[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Is Chandler finally starting to break out?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 11 of 12 « First‹ Previous 9  10  11  12 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
sidsanders
Posts: 22541
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/17/2009
Member: #2426
4/14/2009  7:55 PM
wilkins was shooting 3's from the old school line though, for most of his career. looking at his stats, his 3pa max was 212, crawford 521. this doesnt seem like a fair comparison to either player as far as outside shooting goes, diff rules, diff attempt counts, diff avg min played, diff off style...
GO TEAM VENTURE!!!!!
AUTOADVERT
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
4/14/2009  8:29 PM
so basically, the stats point to the fact that Jamal was a better long range shooter which is indicated by his higher shooting % from long range & that Gerald was better at taking it to the rack,

The difference here is that neither you nor Panos seem to acknowledge that there is an area between the rack and the 3 point line which still constitutes "shooting". And in that area Wilkins was much better. Wilkins was much better going to the rack, a lot better mid-range, and a little worse from 3.

However, looking at their 3 point shooting it is not a situation of 'better'. They are both bad, Wilkins is just a little worse. Saying the Crawford is a good shooter is an insult to actual good shooters. And give it some time, at the end of his career, Crawford will probably be pretty close to Wilkins' career 3pt percentage.

In regard to Crawford taking over the game, please don't forget that he often took over the game by shooting us out of it. Actually he did it far more often than he shot us in it.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
4/14/2009  8:32 PM
Posted by sidsanders:

wilkins was shooting 3's from the old school line though, for most of his career. looking at his stats, his 3pa max was 212, crawford 521.

That's because Wilkins understood he was not a good 3pt shooter, as opposed to Crawford who is addicted to 3 pointers and just jacked them up even though he is not good at them. Wilkins would step into 19-20 feet and made a higher percentage of his outside shots over his career, not just dunks and layups, especially before he blew out his achilles.

P.S. I'm pretty sure they shot from the same line over most of their careers. The short 3 point line was short lived.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
Panos
Posts: 30542
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
4/14/2009  8:45 PM
Posted by oohah:
so basically, the stats point to the fact that Jamal was a better long range shooter which is indicated by his higher shooting % from long range & that Gerald was better at taking it to the rack,

The difference here is that neither you nor Panos seem to acknowledge that there is an area between the rack and the 3 point line which still constitutes "shooting". And in that area Wilkins was much better. Wilkins was much better going to the rack, a lot better mid-range, and a little worse from 3.

However, looking at their 3 point shooting it is not a situation of 'better'. They are both bad, Wilkins is just a little worse. Saying the Crawford is a good shooter is an insult to actual good shooters. And give it some time, at the end of his career, Crawford will probably be pretty close to Wilkins' career 3pt percentage.

In regard to Crawford taking over the game, please don't forget that he often took over the game by shooting us out of it. Actually he did it far more often than he shot us in it.

oohah

So by your logic, would Lee and Curry be "better shooters" than Wilkins?
BigC
Posts: 22672
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/14/2004
Member: #829
4/14/2009  9:05 PM
Gernald Wilkins was not that good. You can not just go by stats. Gerald Wilkins was all hops. There is no Knicks that would agree that Wilkins is better than Jamal. Whether if it's John Starks or Patrick Ewing.
BigC's Knick blogs and Knicks highlights after every Knicks game http://fromthebaseline.com/
sidsanders
Posts: 22541
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/17/2009
Member: #2426
4/14/2009  9:19 PM
Posted by oohah:
Posted by sidsanders:

wilkins was shooting 3's from the old school line though, for most of his career. looking at his stats, his 3pa max was 212, crawford 521.

That's because Wilkins understood he was not a good 3pt shooter, as opposed to Crawford who is addicted to 3 pointers and just jacked them up even though he is not good at them. Wilkins would step into 19-20 feet and made a higher percentage of his outside shots over his career, not just dunks and layups, especially before he blew out his achilles.

P.S. I'm pretty sure they shot from the same line over most of their careers. The short 3 point line was short lived.

oohah

good catch on the 3pt rule... seems like too many guys take the shot and just are not that good at it now. zone hasnt helped that and too many players not being good at d makes it worse.
GO TEAM VENTURE!!!!!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
4/14/2009  10:22 PM
Posted by Panos:
Posted by oohah:
so basically, the stats point to the fact that Jamal was a better long range shooter which is indicated by his higher shooting % from long range & that Gerald was better at taking it to the rack,

The difference here is that neither you nor Panos seem to acknowledge that there is an area between the rack and the 3 point line which still constitutes "shooting". And in that area Wilkins was much better. Wilkins was much better going to the rack, a lot better mid-range, and a little worse from 3.


So by your logic, would Lee and Curry be "better shooters" than Wilkins?

I fail to see the correlation or the basis for comparison between Wilkins and Curry/Lee. In general neither Curry nor Lee shoot enough from the outside to be brought into the argument. However, yes, they would both worse outside shooters than Wilkins. And by shooting I mean outside shooting, let's say 10 feet and out, not any shot taken at the basket including 1 footers or a dunk.

oohah



Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
4/14/2009  10:24 PM
Posted by BigC:

Gernald Wilkins was not that good. You can not just go by stats. Gerald Wilkins was all hops. There is no Knicks that would agree that Wilkins is better than Jamal. Whether if it's John Starks or Patrick Ewing.

I agree, Wilkins was not that good, just better than Crawford.

Wilkins was better overall statistically, defensively 100 times better, 20 times better at going to the hoop, and comparable from long range. He also won more. Wilkins was not a smart player, but he is a phi beta kappa compared to Crawford.

I just polled Ewing and Starks and they both agree with me.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 14-04-2009 10:30 PM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
GKFv2
Posts: 26752
Alba Posts: 114
Joined: 1/16/2007
Member: #1259
USA
4/15/2009  3:39 AM
Jamal Crawford is a terrible, no-D playing chucker with a crappy career FG percentage. He is not a great player. He isn't even good. You can get half the guards in the D-League to come in and put up Crawford's inflated stats on his crappy shooting. It ain't that difficult. Oh he's got the crossover! Too bad that means **** in the NBA, especially when half the time you're shooting fade-away 3's, traveling and turning the ball over clumsily. He is an overrated average scoring guard off the bench for a good team, a starter and leading scorer on a terrible one. Take a look at Crawford's stats and every team he has ever played on. Why does he have such great numbers? He was always the guy taking the most shots on his team and his teams were terrible. Speaks volumes. So in terms of helping a team win basketball games, Gerald Wilkins > Jamal Crawford.

oohah is the winner. Congrats.

[Edited by - gkfv2 on 04-15-2009 03:39 AM]
Thank you, Rick Brunson.
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
4/15/2009  9:04 AM
Posted by oohah:
Posted by BigC:

Gernald Wilkins was not that good. You can not just go by stats. Gerald Wilkins was all hops. There is no Knicks that would agree that Wilkins is better than Jamal. Whether if it's John Starks or Patrick Ewing.

I agree, Wilkins was not that good, just better than Crawford.

Wilkins was better overall statistically, defensively 100 times better, 20 times better at going to the hoop, and comparable from long range. He also won more. Wilkins was not a smart player, but he is a phi beta kappa compared to Crawford.

I just polled Ewing and Starks and they both agree with me.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 14-04-2009 10:30 PM]

You polled Ewing and Starks? I figured after that they'd probably disagree with you.
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
4/15/2009  4:27 PM
Posted by Panos:
Posted by oohah:
so basically, the stats point to the fact that Jamal was a better long range shooter which is indicated by his higher shooting % from long range & that Gerald was better at taking it to the rack,

The difference here is that neither you nor Panos seem to acknowledge that there is an area between the rack and the 3 point line which still constitutes "shooting". And in that area Wilkins was much better. Wilkins was much better going to the rack, a lot better mid-range, and a little worse from 3.

However, looking at their 3 point shooting it is not a situation of 'better'. They are both bad, Wilkins is just a little worse. Saying the Crawford is a good shooter is an insult to actual good shooters. And give it some time, at the end of his career, Crawford will probably be pretty close to Wilkins' career 3pt percentage.

In regard to Crawford taking over the game, please don't forget that he often took over the game by shooting us out of it. Actually he did it far more often than he shot us in it.

oohah

So by your logic, would Lee and Curry be "better shooters" than Wilkins?

they're just a little not worse shooters than Wilkins & Jamal.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
4/15/2009  4:35 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Panos:
Posted by oohah:
so basically, the stats point to the fact that Jamal was a better long range shooter which is indicated by his higher shooting % from long range & that Gerald was better at taking it to the rack,

The difference here is that neither you nor Panos seem to acknowledge that there is an area between the rack and the 3 point line which still constitutes "shooting". And in that area Wilkins was much better. Wilkins was much better going to the rack, a lot better mid-range, and a little worse from 3.

However, looking at their 3 point shooting it is not a situation of 'better'. They are both bad, Wilkins is just a little worse. Saying the Crawford is a good shooter is an insult to actual good shooters. And give it some time, at the end of his career, Crawford will probably be pretty close to Wilkins' career 3pt percentage.

In regard to Crawford taking over the game, please don't forget that he often took over the game by shooting us out of it. Actually he did it far more often than he shot us in it.

oohah

So by your logic, would Lee and Curry be "better shooters" than Wilkins?

they're just a little not worse shooters than Wilkins & Jamal.

I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
4/15/2009  4:50 PM
Posted by Pharzeone:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Panos:
Posted by oohah:
so basically, the stats point to the fact that Jamal was a better long range shooter which is indicated by his higher shooting % from long range & that Gerald was better at taking it to the rack,

The difference here is that neither you nor Panos seem to acknowledge that there is an area between the rack and the 3 point line which still constitutes "shooting". And in that area Wilkins was much better. Wilkins was much better going to the rack, a lot better mid-range, and a little worse from 3.

However, looking at their 3 point shooting it is not a situation of 'better'. They are both bad, Wilkins is just a little worse. Saying the Crawford is a good shooter is an insult to actual good shooters. And give it some time, at the end of his career, Crawford will probably be pretty close to Wilkins' career 3pt percentage.

In regard to Crawford taking over the game, please don't forget that he often took over the game by shooting us out of it. Actually he did it far more often than he shot us in it.

oohah

So by your logic, would Lee and Curry be "better shooters" than Wilkins?

they're just a little not worse shooters than Wilkins & Jamal.


When did Eddie play for us?
I just hope that people will like me
BigC
Posts: 22672
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/14/2004
Member: #829
4/15/2009  7:08 PM
Posted by oohah:
Posted by BigC:

Gernald Wilkins was not that good. You can not just go by stats. Gerald Wilkins was all hops. There is no Knicks that would agree that Wilkins is better than Jamal. Whether if it's John Starks or Patrick Ewing.

I agree, Wilkins was not that good, just better than Crawford.

Wilkins was better overall statistically, defensively 100 times better, 20 times better at going to the hoop, and comparable from long range. He also won more. Wilkins was not a smart player, but he is a phi beta kappa compared to Crawford.

I just polled Ewing and Starks and they both agree with me.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 14-04-2009 10:30 PM]

Well you are not the only one that did a poll. I did a poll with Ewing also and he told me he believes Wilkens was trash and could not stand Wilkens jerry curls juice dripping from his slope all over court and the ball.

Also did you really say Wilkins won more? As if Wilkins was the reason the Knicks won games. You can put any Knicks player right now on a winning Ewing team and they would win with the Knicks team with Ewing.



[Edited by - BigC on 04-15-2009 8:43 PM]
BigC's Knick blogs and Knicks highlights after every Knicks game http://fromthebaseline.com/
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
4/15/2009  8:05 PM
oh gerald wilkins! i thought this whole thread was about eddie lee.
Panos
Posts: 30542
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
4/16/2009  1:55 AM
Posted by oohah:
Posted by Panos:
Posted by oohah:
so basically, the stats point to the fact that Jamal was a better long range shooter which is indicated by his higher shooting % from long range & that Gerald was better at taking it to the rack,

The difference here is that neither you nor Panos seem to acknowledge that there is an area between the rack and the 3 point line which still constitutes "shooting". And in that area Wilkins was much better. Wilkins was much better going to the rack, a lot better mid-range, and a little worse from 3.


So by your logic, would Lee and Curry be "better shooters" than Wilkins?

I fail to see the correlation or the basis for comparison between Wilkins and Curry/Lee. In general neither Curry nor Lee shoot enough from the outside to be brought into the argument. However, yes, they would both worse outside shooters than Wilkins. And by shooting I mean outside shooting, let's say 10 feet and out, not any shot taken at the basket including 1 footers or a dunk.

oohah


Your argument against Lee and Curry is exactly what I'm saying about Wilkins. He was good at getting to the rim. From outside, he was terrible. Why are you allowed to say that but not me? Anyway, I'm not going to convince you. I know what I know. Wilkins was a crap shooter.
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
4/16/2009  3:55 AM
Wilson Chandler was the only Knick to appear in all 82 games this season.
once a knick always a knick
earthmansurfer
Posts: 24005
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2005
Member: #858
Germany
4/16/2009  8:47 AM
Posted by misterearl:

Wilson Chandler was the only Knick to appear in all 82 games this season.

Hey, take your on topic points... oh wait

That is a very nice stat, ESPECIALLY for someone who after last years lost year, is essentially a rookie. (I think many here are too hard on the guy.)

That said, I hope he develops upstairs more. The coaches say he beings into the games whatever they mention, but he isn't exactly a cerebral player... Hence, they might start playing him at SG more, thoughts?

EMS

[Edited by - earthmansurfer on 04-16-2009 08:47 AM]
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
4/16/2009  8:52 AM
Posted by earthmansurfer:
Posted by misterearl:

Wilson Chandler was the only Knick to appear in all 82 games this season.

Hey, take your on topic points... oh wait

That is a very nice stat, ESPECIALLY for someone who after last years lost year, is essentially a rookie. (I think many here are too hard on the guy.)

That said, I hope he develops upstairs more. The coaches say he beings into the games whatever they mention, but he isn't exactly a cerebral player... Hence, they might start playing him at SG more, thoughts?
EMS

[Edited by - earthmansurfer on 04-16-2009 08:47 AM]

ha. hey, no offense but this isn't exactly the most "cerebral" comment.
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
4/16/2009  9:01 AM
ROFL.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
Page 11 of 12 « First‹ Previous 9  10  11  12 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Is Chandler finally starting to break out?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy