After the commotion over character issues, lets look at the career averages of the beloved John Starks and the problematic/ enigmatic/ over-dramatic JR Smith.
The numbers, which don't lie, bear an uncanny resemblance.
Career scoring averageJr Smith 12.5 points, Starks 12.5
Career field goal percentage? Starks 41 percent. JR Smith 44 percent.
Three point shooting percentage? Starks .340. JR is at .390. Deep.
The free throw percentages are damn near the same with Starks at 76 and JR at 74 per cent.
Assists. JR 2 per game. Starks 3.6. Turnovers - Starks 1.7, JR 1.5
Rebounding. Starks 2.5. - JR 2.8. The dudes are practically identical twins.
Reggie Miller head butts anyone?
JR Smith is not and won't be John Starks. But he'll be a nice addition.
The comparison isn't even worth talking about. Smith is bigger, stronger, more athletic and more talented but doesn't play hard at all times and is even soft at other times. Starks was short, an OK athlete, a good long distance shooter but played his heart out at all times. They aren't even comparible.
LandarryFieldsForever wrote:JR Smith is not and won't be John Starks. But he'll be a nice addition.
You have not provided one shred of evidence to back your point. Look at the production of JR and John Starks. Then, take another look at their playing personality and please describe what the differences are.
The Answer Man Don't Lie
I think in some cases the problem was that his sisters are even crazier than he is. Brawling in the stands looking like a walrus.
Starks played with 10x the effort and intensity than Smith has ever played.....not to mention, Starks was a much better defender.
Smith is a nice addition for depth, but he is not and should not be compared to Starks.
Not to mention you are not comparing apples to apples by comparing the 2 guys' career numbers (Starks' career numbers are deflated due to playing several seasons after his prime in limited minutes while Smith is in his prime right now and has not gone through that yet).
And Smith is an OK 3 point shooter, but it went up AFTER the Melo trade. If he played defense and didn't have the attitude problems I wouldn't have a problem with this signing, but this isn't the case.
statistics always seem to discount defense
SupremeCommander wrote:statistics always seem to discount defense
Just depends on which statistics you look at. :)
Numbers only tell you do much. John Starks to this day bleeds orange and blue. Let's not insult his contribution by comparing him to JR Smith. John Starks was a 100% effort a 100% of the time. I don't know enough about JR but reading articles about him doesn't tell me I can expect the same from him.
Yea, don't see the comparison at all. Similiar career numbers, but reality is 2 different players. John Starks played with his heart on his sleeve, ask Jordan and Reggie. Starks made the All Star Game one year, was one Hakeem Olajuwon blocked 3 pter away from winning the NBA Finals in Game 6. JR Smith is a hired gun, nothing more nothing less.
Can't compare the career numbers at this point since Starks' numbers include seasons of post-prime limited minutes seasons with various teams....Smith hasn't gone through that and consequently, his career #s have an advantage since he is still in his prime.
s3231 wrote:Can't compare the career numbers at this point since Starks' numbers include seasons of post-prime limited minutes seasons with various teams....Smith hasn't gone through that and consequently, his career #s have an advantage since he is still in his prime.
Starks had a couple of very good seasons but a disappointing career overall.
This is the problem with comparing statistics - you come up with machine-like comparisons like this one.
mrKnicksShot - the numbers are for entertainment purposes only. Let's peel away the sentimentality for Starks and look at the roles both players fit.
Streak shooting - for better or worse - JR and John can get hot in a hurry. And they can both go stone cold. Starks 3-13 at The Finals at Houston still hurts.
Emotion - both players play with an edge. Starks was T'd up on the regular. JR talks a lot.
Dunkability - Starks went over three Bulls. JR has elite hops. The first time he soars at MSG on the break the crowd will be moved.
Kiss The Logo - Starks loved New York and New York loved him back. JR is still at baggage claim.
Bench Role - Starks provided offense and activity. His defense fit the bullying style the Knicks played at the time. Whether JR watches Jared Jeffries take charges, or Shump doing his Masterlock thing, remains to be seen. It's all about effort. The feeling is that if JR does NOT hear Tyson Chandler barking directions, The Captain will remind him in a polite way.
Crazy Factor - both players are unpredictable. Both can start a fight. Both emote without restraint.
Feels like a love connection.
They are very similar. Both are great athletes, streaky shooters, emotionally retarded and self sabatage their upsides.
Oh, and the stats are very similar!
I am all for signing him - we are desperate for 3 pt shooting since all we have is Novak. Walker can hit it too but that would mean he would need to be playing. Fields can't hit the ocean now but does alot of other things. WE NEED SHOOTING.
Starks did not come in with a bad rap, he came in with no wrap. He was our prodigal son. We sailed through his peaks and valleys because he was ours and we loved him. He gave us everything, every game. He came across cuddly in interviews and has a very nice personality off the court. We loved him and always will.
Players with bad reps do not really doing well coming in here. We have no patience for crap thats not ours and we will let him hear it if he gives us crap. He is too much of the Gangsta attitude which does not help. Spree came with a bad rep but we fell in love with him too cause of the way he played here. He also was very proper and cordial off the court. So, who knows. Will we fall in love with him? Probably not. Can/will he be able to help us? I would say yes.
Comparison to Starks? Eh - not really other than they are both a bit nuts. Starks also did not have a fully tatoo'd body and have the gangsta attitude.
loweyecue wrote:Numbers only tell you do much. John Starks to this day bleeds orange and blue. Let's not insult his contribution by comparing him to JR Smith. John Starks was a 100% effort a 100% of the time. I don't know enough about JR but reading articles about him doesn't tell me I can expect the same from him.
loweyecue - forget the articles. Who you gonna trust, some lyin' and biased beat reporter or Your Friendly Neighborhood Answer Man? Just because Starks is still on the payroll does not tip the on court skill set ruler in his favor. Quite the contrary, Starks and JR are kindred spirits from the same school of crazy. They both make the guys around them go, "damn, why he do that?"
On the court, these two impulsive spirits are identical, impulsive twins.
It should be keep us on the edge of our seats. Exactly where we like to be.
mrKnickShot wrote:Starks also did not have a fully tatoo'd body and have the gangsta attitude.
Our entire starting frontcourt is tatted up.
mrKnickShot - Is head-butting a person considered gangsta?
misterearl wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:Starks also did not have a fully tatoo'd body and have the gangsta attitude.
mrKnickShot - Is head-butting a person considered gangsta?
Nope - just a bit crazy. Kicking a photog. in the nuts is gangsta (DRodman).
I don't know ... Its not even the gangsta that bothers me, Rodman was a gangsta and I woulda been crazy over him on my team. I just want someone who gives everything he's got - all the time. The Bizzaro Billy Walker.
One more thing, Chris "Birdman" Anderson has more tats than anyone. Has there been a negative word about his body art?
