhere near 5.2 3's a game though.  He has always needed to scale that back to 1 or 2, and it is even more pronounced this year when he is shooting 26%.

How many of those are bad shots?   Early in the shot clock or heat check shots?   

Honestly, I am just asking.

It seems to vary per game. Smart has had less bad threes from the eye/memory test. It’s only when he makes them consecutively is when he pulls up for bad shots. Otherwise, I think Smart’s threes haven’t been mostly terrible.

The ones that are bad tho do stand out because they’re in the middle of a rally (and he goes for a home run play) or trying to stop the bleeding.

His layups though…I’d say he takes more worse inside shots than outside shots. They’re rarely smooth floaters or euros. They’re usually some circus shot that may or may not go in. Huge diff from Schroders attempts inside

I've said it on here many times, but basically any 3 point shot Smart takes is a bad shot because he is a terrible shooter.  I don't care if he is wide open with no one around him.  It is a bad shot (which is also why he is wide open).  1 or 2 a game to keep defenses honest is fine, but anything more than that is a bad shot.

Yes, if Smart is open, which he mostly is, he should drive the ball to the hoop or pull up for the midrange shot.

[Moranis]

Smart listened to me.  Best game of the year for him.  1 of 2 on 3's and 8 of 11 from 2 for 22 points.  Obviously you can't expect 8 of 11 from 2 every game, but two 3 point shots should be the norm for him.  He is just better.

Richardson with another solid game.

[Roy H.]

Smart listened to me.  Best game of the year for him.  1 of 2 on 3's and 8 of 11 from 2 for 22 points.  Obviously you can't expect 8 of 11 from 2 every game, but two 3 point shots should be the norm for him.  He is just better.

Richardson with another solid game.

Yeah, I don’t think Smart even attempted a 3PT in the first half.

And Richardson has been legitimately good recently.

What lineup do you want when Brown and Timelord come back?

[dannyboy35]

  Everyone healthy I’d love to see
Schroeder/Smart/ Jaylen/ Tatum/ Horford  if Marcus can rein it in . But if he can’t I’d start Rob and double big and bring Marcus off the bench. We need Schroeder to be able to get the offense moving in ways smart just can’t.