http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=36469

You talk about FG%

Except for the cream puff portion of the schedule Eric Gordon shot 38% from the field and under 30% from COLLEGE 3 in the big ten. That is what the Knicks need another guard who shoots 40% turns the ball over and doesnt guard anyone. He'll be a summer league star and then when pro 2 guards get a hold of him ----well.

Also he hurt his LEFT wrist not his shooting hand--so his 38% was a legit 38%

[Edited by - BRIGGS on 06-22-2008 11:29 PM]

The Knicks are going to win basketball games with

Crawford--40%
Q Rich 35%
Gordon --40%
Nate==40%

Id rather take my chances with developing a player before I took another 40% shooting smallish guard with a bad handle.

Briggs, consider these points.
1) Gordon was playing hurt and under a very difficult coaching situation for a significant portion of the season. I know it was his left wrist (which is why he played at all), but it still must have made things uncomfortable.
2) Take a look at the last stat on the right on the url you provided. His points per shot (pps) was 1.57. Compare that to Mayo (1.28) and Westbrook (1.27), Point per shot is a better method of analyzing scoring efficiency than field goal percentage since it includes threes and foul shots. Gordon has faults in his game, but scoring isn't one of them. He'll be a much better scorer than Westbrook, who I also like.

I agree Briggs but EG was the focal point of being stopped. He had the best defender guarding him and everyone was shading toward him. In the pros he will be a spot up shooter and he can flat out stroke it when he is open. His body is NBA ready, great athlete and a great kid.

Posted by Ira:

Briggs, consider these points.
1) Gordon was playing hurt and under a very difficult coaching situation for a significant portion of the season. I know it was his left wrist (which is why he played at all), but it still must have made things uncomfortable.
2) Take a look at the last stat on the right on the url you provided. His points per shot (pps) was 1.57. Compare that to Mayo (1.28) and Westbrook (1.27), Point per shot is a better method of analyzing scoring efficiency than field goal percentage since it includes threes and foul shots. Gordon has faults in his game, but scoring isn't one of them. He'll be a much better scorer than Westbrook, who I also like.

OK but is a scorer an essential need here? We dont guard anyone we dont protect the basket we are smallish we have a lot of me first scorers. Point per shot is a misleading stat because it really focuses on the 3 point shot. You may score more--but the effciency of +- with those points has to take into account all of the points the other teams score on breakouts from long rebounds on missed 3 point shots. For example if Eric took 208 3 pt shots and made only 70 of them--his point per shot average is decent but how about the 138 missed shots that create break opportunities that 3 point shooting usually allow. It not all black and white there. If you consider all of those missed shots with a very large tO rate--that is a great deal of sloppy basketball. And intangibles--Eric sits out on that perimeter a LOT--he doesnt seem to fight over screens. Is he a terrible pick---NO but doe she fit the NY Knicks?

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by Ira:

Briggs, consider these points.
1) Gordon was playing hurt and under a very difficult coaching situation for a significant portion of the season. I know it was his left wrist (which is why he played at all), but it still must have made things uncomfortable.
2) Take a look at the last stat on the right on the url you provided. His points per shot (pps) was 1.57. Compare that to Mayo (1.28) and Westbrook (1.27), Point per shot is a better method of analyzing scoring efficiency than field goal percentage since it includes threes and foul shots. Gordon has faults in his game, but scoring isn't one of them. He'll be a much better scorer than Westbrook, who I also like.

OK but is a scorer an essential need here? We dont guard anyone we dont protect the basket we are smallish we have a lot of me first scorers. Point per shot is a misleading stat because it really focuses on the 3 point shot. You may score more--but the effciency of +- with those points has to take into account all of the points the other teams score on breakouts from long rebounds on missed 3 point shots. For example if Eric took 208 3 pt shots and made only 70 of them--his point per shot average is decent but how about the 138 missed shots that create break opportunities that 3 point shooting usually allow. It not all black and white there. If you consider all of those missed shots with a very large tO rate--that is a great deal of sloppy basketball. And intangibles--Eric sits out on that perimeter a LOT--he doesnt seem to fight over screens. Is he a terrible pick---NO but doe she fit the NY Knicks?

I'm not all hot for Eric Gordon but I think it's short sighted to think he would do nothing for us.

In D'Antoni's system we will look to score quickly, score often and outscore opponents. Gordon may be the most explosive offensive player in the draft. Be careful judging 1-season of college stats for an end-all conclusion on a kids career. You have to consider the system he played in and the talent around him. I know when I watched that Indiana team I thought they were awful outside of Gordon and White.

Gordon would give the Knicks another scorer, a kid who doesn't appear to be afraid of a big shot, a kid with great form on his long range shot and most importantly someone who can get us to the free throw line late in games. I think a 3-guard rotation of Nate, Jamal and Gordon in Mike D's system would be pretty electric. Much like Barbosa came off the Sun's bench to ignite Phoenix Gordon could be our guy.

When I look at our roster - assuming Zach is moved - I don't see a bunch of scorers. I think we are over=rated as a team of scorers simply because our team chemistry and defense have been so poor the past few years. I think we need more guys who can put the ball in the whole from the perimeter and I believe Gordon's shot is pure and his ability to get to the line and score with contact is legit.


Mayo's my guy right now, Bayless and Westbrook are probably in a tie for 2nd and Gordon comes in 3rd or 4th depending on how you look at it.

Regarding Bayless and Westbrook.

Does Bayless remind anyone of Trajen Langdon the kid from Duke a few years ago?
Does Westbrook remind anyone of Keyon Dooling?

These are the types of comparisons that worry me about Bayless and Westbrook but I'll be excited with either.