RealGM

I havent been on here in awhile so I dont know if you guys have saw the 3 part installment on him on NBA.com The 1st two were good vids but the 3rd one is vicious. The kid is back and he looks better then ever. The crazy thing is his hops. I saw vids of Gil in HS and he would dunk with ease but on the Wiz he never dunked and it seemed like a struggle whenever he did dunk. Now he's dunking like he's D-Wade. Here is part 3 and you guys can see the other 2 on there if you want. http://www.nba.com/wizards/video/originals/

Meh...he will still shoot 42%.

For some reason, I couldn't care less for any one player. Great if he comes back, I just don't really care.

anticlimactic...

USA wrote:Meh...he will still shoot 42%.

For his case, eFG% and TS% yields far more accurate details of his offensive potency. FG% is still a relevant statistic but shouldn't be the only factor that indicates one's offensive prowess as a whole. Especially in Arenas case.

Those videos were fun to watch. Thanks.

& this board has hella Gillbert haters..I always liked the guy & I'm very excited to see what he's got.

most exciting player in the league....

yungal07 wrote:most exciting player in the league....

No...

twenty23 wrote:

yungal07 wrote:most exciting player in the league....

No...

Somebody get this whippersnapper a highlight reel.

kthxbye.

kingsfan10 wrote:

USA wrote:Meh...he will still shoot 42%.

For his case, eFG% and TS% yields far more accurate details of his offensive potency. FG% is still a relevant statistic but shouldn't be the only factor that indicates one's offensive prowess as a whole. Especially in Arenas case.

So basically, whichever statistics back up your own perspective are the "right" ones

doct3r dr3 wrote:

twenty23 wrote:

yungal07 wrote:most exciting player in the league....

No...

Somebody get this whippersnapper a highlight reel.

kthxbye.

I dont need one. ive seen him play and hes deffinatly not the most exciting player in the league...

kthnx.

KeithMoonsLiver wrote:

kingsfan10 wrote:

USA wrote:Meh...he will still shoot 42%.

For his case, eFG% and TS% yields far more accurate details of his offensive potency. FG% is still a relevant statistic but shouldn't be the only factor that indicates one's offensive prowess as a whole. Especially in Arenas case.

So basically, whichever statistics back up your own perspective are the "right" ones

TS% and efficiency numbers are the only right statistics to look at when saying if someone is a good shooter/efficient. I really hope you don't judge people by FG%.

KeithMoonsLiver wrote:

kingsfan10 wrote:

USA wrote:Meh...he will still shoot 42%.

For his case, eFG% and TS% yields far more accurate details of his offensive potency. FG% is still a relevant statistic but shouldn't be the only factor that indicates one's offensive prowess as a whole. Especially in Arenas case.

So basically, whichever statistics back up your own perspective are the "right" ones

TS% and eFG% are better than FG% in general, especially when you are talking about a guy who jacks up so many 3s and gets to the line pretty frequently.

KeithMoonsLiver wrote:

kingsfan10 wrote:

USA wrote:Meh...he will still shoot 42%.

For his case, eFG% and TS% yields far more accurate details of his offensive potency. FG% is still a relevant statistic but shouldn't be the only factor that indicates one's offensive prowess as a whole. Especially in Arenas case.

So basically, whichever statistics back up your own perspective are the "right" ones

Actually he is a 100% correct. Because Gilbert takes alot of 3's and gets to the line a lot, its best to look at his TS and eFG to find out how efficient Gil is as a scorer.

Edit : Damn I got beat.

Why don't we wait to see him play in an actual NBA game before we make claims that "he's back"

Check out Mike Miller in part III....lmao.

I wonder if he's going to keep it like that for the season....hope not.

BrewCityBBQ wrote:Why don't we wait to see him play in an actual NBA game before we make claims that "he's back"

how much fun is that?

I'll pour some on top: he's back, and better than ever, nobody can guard him, and will be MVP

i reserve all right to withdraw this statement and have my homer record expunged after the season has started.

RipCity71252 wrote:Check out Mike Miller in part III....lmao.

I wonder if he's going to keep it like that for the season....hope not.

KeithMoonsLiver wrote:

kingsfan10 wrote:

USA wrote:Meh...he will still shoot 42%.

For his case, eFG% and TS% yields far more accurate details of his offensive potency. FG% is still a relevant statistic but shouldn't be the only factor that indicates one's offensive prowess as a whole. Especially in Arenas case.

So basically, whichever statistics back up your own perspective are the "right" ones

FG% is useless in measuring efficiency. You have to look at TS% and eFG% for insight on efficiency.

Patterns is wrong, here, at least to some extent.

FG% is a valuable measure for evaluating people in some ways. Given the volume of 3s he took, the "efficiency" of his shooting is relative; this is the Iverson argument, only with 3s AND FTAs instead of just FTAs. High-volume, low-raw FG% chuckery is still a problem, especially when the 3P% isn't spectacular.

Look at it this way; in 06-07, he had 32 games where he played 30+ minutes and shot under 40%. He had 21 games over 48%. He was a streaky guy; when he was on, he could shoot you out of a hole, but when he wasn't, he'd put you into one.

In those 32 games, he MISSED an average of 14.2 shots a game while taking an average of 20.4.

Regardless of whether he hit his threes or not (he shot 23.2% from downtown in those games on about 7.7 3PA/g), he was still missing left, right and center. Not all of those misses were rebounded by the Wizards.

When you're primarily a perimeter shooter, raw FG% matters. Arenas drives, and he draws fouls (and because he's played mostly from 04-05 forward, he's drawn fouls very well for a wing), but it would be a mistake to only look at eFG% and TS% to evaluate his efficiency.

BULK FG-missed still represent a problem.