iSergio wrote:Wilson Chandler and it's not even that close. As a starter, Chandler is putting up 19 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 1.3 bpg with 50% shooting and 39% from three. He's just a better player than Danilo Gallinari and you have to be blind or have a secret agenda not to see it.

HE IS also taking about 19 shots to get 19 points.. that is not great man.... ok, well maybe not 19 shots, but chandler is taking more shots to score more points. he is not a good passer, he is not an efficient player... we are not blind, we are not stupid.... you can throw out and manipulate stats all you want, but in the end, it comes down to the eyeball test.. this is what you are failing at...

tkf wrote:

TMS wrote:tkf, i hear u dude... there are a select few guys that were just dead set against Gallinari from the time he was drafted for one reason or another... still i think for the most part, people are just voicing legitimate observations about the progress in Wilson's game... when u look at the numbers, u will see that Gallo's game has not really progressed in any area from last season other than his FT attempts (which is encouraging considering we all wanted him to be more aggressive taking the ball to the basket)... still, when u look at the rest of his statline averages this year compared to last year, there seems to be little change... i think people were hoping to see more progression from him especially since we took him 6th in the draft & he came here with higher expectations... i know i did, & i've always been a guy who defended Gallo against undue criticism in the past.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?playerId=3428

in contrast, when u take a look at Wilson's stats from last year & compare them to this year, u can easily see the progress he's made in his game... his 3 pt shooting % is way up from 27% to 37% which is a significant improvement, & his ppg average is up 2 pts from last season... he's also improved in his blocked shots & rebounding averages as well... the fact that he's been productive in both a 6th man's role & in the starting rotation is also a reason why people look at him as an attractive piece to hold onto... the versatility in his game gives MDA a lot of options in terms of how to set up the rotation against various teams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?playerId=3194

good post, but I will say this, can't really judge gallo's game by numbers. I see improvement, but he is a #4 option on this team, I just don't think at this point you will see a huge jump in numbers, but what I look for is his level of play, and I seem improvement there... chandler IMO has better numbers party because he is taking more shots.. Not a knock on him, but something to be considered.. with chandlers' style of play, and lack of some offensive "skills", I think he is best suited as a 6th man... And if we get melo, we can find guys who can come in and score off the bench if needed.. but whatever..

I agree with all you said

I love both these guys...... But Gallo gets way less touches so comparing #'s aint fair

While Gallo was out Will got ball even more yet produced less........ Not knocking Will but
Gallo has more to offer in my opinion

If you trade for Melo I would keep Gallo and trade Will

Gallo is a 7 foot 3 point threat that gets you 5.5 ft's a game as fourth option which is what
he still would be with Melo here

Chandler would go from 3rd option to fourth and would probably get you less #'s the Gallo

iSergio wrote:

tkf wrote:

iSergio wrote:Wilson Chandler and it's not even that close. As a starter, Chandler is putting up 19 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 1.3 bpg with 50% shooting and 39% from three. He's just a better player than Danilo Gallinari and you have to be blind or have a secret agenda not to see it.

HE IS also taking about 19 shots to get 19 points.. that is not great man.... ok, well maybe not 19 shots, but chandler is taking more shots to score more points. he is not a good passer, he is not an efficient player... we are not blind, we are not stupid.... you can throw out and manipulate stats all you want, but in the end, it comes down to the eyeball test.. this is what you are failing at...

Do some research. I'm not going to keep playing these games with you. Either post facts or skip my posts.

For starters, look up Wilson Chandler's shot attempts as a starter. Look at Danilo Gallinari's assists per game versus Chandler. Look up Gallinari's FG% defense versus Chandler. Watch some games and watch how Chandler can actually score off the dribble and in the post while Gallinari cannot.

while you are looking up those numbers, can we level-set the comparison and take the #s Chandler put up in his second season's worth of games?

Bonn1997 wrote:

what does chandler do? the league is full of guys who can score 17 points on 15-17 shots.

He's averaging 18 PPG on 14 shots. I'd admit though that there are plenty of SFs who could put up 18 PPG if taking 14 shots. What sets Wilson apart from them is the 1.5 blocks a game. No SF in the league is blocking as many shots as he is. (http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/blocks/sort/avgBlocks/position/small-forwards)

but a lot of those SF's are good man to man defenders vs other small forwards, something wilson struggles with..

tkf wrote:

iSergio wrote:

tkf wrote:

iSergio wrote:Wilson Chandler and it's not even that close. As a starter, Chandler is putting up 19 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 1.3 bpg with 50% shooting and 39% from three. He's just a better player than Danilo Gallinari and you have to be blind or have a secret agenda not to see it.

HE IS also taking about 19 shots to get 19 points.. that is not great man.... ok, well maybe not 19 shots, but chandler is taking more shots to score more points. he is not a good passer, he is not an efficient player... we are not blind, we are not stupid.... you can throw out and manipulate stats all you want, but in the end, it comes down to the eyeball test.. this is what you are failing at...

Do some research. I'm not going to keep playing these games with you. Either post facts or skip my posts.

For starters, look up Wilson Chandler's shot attempts as a starter. Look at Danilo Gallinari's assists per game versus Chandler. Look up Gallinari's FG% defense versus Chandler. Watch some games and watch how Chandler can actually score off the dribble and in the post while Gallinari cannot.

today.. chandler 21 shots for 23 points.. thanks for playing sergio..... bye..

Points per shot is not the best way of judging a players efficiency. True shooting percentage is much better because it counts times when you go to the line as possessions (where as points per shot does not). If you look at that statistic, Wilson and Gallo are both very good but Gallo is slightly better (60 vs. 57.2%). That difference is a lot smaller than the difference in their rebounding and shot-blocking.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

iSergio wrote:

tkf wrote:

iSergio wrote:Wilson Chandler and it's not even that close. As a starter, Chandler is putting up 19 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 1.3 bpg with 50% shooting and 39% from three. He's just a better player than Danilo Gallinari and you have to be blind or have a secret agenda not to see it.

HE IS also taking about 19 shots to get 19 points.. that is not great man.... ok, well maybe not 19 shots, but chandler is taking more shots to score more points. he is not a good passer, he is not an efficient player... we are not blind, we are not stupid.... you can throw out and manipulate stats all you want, but in the end, it comes down to the eyeball test.. this is what you are failing at...

Do some research. I'm not going to keep playing these games with you. Either post facts or skip my posts.

For starters, look up Wilson Chandler's shot attempts as a starter. Look at Danilo Gallinari's assists per game versus Chandler. Look up Gallinari's FG% defense versus Chandler. Watch some games and watch how Chandler can actually score off the dribble and in the post while Gallinari cannot.

today.. chandler 21 shots for 23 points.. thanks for playing sergio..... bye..

Points per shot is not the best way of judging a players efficiency. True shooting percentage is much better because it counts times when you go to the line as possessions (where as points per shot does not). If you look at that statistic, Wilson and Gallo are both very good but Gallo is slightly better (60 vs. 57.2%). That difference is a lot smaller than the difference in their rebounding and shot-blocking.

i think points per shot (which would include FT) and TS are the same thing really. just different ways of measuring.

PPS is your total number of points divided by your field goal attempts. FTs contribute to the numerator (points) but not the denominator (shots). In an extreme case, if a player went 1 for 2 from the field and 12 for 12 from the line, his points per shot for the game would be 7.0 (14 points scored divided 2 shot attempts). His true field goal percentage would adjust for the number of possessions used up to draw those fouls. Here is the formula: TS%: True Shooting Percentage - what a player's shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]
Essentially, the difference matters only if one of the two players you're comparing gets to the free throw line much more than the other. Although it is good if a player gets to the line often, points per shot is going to exaggerate the effect of free throws since it's adding to the numerator (points) without at all adding to the denominator (shots).

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

iSergio wrote:

tkf wrote:

iSergio wrote:Wilson Chandler and it's not even that close. As a starter, Chandler is putting up 19 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 1.3 bpg with 50% shooting and 39% from three. He's just a better player than Danilo Gallinari and you have to be blind or have a secret agenda not to see it.

HE IS also taking about 19 shots to get 19 points.. that is not great man.... ok, well maybe not 19 shots, but chandler is taking more shots to score more points. he is not a good passer, he is not an efficient player... we are not blind, we are not stupid.... you can throw out and manipulate stats all you want, but in the end, it comes down to the eyeball test.. this is what you are failing at...

Do some research. I'm not going to keep playing these games with you. Either post facts or skip my posts.

For starters, look up Wilson Chandler's shot attempts as a starter. Look at Danilo Gallinari's assists per game versus Chandler. Look up Gallinari's FG% defense versus Chandler. Watch some games and watch how Chandler can actually score off the dribble and in the post while Gallinari cannot.

today.. chandler 21 shots for 23 points.. thanks for playing sergio..... bye..

Points per shot is not the best way of judging a players efficiency. True shooting percentage is much better because it counts times when you go to the line as possessions (where as points per shot does not). If you look at that statistic, Wilson and Gallo are both very good but Gallo is slightly better (60 vs. 57.2%). That difference is a lot smaller than the difference in their rebounding and shot-blocking.

chandler is getting 2 more boards per game and about 2.5 ppg better.. but again, he is also taking more shots than gallo, he also has a higher usage rate.. chandler is touching the ball a lot more.. gallo is behind TD in shots and usage rate.. I rather have the ball in gallo's hands... takes better shots, moves the ball better, better passer... but this debate is tiring.. chandler took 21 shots to get 23 points and he took a lot of bad shots.. 2-9 from three and I see those who defend chandler, won't bring up his 3pt% any longer, beccause it is steadily dropping.. people took a hot week or two from chandler and made him into an allstar..