You know I've been around here for a couple of years,
but I've never seen such an antagonistic a-hole as you, bobs.
You really make this website less civilized, AND less
entertaining reading at the same time with your stupid mantras,
insults, and name calling.


[Edited by - panos on 08/05/2005 13:08:55]

haters hating harder.


LOT of thin-skinned, sensative people on this board.

Anytime me disagreeing with someone becomes an insult, you know something's up.

^ calling me an "antagonistic *******" doesn't really help...

he's just mad he cant play with the other kids on realgm anymore

Wow. It's funny. You guys are doing exactly what you preach to me about.


Difference is I could care less.

yes.. the whole world is out to get boob. He's unique and misunderstood. Kind of like...

How did this turn into a thread about Eric Snow and Earl Watson? Oh well.

VDesai, I'd like to know more about what exactly counts as a jumper and what doesn't according to these stats as well. 82games.com divvies up the shot attempts on the floor into 4 categories: jumpers, close-in, dunks, and tips. The last 3 categories are also summed up to a category called "inside." My best guess is that all FGAs taken about 10 feet or more from the basket count as jumpers and the rest count as inside shots. But I'll ask around and try to get a more definitive answer.

Someone asked whether the 2 point stats include layups-- the answer is no. The stats are restricted for jump shots, not counting 3 pointer. As mentioned above, I still have some ambiguity as to what exactly counts as a jumpshot, but layups definitely are not counted.

As for the actual percentages, I think Marbury's 43% on 2 point jumpers is actually quite good. It's hard to get a feel for the stat without having leaguewide stats readily available for comparison, but I think it's safe to say that 43% is better than average and may even be among the higher classes of 2 point jumper FG%. A 45% FG% for a SG is usually considered quite good for a shooting guard, and that includes 3 pointers and layups, which probably come close to cancelling eachother out as far as the shooting percentages go. So 43% on 2 point jumpers is in that 45% overall territory, which is quite good. Crawford's midrange % is probably slightly substandard and could use a boost. Richardon's 2 point jumper %, by any account, is abysmal.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Can we please get back to the art of the midrange jumper? We need one. If our guards just chuck up 3s all year, we're screwed. If we have a scorer who's willing to come off a curl and take a foul line J, good things will happen.

I think we have some decent options... Crawford and Marbury are good in motion, so if your talking about running them off screens they are a decent option. They can both also put the ball on the floor and get into the paint, or create something for a teammate. Shooting from anywhere, mid or otherwise is about all TT does right. I think Frye and Rose are good pick and pop options as well from 15-18 feet, like KT was last year.
I think we got more balanced with the offense this offseason, no doubt. Q gives us a wing guy that can really post. Frye is very versatile and has a great touch. JJ is big if nothing else, but he can finish. Sweetney improved last year, hopefully that trend continues and Nate/Lee give you two good passers with great motors that can also score.

The pieces are there, I suspect because so many are young its still another year.

I love the type of offensive game that Channing Frye can bring to the table. He can play that pick and roll game with Marbury ala Kurt Thomas and he also has that post game. I think he'll be a real good option, going foward. However, the guy is real skinny, and it's hard for me to see whether he'll get a lot of playing time THIS YEAR. I have a feeling he's going to frequently get run over on defense, no matter how hard he competes. I am still his #1 supporter though, and see him becoming a real good player for us in years to come.

I think Crawford is very good in motion as you mentioned, Fishmike and the flashes he has shown are evident. However, I think it all comes down to whether he controls that shot selection. Under LB I see him doing that. I don't think he's soft either, as some posters have stated.

For the record--- Ewing was the biggest 7', 240lb (his listed weight) player I've ever seen. Conversely, Channing Frye is one of the thinnest 6'11", 250lb players I've seen (his weight at the Chicago camp).

The Knicks have a very interesting mix of talent this season--- so different from what we started with last year. I think we have enough serviceable players to get the job done; however, it'll take some time to sort through the mess. Is TT's more mature game enough to keep Ariza/Lee on the bench? How will the minutes be distributed at the guard positions--- who starts where... and who'll be the official starting PG? Will Q be used as a spark scorer off the bench? Will Sweetney get minutes... who's our starting center--- and will playing time be a rough split between James and Frye?

Hmm....