orangeblobman - where is race mentioned?

The "race thing" is only played out to those who refuse to admit that race affects their preferences. Race affects everything. Just be honest about it.

Sangfroid wrote:I enjoy completely the progress that both players are making and the energy that they bring to the team. The problem at hand is that Melo, a superior player to either offensively is clamouring to come to MSG. As much as I would like to keep both guys and make room for Melo, the numbers say that it won't happen. It's one of those good problems to have, but a problem all the same.

I have read posts here that say Melo is "3 times as good" as Gallo or Wilson. Can you help me figure out what that means? Does Melo score more points per shot attempt than Gallo and Wilson do? Gallo and Wilson actually average score points on each shooting attempt because of their superior efficiency from behind the 3 point line to Melo. Wilson and Gallo's defense is also superior to Melo's and their unselfish passing is superior to Melo's as well. (Also Melo is accustomed to taking a lot of shots, that MDA doesn't like his players to take.) Finally, it appears that the best way for the Knicks to improve from their current level is not additional scoring power i.e Melo, but rather continuing to improve their two greatest weaknesses against elite teams, i.e. defense and rebounding.

With all teams limited to about the same budget, or they have to pay a hefty penalties for going over the cap, a team needs to find ways to keep their expenses down. The Knicks presently benefit because their young players, who are not yet making anywhere near what they are worth, indirectly create extra cap room for the Knicks. In a couple of years when Landry, Gallo and others are making what they are worth, Melo's salary on top of Amare's salary and Felton's new salary, will create substantial financial difficulties for the Knicks. So just because you can slide Melo in now, doesn't make him an ideal long term purchase for the Knicks.

When we go shopping for a car, the object for most of us isn't to buy the best car we can. There are so many ways to spend money. In addition to cars, people need money for housing, food, education for kids, and even leisure time activities. In the short term, fitting Melo in sounds great. Longer term, how do we continue to improve our team, while also being forced to find money to pay up for Felton, Gallo, Landry and others as their current contracts expire. Gallo, Landry, Wilson, Felton, Douglas, Mosgov and Randolph, all seem to have the ability to contribute. The question is which deliver on their potential and which don't. What will our weaknesses be.

It would certainly be great to know precisely what we most need before we spend that second huge superstar salary. The timing for that would not be in February, but rather over the summer. It doesn't seem to me that that the greatest need of the second leading scoring team in the NBA is a volume outside shooter. Melo is far from a sure thing. He is accustomed to shooting whenever he wants. Will he have the discipline to cut back on his own shot selection on a long term basis, and make the unselfish passes that Mike's system is dependent on? I haven't even mentioned the subject of what we have to give up for Melo. I just tried to talk a little bit about the "good" problem we are now facing.

orangeblobman wrote:Gallinari is a better player and he is more personable. So he gets more coverage. Anything else is fishing.

I said this in an earlier thread, but I say it again- Chandler is a dull man, he is boring. Let's not fish, that race thing is played out.

you're the one that's opening that door and i say if it smells like crap maybe it is...

Both are excellent players. BOth are really liked by fans.

If your saying that Chandler is not marketed by the league and Gallo is because he is 22 years old, native Italian and handsome your correct.

If your saying that black players are not marketed by the league then you are wrong.

Chandler does not have the same charisma as other NBA players white or black.

NBA fancies itself a global league and will promote its players. The league has a history of promoting players it thinks has upside. White or black.

Chandler is given plenty of props for his game. He is not very marketable. Fans respect his game and his on court cool persona. Clyde on court persona is not what gave him his brand, it was his off court style and fashion exposure.

Is it race or just marketability?

Look at the top athletes world wide with endorsements. Jordan, Kobe, Tiger, all non white and the very tippy top.

misterearl wrote:what it is, is what it is.

Nalod - It is not about what Chandler or Gallainari "are" - it is about how they are perceived. You imposed the extended "ifs" to the conversation. If you are saying that race does not play a part in how players in any sport are perceived, written about or marketed you are dead wrong.

To simplify it down to, "If your saying that black players are not marketed by the league then you are wrong" is an insult to the intelligence of any fan that pays attention to advertising on any level. Please. That much is obvious to the most casual observer.

If we are going to have an intelligent discussion about perception, the better question to ask is how much the reaction to Lebron taking his talents to South Beach is tainted by race. Or how much Wilson Chandler being perceived as "boring" and "dull" by orangeblob is transferable to a player like Kyle Korver or Billy Cunningham.

For the record, Chandler's dull 46 per cent from the field, 17, 6 and 1.4 blocks per game is a major reason for the Knicks success this season. The Mayor has superior stats across the board. That is a fact. At the same time, Gallo (shooting 42 per cent, 16, 4 rebounds and .4 blocks) is nearly as valuable to the Knicks on the court.

For orangeblob to submit that "the race thing is played out" is nothing but a convenient escape hatch to hide from how how players are promoted, written about or marketed.

Nobody said he's boring as a player. I said Gallo has a higher ceiling and we both said Gallo is more marketable because Gallo is A LOT more personable and more comfortable in front of the camera. If you prove that wrong, you're a better man than me because that isn't an opinion, it is FACT. And I aknowledged that race plays a factor. It's only part of it though. The minute Wilson shows some emotion, then he'll be on tv commercials no matter what his race is.

rvwink wrote:

Sangfroid wrote:I enjoy completely the progress that both players are making and the energy that they bring to the team. The problem at hand is that Melo, a superior player to either offensively is clamouring to come to MSG. As much as I would like to keep both guys and make room for Melo, the numbers say that it won't happen. It's one of those good problems to have, but a problem all the same.

I have read posts here that say Melo is "3 times as good" as Gallo or Wilson. Can you help me figure out what that means? Does Melo score more points per shot attempt than Gallo and Wilson do? Gallo and Wilson actually average score points on each shooting attempt because of their superior efficiency from behind the 3 point line to Melo. Wilson and Gallo's defense is also superior to Melo's and their unselfish passing is superior to Melo's as well. (Also Melo is accustomed to taking a lot of shots, that MDA doesn't like his players to take.) Finally, it appears that the best way for the Knicks to improve from their current level is not additional scoring power i.e Melo, but rather continuing to improve their two greatest weaknesses against elite teams, i.e. defense and rebounding.

With all teams limited to about the same budget, or they have to pay a hefty penalties for going over the cap, a team needs to find ways to keep their expenses down. The Knicks presently benefit because their young players, who are not yet making anywhere near what they are worth, indirectly create extra cap room for the Knicks. In a couple of years when Landry, Gallo and others are making what they are worth, Melo's salary on top of Amare's salary and Felton's new salary, will create substantial financial difficulties for the Knicks. So just because you can slide Melo in now, doesn't make him an ideal long term purchase for the Knicks.

When we go shopping for a car, the object for most of us isn't to buy the best car we can. There are so many ways to spend money. In addition to cars, people need money for housing, food, education for kids, and even leisure time activities. In the short term, fitting Melo in sounds great. Longer term, how do we continue to improve our team, while also being forced to find money to pay up for Felton, Gallo, Landry and others as their current contracts expire. Gallo, Landry, Wilson, Felton, Douglas, Mosgov and Randolph, all seem to have the ability to contribute. The question is which deliver on their potential and which don't. What will our weaknesses be.

It would certainly be great to know precisely what we most need before we spend that second huge superstar salary. The timing for that would not be in February, but rather over the summer. It doesn't seem to me that that the greatest need of the second leading scoring team in the NBA is a volume outside shooter. Melo is far from a sure thing. He is accustomed to shooting whenever he wants. Will he have the discipline to cut back on his own shot selection on a long term basis, and make the unselfish passes that Mike's system is dependent on? I haven't even mentioned the subject of what we have to give up for Melo. I just tried to talk a little bit about the "good" problem we are now facing.

u can draw many parallels to the Melo comparisons with Gallo or Wilson to how much better Amare was in comparison to David Lee... statswise, no u can't say the guy was "3 times better" from a pure numbers basis... the difference lies in the impact those players have on the game being played, how much easier they make the game for their teammates by shouldering the offensive load on a nightly basis, how much more attention they command from opposing defenses to try & stop them, which inevitably opens up opportunities for other guys to do things on the floor... was David Lee a better investment from a "value per dollar" standpoint than Amare was? i think that point's already been shot to hell at this point when you see the results having a presence like him does for your franchise.

"Actually thats a fallacy."

Andrew - Wilson Chandler has superior stats across the board. That's a fact Jack.

In what alternate universe, when a sprinter beats a competitor by a hundredth of a second, is he the loser?

Andrew - when the Knicks lost to Boston, after Amare's three was ruled to have come after the clock, was the Celtics margin of victory high enough to be considered superior?

TMS wrote:
u can draw many parallels to the Melo comparisons with Gallo or Wilson to how much better Amare was in comparison to David Lee... statswise, no u can't say the guy was "3 times better" from a pure numbers basis... the difference lies in the impact those players have on the game being played, how much easier they make the game for their teammates by shouldering the offensive load on a nightly basis, how much more attention they command from opposing defenses to try & stop them, which inevitably opens up opportunities for other guys to do things on the floor... was David Lee a better investment from a "value per dollar" standpoint than Amare was? i think that point's already been shot to hell at this point when you see the results having a presence like him does for your franchise.

I agree 100% that Amare's value relative to David Lee's value makes Amare a bargain at $100 Million (if in fact $100 Million dollar bargains actually exist.) Amare has brought a swagger to the team that David Lee never came close to delivering. Once the Knicks were confident that if they could stay close late in the game, they would win more than their share, it happened over and over. Also Amare absorbed double teams himself allowing his teammates to shoot more open shots.

What I don't agree with is that if Amare, a super star, brought a large extra dividend to the Knicks, that bringing in a second super star will automatically double that dividend. Amare's impact was so great because he played within MDA offensive system before. Gallo, Wilson, and Landry are all more efficient scorers than Melo is and they also now know the system. If Melo insists on taking his normal number of shots, from his normal places, he will score less points per attempt than the people he is taking shots away from. Also he will spread the floor less efficiently as well.

In the words sung by Cab Calloway in Porgy and Bess, "it ain't necessarily so."

In your listing of Gallo advantages perhaps there is one that you left out. Wilson Chandler shoots 34% threes and makes .352 of them, and the rest are two point shots. Gallo shoots .47% threes and makes .374 of them. Add in the extra foul shots he makes, per shot attempt, Gallo is a much more efficient scorer for the Knicks. I once posted the average that Gallo and Wilson scored per shot attempted. It wasn't close. Gallo was way ahead of Wilson and both were way ahead of Melo.