Jamal Crawford winning his third Sixth Man of the Year award is a great story. It provides great narrative, and is good press for both Crawford and the NBA as a whole. His teammates end of season campaign has paid off, and the game winner Crawford hit against the Utah Jazz may have been the clincher for many voters. Only problem with all this? Crawford didn’t deserve the award.
Three awards of this type is no mean feat, particularly when the bench scorer is the first man to complete that particular achievement. However despite basic numbers of 14.3 ppg and 2.3 apg in only 26.9 mpg, beyond that it is hard to understand what exactly made voters give him an award that should not have been his.
In an age of basketball metrics and analytics, it’s begun to become an understanding that analytics are the best measures of a player’s performance because they go beyond basic numbers. This is where Crawford’s case is hurt the most. But even on a basic level, it is not much better.
Crawford’s subpar shooting at 40 percent is the lowest of any player not named Kobe Bryant who averages more than 14 points per game. So essentially of any player playing heavy NBA minutes, Crawford is the second least efficient shooter. He only shoots a league average 34 percent from deep, which does not help him either.
His PER of 14.0 is his lowest since his rookie year, and is also below the league average rating of 15.0. An offensive box plus minus of -0.2, and defensively -2.4 (-2.6 overall). Although a floored statistic, it doesn’t speak well for the guard that it is negative as well as a VORP of -0.3. Shouldn’t a sixth man’s contribution’s be positive?
Now it has to be said, after the All Star break and during Blake Griffin’s absence Crawford stepped up when the Clippers needed him. His shooting was better (his three point percentage was at 38 percent) and his scoring was up at 15.5 ppg in 28.3 mpg. But the Clippers still posted a negative net rating of 6 with him on the floor, down from 8 before the break.
His February (19.5 ppg on 41-31-88 percent shooting splits) and four games in April (18.8 ppg on 47-46-75 splits) were both sensational, but it is the whole season that is supposed to be rewarded, not just late season form. Twice in seven months he posted a negative net rating, and those months were October and April when much less games were played (seven games total).
Looking closer into the numbers, there are arguments for and against Crawford winning the award. In games where the margin was less than five points, Crawford lifted his field goal percentage to 42, whilst his three point mark was considerably higher (39 percent). But in fourth quarters of games he was less efficient, where he shot only 38 and 32 percent. Those are terrible marks.
There are arguments that Crawford’s numbers on a team level are skewed by the fact he spends time with bench units, or at least of the majority of his time. That also is not exactly true. Whilst Crawford did spend around 396 minutes with various bench lineups, amongst the 10 most featured lineups he played with 454 minutes were with starter heavy groups so that argument loses weight.
Another reality is that both the offense and defense improves with Crawford off the floor when assessing the numbers:
Crawford On Court: Offensive Rating 107.3, Defensive Rating 105.8, Net Rating +1.5.
Crawford Off Court: Offensive Rating 109.3, Defensive Rating 101.6, Net Rating +7.7.
Essentially, the Clippers are +6.2 when Crawford sits. That number is inflated by the starting groups presence, which has been a killer for Los Angeles this season. But considering the aforementioned statistics of Crawford spending heavy time with the starters, it does not bode well for his contention.
So perhaps voters have simply taken into account Crawford’s volume scoring. If that’s the case, isn’t Enes Kanter the most viable candidate? Sure, the narratives against his defense cannot be ignored. However he has improved on that end, and his on court defensive rating of 105 is better than Crawford’s (109). Considering the Clippers are sixth defensively and the Thunder are twelfth, that says something.
Kanter’s numbers are actually significantly better than Crawford’s too:
Crawford: 14.2 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 2.3 apg.
Per 36: 19.0 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 3.1 apg.
Kanter: 12.7 ppg, 8.1 rpg, 0.4 apg.
Per 36: 21.7 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 0.7 apg.
If someone were to takeaway the names on those statistics, the choice of Kanter over Crawford would be unanimous. Kanter’s net rating is +18, Crawford’s is -4. It’s amazing what narrative can do when it comes to voting for awards. There’s also Will Barton, whose numbers are similar: 14.4 ppg (43-35-81 percent shooting splits), 5.8 rpg, 2.5 apg.
On a basic level, he has an argument against Crawford. But the fact Crawford is making more contributions to a winning team is probably the difference between the two. So that is understandable, not to mention the step up Crawford made in Griffin’s late season absence.
Then of course there is Andre Iguodala, arguably the modern sixth man candidate. Iguodala might not light up the box score the way the others do, but advanced metrics are kind to him. It’s no surprise in such a dominant team that the perimeter defender posts a net rating of +10.0, but they are also +3.9 better with him on the floor than on the bench.
Most importantly, unlike all the other candidates Iguodala has a varied skill set. Playmaking as a defacto point guard as an assist man, spotting up in the corners (where he shoots over 40 percent), or if it’s defending the other team’s best perimeter player the former Sixers star does it all. Because of this he fits into any line up.
Yes it’s true he has missed quite a few games late in the season, but that shouldn’t detract from his part in the Warriors success. They appeared mortal late in the season, and that can happen when Iguodala isn’t there to feature in the feared death line up. If DeMarcus Cousins can be All NBA second team last season in 59 games, Iguodala can be Sixth Man in 65.
At the end of the day though, award selection is all subjective. It’s based on what voters value, and that can be different from play by play announcers to beat writers and to analysts. That’s fair. That being said, when all is said and done; was Jamal Crawford really a worthy Sixth Man winner? The numbers say no.
All statistics taken were from BasketballReference.com unless otherwise stated.
