oohah wrote:

martin wrote:

oohah wrote:^^ Forget Dudu. 11.5 shots per game standing 25 feet from the basket. How can that be defined as being frozen out?

oohah

cause he prob should have been shooting 15+ shots a game? Especially considering he was their best shooter?

Actually, Gallinari was not close to the best shooter with his 42.3 percent FGP. His 3 point percentage was 38 percent. Toney Douglas was 38.9% Nate Robinson was 37.5%. Al Harrington was 36%. Bill Walker was 52% from the field and 43% from three.

Considering those numbers + the fact that Gallinari pretty much camped out at the 3 point line, I am not convinced that he was the best shooter on the team and deserved 3-4 more shots per game just standing 25 feet from the basket.

oohah

if you had some intellectual honesty you would look at adjusted FG%, not straight FG%. And you wouldn't consider Nate and Walker cause they hardly spent time on the team relative to Gallo, Chandler, Harrington, Lee, Dhuon who all shot a bulk of the shots for the Knicks.

martin wrote:if you had some intellectual honesty you would look at adjusted FG%, not straight FG%. And you wouldn't consider Nate and Walker cause they hardly spent time on the team relative to Gallo, Chandler, Harrington, Lee, Dhuon who all shot a bulk of the shots for the Knicks.

If you had some intellectual honesty, you wouldn't propose the line of thinking that a guy who shoots 38% from three and 42% overall is some kind of super shooter who was being frozen out as compared to Harrington (14.3 shots per game), Chandler (13.2 shots per game), or DuDu (6.7) shots per game, or even Lee (15.5) shots per game.

I think if you did any kind of honest analysis, you would find that those other guys earned their additional shots by cutting, getting layups, getting out on the break, rebounding, etc. While 80% of the time Gallinari camped out at the three-point line as illustrated in the "great vid" that Evil posted.

Further, All of the players I compared Gallinari's field goal percentage played at least 20+ games for the Knicks which is enough to show that they shot a similar percentage in the same system.

There is absolutely no statistic or analysis based on shooting percentage (Or any other basis) that you can present to make a reasonable case that Gallinari deserved 3-4 more shots handed to him last season while other players were working for their shots.

oohah

oohah wrote:

martin wrote:if you had some intellectual honesty you would look at adjusted FG%, not straight FG%. And you wouldn't consider Nate and Walker cause they hardly spent time on the team relative to Gallo, Chandler, Harrington, Lee, Dhuon who all shot a bulk of the shots for the Knicks.

If you had some intellectual honesty, you wouldn't propose the line of thinking that a guy who shoots 38% from three and 42% overall is some kind of super shooter who was being frozen out as compared to Harrington (14.3 shots per game), Chandler (13.2 shots per game), or DuDu (6.7) shots per game, or even Lee (15.5) shots per game.

I think if you did any kind of honest analysis, you would find that those other guys earned their additional shots by cutting, getting layups, getting out on the break, rebounding, etc. While 80% of the time Gallinari camped out at the three-point line as illustrated in the "great vid" that Evil posted.

Further, All of the players I compared Gallinari's field goal percentage played at least 20+ games for the Knicks which is enough to show that they shot a similar percentage in the same system.

There is absolutely no statistic or analysis based on shooting percentage (Or any other basis) that you can present to make a reasonable case that Gallinari deserved 3-4 more shots handed to him last season while other players were working for their shots.

oohah

do you even bother to check your facts and statements before making them? cause they dont jive and are kinda pointless. It's useless to have a discussion with someone whose head is constantly buried in the sand.

I don't think you'll find another person who thinks that Gallo shouldn't have taken more shots over the likes of Harrington.

NYKBocker wrote:

Vmart wrote:Would it be fair to say that Gallo is freezing out the Knicks with his cold shooting.

Happens to everybody. Gallo seems to be a very smart player. The last 2 or 3 games he has been attacking the rim and I believe is averaging 7-9 FT attempts a game. Right now his cold shooting has a lot to do with his hurt wrist. Jesus Shuttleworth was in a shooting slump also last year for quite awhile. Everybody goes through it.

Losing has a way of taking every ones sense of humor away.

oohah wrote:

martin wrote:do you even bother to check your facts and statements before making them? cause they dont jive and are kinda pointless. It's useless to have a discussion with someone whose head is constantly buried in the sand.

Actually I do bother to check my facts and numbers. I put supporting links that directly back up what I am stating all the time. Just like the Brooke Lopez thread you just created that was so far off the mark. I back up my opinion with research, facts, and numbers. You don't believe what I posted comparing Gallinari Vs. the other players? I am assuming you have Google, or can go to basketball-reference.com, or sports.yahoo.com and prove me wrong. But you won't because my statements are solid and backed by reality.

The real problem with discussing with you is that I feel like I am arguing with Gallinari's/D'Antoni's mother. They can do no wrong no matter what the evidence states. It's everyone's fault but theirs! The other guys are stealing Gallinari's shots! D'Antoni's coaching is wonderful and all the players (Except Gallinari and Fields) just suck!

So where are your facts? Show me.

oohah

True Shooting %, which takes into account 2FG%, 3FG% and FT%. So it accounts for all scoring opportunities. I already told you I discounted players like Bill Walker and whomever cause they weren't around enough. Gallo and Lee were the team's best.

Rk 	Player 			G 	TS%
1	Bill Walker 		27	0.651
2	David Lee 		81	0.584
3	Danilo Gallinari 	81	0.575
4	Sergio Rodriguez 	27	0.573
5	Toney Douglas 		56	0.571
6	Nate Robinson 		30	0.552
7	Al Harrington 		72	0.546
8	Wilson Chandler 	65	0.534
9	Jonathan Bender 	25	0.529
10	Jared Jeffries 		52	0.524
11	J.R. Giddens 		11	0.513
12	Marcus Landry 		17	0.509
13	Earl Barron 		7	0.508
14	Chris Duhon 		67	0.501
15	Jordan Hill 		24	0.479
16	Larry Hughes 		31	0.473
17	Darko Milicic 		8	0.471
18	Tracy McGrady 		24	0.469
19	Eddy Curry 		7	0.456
20	Eddie House 		18	0.416

Per 36min Field Goal Attempts: Notice how Gallo is way down on list

Rk 	Player 			FGA  
1	Al Harrington 		16.9
2	Nate Robinson 		16.5
3	David Lee 		15
4	Marcus Landry 		13.7
5	Wilson Chandler 	13.3
6	Jordan Hill 		13.1
7	Eddie House 		12.9
8	Toney Douglas 		12.9
9	Tracy McGrady 		12.4
10	Jonathan Bender 	12.3
11	Larry Hughes 		12.2
12	Eddy Curry 		12.2
13	Danilo Gallinari	12.1
14	Bill Walker 		11
15	Sergio Rodriguez	10.9
16	Earl Barron 		10.6
17	J.R. Giddens 		10
18	Darko Milicic 		8.6
19	Chris Duhon 		7.8
20	Jared Jeffries 		5.7

When one of your best shooters/scorers is not get most of the FGA, that's not good.

martin wrote:BTW I can't believe you came with the weak ass argument: "While 80% of the time Gallinari camped out at the three-point line as illustrated in the "great vid" that Evil posted."

Martin the problem, which you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that those other guys actually did more than camp out around the outside, they went and got layups and closer shots.

Just take a look at Gallinari's shooting breakdown last season: http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Danilo%20Gallinari more than 50% of his shots were from three, 73% of his shots came from long range.

***

And your beloved true shooting percentage takes into account free throws eh? Well that kind of diminishes the argument of Gallinari getting frozen out. Free throws should not be considered in the argument of shots from the floor. Why don't you find a stat that show where and how the other guys get their shots, because as you can see from the link I provided above, Gallinari was simply gunning from the perimeter from the most of the game.

And why is it that 27 games is not enough to compare? Is it because it completely invalidates your argument? Sergio Rodriguez had the same "True Shooting percentage" as Gallinari. And he played a lot once he was traded to the Knicks.

Toney Douglas - did he play enough? He was .02 behind Gallinari. Maybe Toney Douglas was getting robbed and frozen out...

From your chosen statistic alone, I see no evidence that the Gallinari needed to be spoon-fed 3-4 more long-range jumpers a game. In fact, according the hard stats, 3-4 more shots per game would have hurt Gallinari's "True Shooting Percentage", because the reality is his "Actual Shooting Percentages" from the field were quite poor.

Conclusion: Gallinari was not frozen out. He was in fact featured and handed far more shots than his on-court play warranted. He should study some Landry Fields game tapes.

oohah

martin wrote:
i have never said he was frozen out. Pay attention, I said he should be getting even more shots per game.

you are poor at understanding and interpreting stats.

Your behavior deteriorates very quickly when you are losing. Here is when you stepped into the conversation:

martin wrote:

oohah wrote:^^ Forget Dudu. 11.5 shots per game standing 25 feet from the basket. How can that be defined as being frozen out?

oohah

cause he prob should have been shooting 15+ shots a game? Especially considering he was their best shooter?

See? You were clearly responding to my statement that he was not being frozen out. NO other way to interpret that.

Now you pay attention:

A) I am 50 times better than you at interpreting stats.
B) I know 100 times more than you about basketball.
C) I am able to recall what was actually being discussed in a thread.
D) I base my opinions on reality and not what I wish was true.

***

You may own this site, but please don't think for even one second that you are going to intimidate me.

You've been proven wrong, by the numbers, even your own numbers, very convincingly and now you are resorting to cheap shots. You've also been proven wrong in the win/loss column. You're also proven wrong from a common sense standpoint.

Please get back to me when you have settled down and are able to discuss your point of view in a cordial and calm fashion.

oohah