In short, he's a champion. A winner. A bulldog. You can't put numbers on that, but that's a player you want on your team for the rest of his career. You want to hang his jersey up there, along with a few championship banners, championship banners he can help you a ton in winning.

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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..

That's it? You harp on points per shot but you don't care what better stats say about the players' offensive efficiency?

points per shot is a huge stat for me.. you act as if chandler is putting up lebron type numbers compared to gallo.... chandler needs a lot of shots to get his points.. to me, that plays a huge part in offensive efficiency... let me just ask this, and lets keep it simple. no manipulating stats.... do you think it is efficient for a guy to take 21 shots to get 23 points? just asking.. yes or no?

No, I don't. He had an inefficient game. This might shock you, but Gallo has had some of them too. Even Lebron has. Do you think points per shot is a better shot than true FG% or do you just not understand the latter? I can think of no logical reason to prefer PPS unless you just don't understand true FG%.

I understand true FG%, but even then gallo has a higher percentage there.. what I am saying is just not to ignore one over the other.... PPS is a valid stat to look at, and One I like to use as well.. not the only, and not the most important, but it ranks high on the list... especially for a guy who is a #3 option..

This might shock you, but Gallo has had some of them too. Even Lebron has.

and this might shock you.. I am not just referring to one game..

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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..

That's it? You harp on points per shot but you don't care what better stats say about the players' offensive efficiency?

points per shot is a huge stat for me.. you act as if chandler is putting up lebron type numbers compared to gallo.... chandler needs a lot of shots to get his points.. to me, that plays a huge part in offensive efficiency... let me just ask this, and lets keep it simple. no manipulating stats.... do you think it is efficient for a guy to take 21 shots to get 23 points? just asking.. yes or no?

No, I don't. He had an inefficient game. This might shock you, but Gallo has had some of them too. Even Lebron has. Do you think points per shot is a better shot than true FG% or do you just not understand the latter? I can think of no logical reason to prefer PPS unless you just don't understand true FG%.

I understand true FG%, but even then gallo has a higher percentage there.. what I am saying is just not to ignore one over the other.... PPS is a valid stat to look at, and One I like to use as well.. not the only, and not the most important, but it ranks high on the list... especially for a guy who is a #3 option..

This might shock you, but Gallo has had some of them too. Even Lebron has.

and this might shock you.. I am not just referring to one game..

Then why do you cite the one game in almost every reply? There is NO reason to look at PPS if you have access to true shooting percentage. The latter takes into account everything PPS does but also better accounts for free throws.

I can cite 10-20 games... Yesterdays agme was more recent.. but even then, as I said.. gallo has the better TS%, am I correct? which is why I feel gallo is not only a better, but more cerebral player, but he would work better with guys who take a lot of shots.. guys like amare, and probably melo if we trade for him..... it is pretty simple for me..

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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..

That's it? You harp on points per shot but you don't care what better stats say about the players' offensive efficiency?

points per shot is a huge stat for me.. you act as if chandler is putting up lebron type numbers compared to gallo.... chandler needs a lot of shots to get his points.. to me, that plays a huge part in offensive efficiency... let me just ask this, and lets keep it simple. no manipulating stats.... do you think it is efficient for a guy to take 21 shots to get 23 points? just asking.. yes or no?

No, I don't. He had an inefficient game. This might shock you, but Gallo has had some of them too. Even Lebron has. Do you think points per shot is a better shot than true FG% or do you just not understand the latter? I can think of no logical reason to prefer PPS unless you just don't understand true FG%.

I understand true FG%, but even then gallo has a higher percentage there.. what I am saying is just not to ignore one over the other.... PPS is a valid stat to look at, and One I like to use as well.. not the only, and not the most important, but it ranks high on the list... especially for a guy who is a #3 option..

This might shock you, but Gallo has had some of them too. Even Lebron has.

and this might shock you.. I am not just referring to one game..

Then why do you cite the one game in almost every reply? There is NO reason to look at PPS if you have access to true shooting percentage. The latter takes into account everything PPS does but also better accounts for free throws.

I can cite 10-20 games... Yesterdays agme was more recent.. but even then, as I said.. gallo has the better TS%, am I correct? which is why I feel gallo is not only a better, but more cerebral player, but he would work better with guys who take a lot of shots.. guys like amare, and probably melo if we trade for him..... it is pretty simple for me..

Yeah, Gallo has a slightly better TS% (corresponding to 3 more shots made out of every one hundred attempts). Wilson does virtually everything else on the court better.

except play.... make good decisions, and take good shots.....

fishmike wrote:who cares whos better? They are different. Its like argueing small boobs vs big. Small are perky and often look better. Big are fun to do stuff with. Both are great. I think of Chandler and Gallo as our left and right boobs.

Papabear wrote:

tkf wrote:

fishmike wrote:

tkf wrote:

MSG3 wrote:

tkf wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

MSG3 wrote:Keep Chandler. Love Gallo but Wil is better. Better slasher. Good 3pt and mid range game. Good D. Ideal 6th man. Has played 3 positions well.

Gallos game can be more easily replaced than Wilsons. See Bill Walker and Shawn Williams. Not as good of players but Bill rebounds better and Williams has a better 3pt shot.

Exactly!!

Why keep a 3 point specialist when you already have two guys that can stroke it better in Walker and Williams?

This just gets better and better.

weak argument.. gallo is a better player than walker or williams.. and he is abetter all around talent than chandler.. you are blowing your own argument to pieces by trying to back walker and williams.. rofl...wow...

Well yea....if I just said that Bill Walker and Shawn Williams were both better than Gallo that would be pretty dumb. But name one guy we can just pick up that can replace what Wilson does. My point was that in my view Gallo's biggest strength is his J since he has no post up moves whatsoever. He's also not as good a defender as Chandler. He gets to the rim and draws fouls, but not consistently.

Someone make an argument what Gallo brings to the table that Wilson doesn't besides just saying Gallo is better. My argument is that Wilson brings more. Doesn't mean I don't like Gallo or that I think Williams and Walker are better than him.

what does chandler do? the league is full of guys who can score 17 points on 15-17 shots... gallo has a better all around game. a cerebral game compared to chandler.. He does all of the things better that you want out of a complimentary player.. because the knicks are hell bent on getting melo.. cut chandler down to 8-10 shots per game and what do you get? think about it bro.. Gallo is a better passer, has a better handler, is a more creative offensive player, and a good defender , just as good as chandler.. Not sure why chandler defense is being overrated around here, although he is a solid defender on big guys...

the choice is easy for me.. gallo can and is getting 15ppg on just 10 shots.. melo is going to cut into everyone's shots... give me gallo..

He gets to the rim and draws fouls, but not consistently.

haha.. he shoots 5.5 FTs per game.. second to only amare on the knicks.... are you kidding me? not consistent?

I think Will is a better player (right now), but Gallo is a much better fit for that team. Of course when it comes to Melo nobody cares about what the fit or the role is, only that he's the key to winning a title in NY just like in Denver so its kind of whatever.

Chandler is good, but tfk is right... Maggette, Richard Jefferson, Salmons... there are a lot of guys like that in the league.

Myself... I dont want to lose EITHER.

On a side note... Melo vs Spurs last night 5-17, 12 pts, 5 rebs, 4 TOs.

Someone please explain to me how such a statline is possible. Thats positively Gallo-like

exactly. and i LIKE chandler, I used to defend him as a player from day 1.. but in this case, I hink gallo has the skillset to be a special player.. now it is up to him to get there,but I see he has the size and skillset.. chandler is a good player, but I see more of his type in this league.. you mentioned a few, and right now, I would not trade gallo for any of those guys...

Papabear Says

Hey both will be gone when Carmelo comes to town. You can count on it.

I fear for tkf's health if Danilo Gallinari is traded to Denver.