Knicks Core vs. Nets Core

[HighRyzer83]

Yeha thats true TKF our picks could turn out like Hill, but I'll take our chances.

You mean the same Hill that was raping your frontcourt in the clutch yesterday? Starters and all...
Since 07 the nets are 3-5 against the knicks. If your core is not better recordwise nor performance wise, better in what way son?

[StutterStep]

^MG, I answered your 'which teams' would pick Chandler/Gallo over Harris/Lopez.

[mrpoetryNmotion]

So Nets core + VC + bench scrubs = 2 games better than the Knicks core + bench scrubs. - Last year

I don't know about you guys but I think VC is better than CLee.

[Rockice_8]

^^ yeah all six points

and correct me if i'm wrong but I believe he was covered by simmons down the stretch

[K_ick_God]

Yes, you basically have my argument right. I think that Brook is about at 80% of his potential already and I'm not shy about saying so.

Gallo is at about 50% of his potential and since you're such a numbers guy, it's curious why you haven't even mentioned the performance that Gallo *did* show *with* a bad back, as a rookie, in his first year on this continent. Guy hit 44% of his 3's and made 26 of 27 free throws. Big sample? No. But neither is Brook's 13 and 8.

Again, it's about looking at guys play basketball, not pieces of paper with numbers on them. I think Brook's numbers DO prove that he's going to be a good player, maybe a very good one, but my eyes also show me that his potential to be great is pretty low. My eyes tell me something different about Gallo.

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that - but how about the rest of his numbers? He had as many turnovers as assists, didn't rebound and couldn't find the free throw line if it was pointed out to him. And lets not even mention his blocks.

Big sample? No. But neither is Brook's 13 and 8.

That doesn't even make sense. Brook played 30mpg in 82 games, 75 of which he started. You can't get a bigger season sample than 82 games.

To be totally honest, I would prefer you just said 'Gallo's numbers were a fluke last season. How he's shot this pre-season is closer to what I think he'll be.'

I'd respect that argument -- disagree with it, but respect it -- but you're kind of moving around on me and I don't know what you really think. So you think he's a good shooter but you're criticizing other parts of his game. OK. Well, it's actually the other parts of his game that are the reason I think he's got special potential. He is unselfish, has a pull-up jumper, can go to the hole and finish or draw a lot of fouls, has *really* good court vision, and he's a pretty determined and well-positioned defender despite his physical limitations. If he was just a good shooter with height, we'd be looking at Brad Lohaus and I wouldn't be saying too much about Gallo.

On the other point, I don't consider any rookie season a big enough sample size to say a guy is going to be a great player.

[j4remi]

Yes, you basically have my argument right. I think that Brook is about at 80% of his potential already and I'm not shy about saying so.

Gallo is at about 50% of his potential and since you're such a numbers guy, it's curious why you haven't even mentioned the performance that Gallo *did* show *with* a bad back, as a rookie, in his first year on this continent. Guy hit 44% of his 3's and made 26 of 27 free throws. Big sample? No. But neither is Brook's 13 and 8.

Again, it's about looking at guys play basketball, not pieces of paper with numbers on them. I think Brook's numbers DO prove that he's going to be a good player, maybe a very good one, but my eyes also show me that his potential to be great is pretty low. My eyes tell me something different about Gallo.

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that - but how about the rest of his numbers? He had as many turnovers as assists, didn't rebound and couldn't find the free throw line if it was pointed out to him. And lets not even mention his blocks.

Big sample? No. But neither is Brook's 13 and 8.

That doesn't even make sense. Brook played 30mpg in 82 games, 75 of which he started. You can't get a bigger season sample than 82 games.

This is why stat-hounds fail often (peeks at Hollinger's predictions every year). You look at a stat-line and make assumptions without knowing what a player even looks like. Gallo had limited touches, minutes, and role but when he did drive he was effective and showed vision. His passing skills are pretty clear to anyone who's actually watched him play. His PER and the teams record even in his limited role show that he was effective on the floor (some other stats for you to mess around with and figure out), yet you'd say "let's look at the numbers" and ignore the most important one (aka Gallo on the squad had a .500 record). There are such things as empty stats, call them Zbo numbers if you'd like.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

He is putting one toe in the water to show us this list, seemingly as a way of proving how special Brook is or will be. But then he backs away and basically says 'No, I don't think this indicates what Brook can or will be.' So then why show us the list if you're not going to stand behind it?

I say this with a smile, no antagonism here, but if you post the list -- jump all in and say you think that Brook is a rare player who comes along once in a long while. My suspicion is that even Magilla Gorilla doesn't really feel comfortable supporting Brook as some kind of dominant player in the making. Thus he pulls the rug out from under us when we least expect it lol.

Kind of like someone who punches you and then puts on a pair of glasses so you don't hit back.

Suffice to say that if these guys were really confident in Brook, they wouldn't be making such contorted and complicated arguments. If you think Brook is going to be at or even *near* the level of Duncan, say so, confidently, and let's let it roll and see what happens. Man up!

Methinks they're more interested in trying to win a debate with an admin than really giving their honest opinions about this guy.

I think you might not have understood the historical significance of the numbers Brook put up as a rookie - and that they have nothing to do with his future success. I don't support Brook as a dominant player - because he isn't - but what he is is a very successful player at a position that has few and which contrary to your belief - is not easy to fill. The whole point of my post was to discredit your belief that Brook was a player that could be found at anytime anywhere. The Knicks don't have one, and over the course of the last 20 years only 8 other teams have found a rookie who did better.

As for the comment about debating an admin - I really have no idea what that has to do with anything. Being an admin neither increases or decreases basketball knowledge, and as far as I know winning a debate with one is not going to get a prize mailed to me. It certainly lets everyone else know you are an admin, in case anyone didn't, but it has no bearing on the discussion.

[Rockice_8]

KnicksGod

I don't know what Gallo your talkin about but I haven't seen him. He's played more like Brad Lohaus then this superstar your talking about.

[K_ick_God]

Got to double reply to this message because there are specific points in here that are crying out to be addressed.

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that - but how about the rest of his numbers? He had as many turnovers as assists, didn't rebound and couldn't find the free throw line if it was pointed out to him. And lets not even mention his blocks.

He has actually shown that drawing fouls will be a particularly strong part of his game. I don't know if you're really doing anything but reading stats on him. You need to watch him play a few games to get a feel.

He is not going to be inside enough to block shots, but he plays the angles on D and makes his man take tough shots more often than not. I'm really surprised at how good and competitive a defender he is. I really wouldn't even mention it as a weakness of his game. A lot of guys think it is, challenge him, and he surprises them too. And as a Bulls fan, you might have remembered that one of his blocks was against Derrick Rose who was doing just that.

Turnovers may be an issue with him -- he's not strong and may have trouble holding the ball. But his assist numbers will not be a problem. He's got a better feel for the game and eye for where to pass the ball than a lot of point guards. His passing may turn out to be the highest-caliber part of his game IMHO.

[method]

Yeha thats true TKF our picks could turn out like Hill, but I'll take our chances.

What the hell are you talking about,Hill hasnt even played an NBA game yet.

And still schooled your rotation players last night with our other rook that you will be getting to know real quick and a bunch of players who are going to get cut.


Hows that feel by the way?

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Yes, you basically have my argument right. I think that Brook is about at 80% of his potential already and I'm not shy about saying so.

Gallo is at about 50% of his potential and since you're such a numbers guy, it's curious why you haven't even mentioned the performance that Gallo *did* show *with* a bad back, as a rookie, in his first year on this continent. Guy hit 44% of his 3's and made 26 of 27 free throws. Big sample? No. But neither is Brook's 13 and 8.

Again, it's about looking at guys play basketball, not pieces of paper with numbers on them. I think Brook's numbers DO prove that he's going to be a good player, maybe a very good one, but my eyes also show me that his potential to be great is pretty low. My eyes tell me something different about Gallo.

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that - but how about the rest of his numbers? He had as many turnovers as assists, didn't rebound and couldn't find the free throw line if it was pointed out to him. And lets not even mention his blocks.

Big sample? No. But neither is Brook's 13 and 8.

That doesn't even make sense. Brook played 30mpg in 82 games, 75 of which he started. You can't get a bigger season sample than 82 games.

This is why stat-hounds fail often (peeks at Hollinger's predictions every year). You look at a stat-line and make assumptions without knowing what a player even looks like. Gallo had limited touches, minutes, and role but when he did drive he was effective and showed vision. His passing skills are pretty clear to anyone who's actually watched him play. His PER and the teams record even in his limited role show that he was effective on the floor (some other stats for you to mess around with and figure out), yet you'd say "let's look at the numbers" and ignore the most important one (aka Gallo on the squad had a .500 record). There are such things as empty stats, call them Zbo numbers if you'd like.

You mentioned PER - Gallo had a 13.4 - thats not good. 86% of Gallo's shots were jumpshots - he clearly didn't have any desire to drive - his FT attempts back that up.

[method]

I think you might not have understood the historical significance of the numbers Brook put up as a rookie

Just a question,what was Channing Fryes rookie numbers?I will tell yo 1 point and 2 rebounds shy of your special once in a lifetime center Brook Lopez.Now please GTFO.

[K_ick_God]

[Gallinari] as of now has done next to nothing in the NBA, Summer League, or preseason. ... all Gallo has done is get his back operated on and return to look pedestrian, again.

Then a couple of posts later ...

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that

I don't know if these two statements are blatant contradictions, but nonetheless -- this is the "Don't hit me, I'm wearing glasses" kind of shiftiness that I am talking about.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Got to double reply to this message because there are specific points in here that are crying out to be addressed.

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that - but how about the rest of his numbers? He had as many turnovers as assists, didn't rebound and couldn't find the free throw line if it was pointed out to him. And lets not even mention his blocks.

He has actually shown that drawing fouls will be a particularly strong part of his game. I don't know if you're really doing anything but reading stats on him. You need to watch him play a few games.

Turnovers may be an issue with him -- he's not strong and may have trouble holding the ball. But his assist numbers will not be a problem. He's got a better feel for the game and eye for where to pass the ball than a lot of point guards. His passing may turn out to be the highest-caliber part of his game IMHO.

In the pre-season, with whistle happy refs, he's had one game where he was able to get the line with any frequency. I'm curious how he has shown that drawing fouls is a strong part of his game - when he doesn't actually get to the free throw line. Unless of course he only draws fouls off the ball fouls when the opposing team is not in the penalty.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

I think you might not have understood the historical significance of the numbers Brook put up as a rookie -.

Just a question,what was Channing Fryes rookie numbers?I will tell yo 1 point and 2 rebounds shye of your special once in a lifetime center Brook Lopez.Now please GTFO.

16 and 6 playing PF. I think you'll see that I have been pretty specific mentioning the fact that all of those players/numbers pertain to Centers.

[K_ick_God]

Got to double reply to this message because there are specific points in here that are crying out to be addressed.

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that - but how about the rest of his numbers? He had as many turnovers as assists, didn't rebound and couldn't find the free throw line if it was pointed out to him. And lets not even mention his blocks.

He has actually shown that drawing fouls will be a particularly strong part of his game. I don't know if you're really doing anything but reading stats on him. You need to watch him play a few games.

Turnovers may be an issue with him -- he's not strong and may have trouble holding the ball. But his assist numbers will not be a problem. He's got a better feel for the game and eye for where to pass the ball than a lot of point guards. His passing may turn out to be the highest-caliber part of his game IMHO.

In the pre-season, with whistle happy refs, he's had one game where he was able to get the line with any frequency. I'm curious how he has shown that drawing fouls is a strong part of his game - when he doesn't actually get to the free throw line. Unless of course he only draws fouls off the ball fouls when the opposing team is not in the penalty.

Well it's been fun but I guess I can only say 'we'll see' to this and other issues discussed in this topic. Again, I don't need to look at his stats to validate my opinion that Gallinari has the game and instincts to generate offense going to the line. We'll see if I'm right or you are (though to be honest I'm not entirely sure what you believe about his potential other than that you generally don't think he's going to be that good).

Don't mean to be nasty but I couldn't with any certainty even say that you believe Brook Lopez is going to be the superior player to Gallinari. I have a feeling that I'd make a statement that you do, and then you'd back off and say something like "I'm not saying that Gallinari won't be better than Lopez, he might be," etc.

It's not that productive a debate because it just seems like a debate to debate. Let's revisit this around mid-season and see how things are shaping up.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

[Gallinari] as of now has done next to nothing in the NBA, Summer League, or preseason. ... all Gallo has done is get his back operated on and return to look pedestrian, again.

Then a couple of posts later ...

Kid can shoot - never would or have denied that

I don't know if these two statements are blatant contradictions, but nonetheless -- this is the "Don't hit me, I'm wearing glasses" kind of shiftiness that I am talking about.

Gallo has done two things - have surgery and play pedestrian basketball. He can shoot, but take the cumulative value of what he has done - and its pedestrian - as evidenced by his PER.

[nyqua11]

Nets easily. Harris/Brook>>>>Any combo the Knicks can throw out.

[Teppler]

Angry Nets fans swarm in here after we beat them 3x in preseason?

[Magilla_Gorilla]

In the pre-season, with whistle happy refs, he's had one game where he was able to get the line with any frequency. I'm curious how he has shown that drawing fouls is a strong part of his game - when he doesn't actually get to the free throw line. Unless of course he only draws fouls off the ball fouls when the opposing team is not in the penalty.

Well it's been fun but I guess I can only say 'we'll see' to this and other issues discussed in this topic. Again, I don't need to look at his stats to validate my opinion that Gallinari has the game and instincts to generate offense going to the line. We'll see if I'm right or you are (though to be honest I'm not entirely sure what you believe about his potential other than that you generally don't think he's going to be that good).

Don't mean to be nasty but I couldn't with any certainty even say that you believe Brook Lopez is going to be the superior player to Gallinari. I have a feeling that I'd make a statement that you do, and then you'd back off and say something like "I'm not saying that Gallinari won't be better than Lopez, he might be," etc.

It's not that productive a debate because it just seems like a debate to debate. Let's revisit this around mid-season and see how things are shaping up.

I agree - it will be interesting to see how everything plays out come May / June.