Bonn1997 wrote:I agree that until he becomes a more efficient scorer (including shooting), Shumpert is more of a bench player.

I disagree. He was a rookie and hit a slump. But he has shown he has effective offensive skills. But our starting 5 includes Lin, Melo, and STAT, all offense. We need that lock down D, a la Thabo Sefolosha. His scoring isn't great, but there is a reason he gets the start in OKC. And Shump is a better offensive weapon when compared to Thabo.

Bonn1997 wrote:He didn't hit a slump. He's been a 40% shooter with a low TS% his entire life. He has some skills in the sense of ball-handling and finishing but for his entire life, they have translated into inefficient offense. I didn't say he'll always be a bench player but he needs to become much more efficient on offense to warrant becoming a starter.

You're right, no slump, just streaky as hell.
And again, he is already a starter, defensive ability alone. When's the last time a rookie came in and the whole league said he was tops at being a lock-down defender.
Starter. Anywhere.

DurzoBlint wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I agree that until he becomes a more efficient scorer (including shooting), Shumpert is more of a bench player.

LANDY is the one you should be pointing to, not Shump. Landy's piss poor shooting cost us much more than Shump's poor shooting because Imam could still positively effect the game. Landy's rebounding numbers dropped, his shooting was non-existent and we need much more out of our starting 2guard.

DurzoBlint wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I agree that until he becomes a more efficient scorer (including shooting), Shumpert is more of a bench player.

LANDY is the one you should be pointing to, not Shump. Landy's piss poor shooting cost us much more than Shump's poor shooting because Imam could still positively effect the game. Landy's rebounding numbers dropped, his shooting was non-existent and we need much more out of our starting 2guard.

Look at their actual percentages.

you seem to have missed my point or, you didn't read it all.

DurzoBlint wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I agree that until he becomes a more efficient scorer (including shooting), Shumpert is more of a bench player.

LANDY is the one you should be pointing to, not Shump. Landy's piss poor shooting cost us much more than Shump's poor shooting because Imam could still positively effect the game. Landy's rebounding numbers dropped, his shooting was non-existent and we need much more out of our starting 2guard.

Look at their actual percentages.

you seem to have missed my point or, you didn't read it all.

No, you missed my point - I was focusing on scoring efficiency, not shooting efficiency. You switched the topics. If your only point is that it would be great if Landry had a better jump shot, then I agree.

Landy is/was the starting 2guard right. If so, shouldn't your shooting reference start with him? Shump may have a worse percentage but, who is the starter. Shump was brought in more for defense than outside shooting. Also, and I may be wrong but, doesn't Landy take more 3's than Shump as well?

ChuckBuck wrote:I'll take a healthy Shumpert offensively anyday and twice on Sunday over a brick laying Fields. He started showing signs of sticking that J more consistently after the All Star Break and after the tutelage of Allan Houston.

JohnStarksFan wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Landry outperforms Shump in almost every area of the game statistically - scoring efficiency, rebounding, assist to turnover ratio.

add "offensive" before "game". There is another side to the game, and it's defense. As I said before, for that reason alone he would start on half the teams in the NBA.

Bonn1997 wrote:

JohnStarksFan wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Landry outperforms Shump in almost every area of the game statistically - scoring efficiency, rebounding, assist to turnover ratio.

add "offensive" before "game". There is another side to the game, and it's defense. As I said before, for that reason alone he would start on half the teams in the NBA.

I'm highly skeptical that you can go from being a significantly below average NBA player to above average just because of the few areas of the game defensively that aren't measured. (You have to be above average to start.) Most in the NBA underestimate the importance of efficiency on offense and might erroneously start Shumpert, though. At this point, I think he gives up on the offensive end whatever he contributes on the defensive end - not to the extent that he's a terrible player but to an extent that prevents him from being a good starter in this league.

He was a below average offensive prospect, but has clearly shown he has what it takes to be a starter. He's only going to get better, and he can guard many positions better than anyone else on the Knicks roster.

Those few areas of the game, ability to participate productively in defensive schemes, to throw star players off their game with your d, to switch off players and still lock down, to steal the ball at a high clip and force turnovers with defense: yea, those are NBA starter areas when you're playing the most gifted offensive guys on the planet. We just don't see eye to eye on this one. So what would it take? A meer 5% increase in fg%? Then he gets Bonny's starting nod?