Vmart wrote:He will be lucky to shoot 40%. Another high volume scorer to go with rest of the high volume scores. This roster is clumsy because it is inefficient.

The number 3 ranked offense in the league is inefficient? New year though so you never know.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Vmart wrote:He will be lucky to shoot 40%. Another high volume scorer to go with rest of the high volume scores. This roster is clumsy because it is inefficient.

The number 3 ranked offense in the league is inefficient? New year though so you never know.

that measure is only a part of the overall picture. the fact that the formula includes in its divisor portion (it's a quantity in the denominator) the number of turnovers per game works in the knicks favor for sure-- but that seems to be more about efficient possessions than it does efficient scoring.

also note that the knicks were dead last in assist%. bargnani will not help here at all.

when you have such an anomaly you have to factor that in.

or if you are going to state how well the knicks took care of the ball you have to also state how poorly they shared the ball. i am not saying they directly cancel each other out but in a general way positives and negatives tend to.

so we are hoping that the knicks continue to take care of the ball and at the same time expect them to become better at sharing the ball.

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Vmart wrote:He will be lucky to shoot 40%. Another high volume scorer to go with rest of the high volume scores. This roster is clumsy because it is inefficient.

The number 3 ranked offense in the league is inefficient? New year though so you never know.

that measure is only a part of the overall picture. the fact that the formula includes in its divisor portion (it's a quantity in the denominator) the number of turnovers per game works in the knicks favor for sure-- but that seems to be more about efficient possessions than it does efficient scoring.

also note that the knicks were dead last in assist%. bargnani will not help here at all.

when you have such an anomaly you have to factor that in.

or if you are going to state how well the knicks took care of the ball you have to also state how poorly they shared the ball. i am not saying they directly cancel each other out but in a general way positives and negatives tend to.

so we are hoping that the knicks continue to take care of the ball and at the same time expect them to become better at sharing the ball.

Its hard to turn it over when u make 1 or 2 passes a possession

Jmpasq wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Vmart wrote:He will be lucky to shoot 40%. Another high volume scorer to go with rest of the high volume scores. This roster is clumsy because it is inefficient.

The number 3 ranked offense in the league is inefficient? New year though so you never know.

that measure is only a part of the overall picture. the fact that the formula includes in its divisor portion (it's a quantity in the denominator) the number of turnovers per game works in the knicks favor for sure-- but that seems to be more about efficient possessions than it does efficient scoring.

also note that the knicks were dead last in assist%. bargnani will not help here at all.

when you have such an anomaly you have to factor that in.

or if you are going to state how well the knicks took care of the ball you have to also state how poorly they shared the ball. i am not saying they directly cancel each other out but in a general way positives and negatives tend to.

so we are hoping that the knicks continue to take care of the ball and at the same time expect them to become better at sharing the ball.

Its hard to turn it over when u make 1 or 2 passes a possession

precisely why the statistic itself is misleading and detracts from this efficiency meme posters are clinging to.

Bargnani:

06-07 25mins 11.6pts 42.7FG% 37.3 3pt 3.9rebs
07-08 24mins 10.2pts 38.6FG% 34.5 3pt 3.7rebs
08-09 31mins 15.4pts 45.0FG% 40.9 3pt 5.3rebs
09-10 35mins 17.2pts 47.0FG% 37.2 3pt 6.2rebs
10-11 35mins 21.4pts 44.8FG% 34.5 3pt 5.2rebs
11-12 33mins 19.5pts 43.2FG% 29.6 3pt 5.5rebs
12-13 28mins 12.7pts 39.9FG% 30.9 3pt 3.7rebs

Gallo:
08-09 15mins 06.1pts 44.8FG% 44.4 3pt 2.0rebs
09-10 34mins 15.1pts 42.3FG% 38.1 3pt 4.9rebs
10-11 35mins 15.9pts 41.5FG% 34.7 3pt 4.8rebs
11-12 31mins 14.6pts 41.2FG% 32.8 3pt 4.7rebs
12-13 32mins 16.2pts 41.8FG% 37.3 3pt 5.2rebs

smackeddog wrote:I remember back when he blasted us, writers and fans were saying Bargs was better than Gallo. Of course, now he's a Knick, that's being erased from history. Out of interest lets compare their basic stats (I know that doesn't tell the whole story and Gallo has more heart than Bargs).

Bargnani:

06-07 25mins 11.6pts 42.7FG% 37.3 3pt 3.9rebs
07-08 24mins 10.2pts 38.6FG% 34.5 3pt 3.7rebs
08-09 31mins 15.4pts 45.0FG% 40.9 3pt 5.3rebs
09-10 35mins 17.2pts 47.0FG% 37.2 3pt 6.2rebs
10-11 35mins 21.4pts 44.8FG% 34.5 3pt 5.2rebs
11-12 33mins 19.5pts 43.2FG% 29.6 3pt 5.5rebs
12-13 28mins 12.7pts 39.9FG% 30.9 3pt 3.7rebs

Gallo:
08-09 15mins 06.1pts 44.8FG% 44.4 3pt 2.0rebs
09-10 34mins 15.1pts 42.3FG% 38.1 3pt 4.9rebs
10-11 35mins 15.9pts 41.5FG% 34.7 3pt 4.8rebs
11-12 31mins 14.6pts 41.2FG% 32.8 3pt 4.7rebs
12-13 32mins 16.2pts 41.8FG% 37.3 3pt 5.2rebs

You know there's a huge difference between 5 rbs/game as an SF and a PF/C, right? You're gonna be outrebounded by at least four per game at the position if you're getting 5 a game from your PF/C. The assist:TO ratio and ability to get to the line favor Gallo significantly too.

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I remember back when he blasted us, writers and fans were saying Bargs was better than Gallo. Of course, now he's a Knick, that's being erased from history. Out of interest lets compare their basic stats (I know that doesn't tell the whole story and Gallo has more heart than Bargs).

Bargnani:

06-07 25mins 11.6pts 42.7FG% 37.3 3pt 3.9rebs
07-08 24mins 10.2pts 38.6FG% 34.5 3pt 3.7rebs
08-09 31mins 15.4pts 45.0FG% 40.9 3pt 5.3rebs
09-10 35mins 17.2pts 47.0FG% 37.2 3pt 6.2rebs
10-11 35mins 21.4pts 44.8FG% 34.5 3pt 5.2rebs
11-12 33mins 19.5pts 43.2FG% 29.6 3pt 5.5rebs
12-13 28mins 12.7pts 39.9FG% 30.9 3pt 3.7rebs

Gallo:
08-09 15mins 06.1pts 44.8FG% 44.4 3pt 2.0rebs
09-10 34mins 15.1pts 42.3FG% 38.1 3pt 4.9rebs
10-11 35mins 15.9pts 41.5FG% 34.7 3pt 4.8rebs
11-12 31mins 14.6pts 41.2FG% 32.8 3pt 4.7rebs
12-13 32mins 16.2pts 41.8FG% 37.3 3pt 5.2rebs

You know there's a huge difference between 5 rbs/game as an SF and a PF/C, right? You're gonna be outrebounded by at least four per game at the position if you're getting 5 a game from your PF/C. The assist:TO ratio and ability to get to the line favor Gallo significantly too.

believe me, I'm not a fan of Bargs, I don't know much about him and I have low expectations for the trade. His rebounding is AWFUL. But I do think people have been a bit unfair to him- there has been some very selective use of stats (which, to be fair, you've been guilty of in some posts). People have blasted him for FG% and his points per game, but Gallo seems to get a free pass by the same people. Also, all this "lets pick his worst season and pretend he's always been like that" by some writers has been annoying me.

We need him to have a miraculous turnaround year- it's happened once or twice when we've traded for him. It's unlikely, but it would be nice!

sealy wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

sealy wrote:I think he'll make the Chris Copeland fanclub, that seems to exist on this board, come back down to earth. Kinda reminds me about the inexplicable lovefest many had for Toney Douglas.

Copelands 36 per numbers are better then Bargs best season in the NBA. I think Copeland probably could equal Bargs production if he was in Toronto getting a green light to shoot and playing 30 minutes a game.

Correlation does not imply causation

We are talking about a 9th or 10th guy off the bench, who is 29/30, being better or even comparable to a 26 yr old, former number 1 pick, who is probably going to start for the Knicks.

I understand the point that Copeland needs to be given the opportunity, but my response to that would be:

1. Would he actually ever start here or on Indy? No. I could even see him falling out of the rotation there.

2. Do you honestly believe his offensive game is as diverse as Bargs? I say no

They both are horrendous defenders, but what Bargs brings offensively compared to Copeland is what I see as the large gap between the two. Don't get me wrong, I liked Copeland, just like I did a Shawne Willimas, but there is no comparison between Copeland and Bargs in my mind. Stats can be pretty misleading sometimes.

Being Drafted #1 Overall means little at this point all it means is he was given a longer leash and guaranteed minutes in Toronto.Does Bargs have a better game in a vacuum over Copeland yes but when a player makes 4 times as much and takes 3 draft picks to acquire I take that into account as well