# Tim Thomas "In The Paint" article



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/knicks/inthepaint/tim_040315.html


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Fluff article...what you would expect coming from the Knicks perspective. You think they would come down on him? Certainly not yet.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Why should they come down on him?????????????

His numbers are not bad..take away the game where he played 2 minutes due to an injury and hes doing pretty well.....

Hes shooting over 50% from the floor,scoring 15 per game,pulling down 5 boards,and shooting .424 from 3 point land..That is VERY respectable for a guy taking 10 shots per game...

Compare that with h20's best year ever and you will see that Thomas is not being judged fairly..last year H20 averaged 22 points on 18 shots per game,while shooting .445 from the floor and .396 from 3 point land..And everyone knows Houston is a great shooter..RIGHT???

You do realise that if TT took 18 spg he would be avg between 25 and 28 per game..And yes,these are just projected stats,but that is all we have to go on..And do not tell me stats dont tell the story..TT's shots are no easier than Houstons and a 3 point shot is a 3 point shot.....And Houston is no Gary payton on D.to say the least


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Some of these Van Horn guys are too much. That was a "human interest" article put out by the Knicks so that fans can get to know something about a player off the court. It of course would only have been a fair article if it were debasing abd humiliating to TT. That would be good fair and balanced journalism.

If you'd look you'd see they do the same for some other Knicks:

http://www.nba.com/knicks/inthepaint/

Should they be trashing them all... yet?

Can someone just set up a shrine for Van Horn for you folks to submit your little valentine cards, trinkets and bracelets for him?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Oak,most of these guys are very very emotional in their assessments.They have a problem judging a player objectively,if they dont "like" him....

i am really lost as to the negativity that has been directed towards him...

the guy takes 10 shots per game..and hes avg 15 points...hes shooting over 50%...what do people expect from the guy..he shoots better than H20.its not up for discussion...the numbers dont lie...as i said if he shot 18x pere game he would score 25 or so....he put up 23 shots tonight and scored 32....

i have no problem with guys saying we sukk since the trade..its a fact...but TT has been every bit as good as van horn,houston an anyone else...their lack of objectivity is mind boggling


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

truth baby, I though Rashidi was the stat man but you are the maestro. And you speak the f'n Truth my man.

The book on T. Thomas has always been that he just doesn't shoot enough. I think that's correctible.

One thing I'd love to see in stats but have no idea how to approach it... has he always been clutch at the FT line?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> the guy takes 10 shots per game..and hes avg 15 points...hes shooting over 50%...what do people expect from the guy..he shoots better than H20.its not up for discussion...the numbers dont lie...as i said if he shot 18x pere game he would score 25 or so....he put up 23 shots tonight and scored 32....


And FG% has absolutely nothing to do with what the defense throws at you. Tim Thomas is a better scorer than Tim Duncan. Just check the FG%. But Othella Harrington is a better scorer than both. Just check the FG%.

The fact that Tim Thomas has never been a 2nd option on any team is negligible. And PGs (or other playmakers) in no way affect teammate FG%. AT ALL. Just ask Kenyon Martin, Kerry Kittles, and Richard Jefferson.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> And FG% has absolutely nothing to do with what the defense throws at you. Tim Thomas is a better scorer than Tim Duncan. Just check the FG%. But Othella Harrington is a better scorer than both. Just check the FG%.


That post is utter SUBJECTIVE EMOTIONAL absurdity....ReREAD what I wrote and if you cant comprehend it ill go over it..If you refuse to comprehend it,keep on reading

I repeat..TT takes 10 shots per game..What do you expect him to do shooting 10x per game....He is delivering every bit as much as Houston in his BEST years,and certainly van Horn as a Knick..You just can not face facts,and i understand your issues..its cool

Lets try this approach


Rashidi,take TT out of the equation because you lose all rationality when you get emotional.....

Tell me,when you look at the stats is there something about Iverson vs Mcgrady that you may notice???


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> That post is utter SUBJECTIVE EMOTIONAL absurdity.


On your part, not mine. I already stopped caring what you or others say about me.



> ReREAD what I wrote and if you cant comprehend it ill go over it..If you refuse to comprehend it,keep on reading


You should do the same. You are the one saying TT is a better shooter because he has a higher FG%. I presented flaws in your case, and you are accusing me of letting my emotions getting in the way of agreeing with such a holey arguement.



> I repeat..TT takes 10 shots per game..What do you expect him to do shooting 10x per game....He is delivering every bit as much as Houston in his BEST years,and certainly van Horn as a Knick..You just can not face facts,and i understand your issues..its cool


Did it ever occur to you that creating your own shot, having your shot created for you, and shooting while contested are very different things?

Most of Tim Thomas' points right now are being created FOR him. Of course a player that shoots 20 times is going to score. Shandon Anderson could score lots of points if he took 20 shots too. Heck, look what Ricky Davis did last season.

Speaking of Allan Houston, H20 can create his own shot very effectively, as we saw last season. Comparing him to a guy who has been unable to do that in his career is not very smart. There's a reason people say "TT doesn't shoot enough". It's because he doesn't know how to get his own shot, he needs someone to set him up. Whether it be 3 scorers to take the pressure off (Glenn, Ray, Sam) or a PG to set him up. 

Why do you think the Lakers 4 stars had FG%'s all above normal at the start of the season (when they were all healthy)? Because not only do they take the pressure off of each other, they can create their own shots AND set up each other for shots. How about the Kings and T'Wolves this year?

If Karl Malone shoots 10 times and scores 14 points, and Tim Thomas does the same, are they equal offensive players? That's just the beginnings of the flaws in your arguement. But then again, I'm supposedly emotional, therefore making my opinion null and void. Continue as you were.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Rashidi you spew a lot of theory. Just keep one more in mind, most of the time TT has been here Houston has been out or worthless. Often times TT is drawing double teams. he's putting up PPG numbers exactly comparable to VH's in Milwaulkee, and better than his as a Knick, wihout the benefit of Houston spreading the floor.

If it works in LA the same would work here. TT's production may only go up with a healthy Houston and Baker.

You may need to dig up some new theories...


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

And alphadog, elswhere you've been implying TT has been very inconsitent as a Knick. Again subtracting out his 12, 9, and 3 min performances, here were his numbers, from oldest to newest:

pts rebs

17 4
10 6
33 2
22 4
16 5
16 12
13 6
18 5
17 4
20 8
32 5


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

OK, Oak. Last 14 games Vh has 63 FT vs 52 for TT. Who drives more? VH has 25 Offensive rebounds vs TT's 11. Who mixes it up more and is more physical? And lets nort spew crap about TT's elbow injury. It doesn't make any difference when you only get 1 offensive board a game. And he sat in Philly because he sucked...not because he was hurt. Coaches decision.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

No one said KVH wasnt the better rebounder..You guys are attempting to make a case how KVH played better for the Knicks than TT....But the numbers seem to indicate you are just blowing smoke up our ASSSSSSS......

Prove me wrong,the past is history..Its recorded...Present your case......

And I agree the Knicks have not played well since the trade,but am not as emotional or subjective like you..Give me numbers,something concrete...Opinions are like aholes..everyone has one

Bring it


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Rashidi you spew a lot of theory.


Actually it's from an article written earlier in the year when the Lakers were 18-3.

Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Payton's ppg totals are DOWN this season. But at the beginning of the year, their FG%'s were all UP from the previous year. Is there any reason that their FG%'s would have gone DOWN?

It's also COMMON SENSE. The team with the best players win. Didn't you ever hear of the dream team?

This is only theory to someone that never stepped on a court. I'm sure you can recall back to high school when you were on a good player's team, you usually got higher percentage shots. Unless that player was a ballhog, then you got no shots.

Van Horn btw, shot .500 on 3's in January, and .417 in February. Perhaps one could chalk that up to my so-called "theory" too.

*Or perhaps one could bring up Allan Houston's 3pt%?

Houston is hitting 43% of his 3's this season. That's 30 points above his career average (an average that is GROSSLY BLOATED by 3 years of a shortened 3pt line). Why is nobody making an issue of this? Why is VH supposed to drop in 3's when he has been hitting them lights out for 3 months, when Allan Houston himself has been hitting them well above his usual level. Perhaps it has something to do with...*

December: .442 (13 games)
January: .516 (13 games)
February: .500 (1 game)
March: .500 (7 games)

Gee, my so called theory is sure looking like a piece of crap.



> Just keep one more in mind, most of the time TT has been here Houston has been out or worthless.


Correct. That's something for YOU to keep in mind when you bring up his point totals. A healthy Houston means fewer shots for TT.



> Often times TT is drawing double teams. he's putting up PPG numbers exactly comparable to VH's in Milwaulkee, and better than his as a Knick, wihout the benefit of Houston spreading the floor.


Tim Thomas is averaging 10 shots per game in March, and averaging 14.3 ppg on .524 shooting. That includes .462 on 3's.

Keith Van Horn is averaging 14 shots per game in March, and averaging 19.1 ppg on .487 shooting.

It should be obvious which player is grossly playing over their head.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Did it ever occur to you that creating your own shot, having your shot created for you, and shooting while contested are very different things?


Arent you the same guy who tried to convince me that Vujanic and lampe were better NBA shooters than Marbury,dispite the fact one has never hit an NBA 3 and the other still hasnt dribbled a Bball in the USA????

Now,you want me to adress the very thing you vehemently argued against???Increase the dosage,dude



> Most of Tim Thomas' points right now are being created FOR him



Are we talking about TT from the Knicks??Or are you referring to tiny timmmy thomas from your church league?????

TT gets open looks???The guy is a post player who predominantly goes one on one...Mr Alfa,just got done posting that TT is a creator who goes one on one too much..You didnt dispute that,BIg BOY..


this is all i said


> the guy takes 10 shots per game..and hes avg 15 points...hes shooting over 50%...what do people expect from the guy..he shoots better than H20.its not up for discussion...the numbers dont lie...as i said if he shot 18x pere game he would score 25 or so....he put up 23 shots tonight and scored 32....


Case in point...TT is avg 32.5 PPG when he takes 20 shots or more in a game.When he takes 15 or more he averages 26 ppg..Next excuse, Rashidi..

yeah,Alan Houston is a tremendous one on one player..He is truly multi dimensional..Dont talk to me about the last of Laydens super blunders,paying a very good perimeter player with NO D,millions more than anyone else could pay him

Do you realise the next time you are right will be the first????


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Opinions are like aholes..everyone has one


And yet for some strange reason, you consider yours superior to everybody else's. Go figure.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> OK, Oak. Last 14 games Vh has 63 FT vs 52 for TT. Who drives more?


In this you are including 3 games where TT played 12, 3 and 9 mins. The 9 min game was his first here, without a practice, the 3 min game was from the hyperextended elbow, and the 12 min game was the one in Philly when he was off the court and in the lockerroom puking.

If you take those 3 games out and compare TT's relevant 11 games to Vh's last 11 games it's 53 to 49 in favor of TT.



> VH has 25 Offensive rebounds vs TT's 11. Who mixes it up more and is more physical?


Again, TT minutes skews this, but yes, VH is a better O rebounder. If that is your definition of tough, then you win. I find it a narrow definition.

BTW, they are fairly equal on the defensive glass. Is defensive rebounding something less manly than offensive rebounding?



> And lets nort spew crap about TT's elbow injury. It doesn't make any difference when you only get 1 offensive board a game.


What, now is offensive rebounding the only relevant function of a small forward?



> And he sat in Philly because he sucked...not because he was hurt. Coaches decision.


No he sat out because he was in the locker room puking.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

Like I said...let me know when the Knicks are scaring anybody again. Then tell me how the numbers back it up when they don't. By the end of the year you will have to rethink your analysis methods. BTW, subjectivity is what player analysis is all about. Why don't the best scorers in college translate into the best scorers in the NBA(assuming they even get there) when the guys scoring much less are often much better scorers in the pros. Same rules...same basket...same competion..but...huh? What gives? Warrick for SU averages about 20/10 but he will be outclassed by many other forwards when he goes. Why? He is shooting a high percentage and boarding well. I mean..the numbers don't lie..right? We have to objective not subjective right? How would you use numbers to pick draft choices that all play in the same "league" but have vastly different stats?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Rash-man,I have opinions about future events where there is no numbers to validate stats....Sweetny becoming better than Brand is purely my opinion and verrry subjective...

TT shooting better than Van Horn is a fact,non disputable based on shooting %'s..Only the emotional non rational fan will attempt to find excuses as to why playerTT who has a higher shooting % than player KVH is not really a better shooter...Its a delusional viewpoint..But the excuses to the irrational fan are very real....

Different D,one creates his own shot,one is the second option,the other isnt,different rims..You must know them as you are the one making them up every good game TT has..

Hence the book,Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds..


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually it's from an article written earlier in the year when the Lakers were 18-3.
> ...


What are you saying Rashidi? Their numbers are up then down, then the team with the best players win??? That's why I say you are spewing theory, because I see your lips moving but I'm not sure you know what you are saying. I know I don't.



> Van Horn btw, shot .500 on 3's in January, and .417 in February. Perhaps one could chalk that up to my so-called "theory" too.


When I know for sure what your theory is I'll answer that.



> *Or perhaps one could bring up Allan Houston's 3pt%?
> 
> Houston is hitting 43% of his 3's this season. That's 30 points above his career average (an average that is GROSSLY BLOATED by 3 years of a shortened 3pt line). Why is nobody making an issue of this? Why is VH supposed to drop in 3's when he has been hitting them lights out for 3 months, when Allan Houston himself has been hitting them well above his usual level. Perhaps it has something to do with...*
> 
> ...


Can someone interpret for me? What is his point?





> Correct. That's something for YOU to keep in mind when you bring up his point totals. A healthy Houston means fewer shots for TT.


Here's how my theory works regarding production when playing on a talent loaded team. When you have lots of players demanding the ball your shot totals should go down, but since the defense can't single you out your shooting percentage should go up. I hope I stated that simply enough for you to understand, I wish you'd do the same.





> Tim Thomas is averaging 10 shots per game in March, and averaging 14.3 ppg on .524 shooting. That includes .462 on 3's.
> 
> Keith Van Horn is averaging 14 shots per game in March, and averaging 19.1 ppg on .487 shooting.
> 
> It should be obvious which player is grossly playing over their head.


Why don't you keep consitent and compare apples to apples. Yoiu show two shooting percentages for TT and one for VH. How can anyone make sense of that?

Please restate your point simply so we can see if your evidence supports it, then please state your evidence in a way that translates apples to apples.

Please?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>alphadog</b>!
> Like I said...let me know when the Knicks are scaring anybody again. Then tell me how the numbers back it up when they don't. By the end of the year you will have to rethink your analysis methods.


Very well alpha. Just keep in mind that the Bucks have dropped 6 of their last seven, including a humiliating defeat to the Knicks. So by your logic they must really be cursing the trade, as their falloff must surely be due to the trade for VH.

With that I'm done. I can't possibly have anything left to add. Thanks for the debate, it was fun.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Tim Thomas is averaging 10 shots per game in March, and averaging 14.3 ppg on .524 shooting. That includes .462 on 3's.





> Keith Van Horn is averaging 14 shots per game in March, and averaging 19.1 ppg on .487 shooting.





> It should be obvious which player is grossly playing over their head.


So let me get this straight..You blast TT because he doesnt deliver...But at the same time, You POST stats that clearly Indicate that TT is playing GREAT ball....In fact MUCH better than KVH..

But wait....You REFUSE to say anything positive about TT,yet clearly point out how well he is playing and have yet a brand new excuse...This time you openly admit he is playing grosssly above his head,meaning hes playing awesome ball,but to you thats a BAD thing

Do you realise you are truly a sick,demented twisted Individual????

Give your Keith Van Horn-y doll a big hug from me tonight and chill the $%^% out..You are one crazy MoFo..Do you ever read what you write????????????/


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

I'll have to agree with Rashidi and alpha on this one. Having a higher FG% doesn't mean that you are a better shooter. When you are the number 1 option on your team, the other team's defense will be focusing on you. You won't get easy shots and your FG% will suffer. If you are the #2 option, you get less shots but better looks because the other team should be focusing on the #1 option. When you get down to the #3 and #4 options, they should be making many shots. Thats why you have Harrington having a higher FG% than KT, yet you don't see people saying Harrington is a better shooter than Thomas. When you have team filled with stars, like the Lakers or the Dream Team, everyone's FG% goes up because the opposing team can't focus on one person. When everyone on the floor is a threat to score constantly, its gives the defensive team fits. My example will be Iverson. His FG% in Philly, quite frankly, sucks. No one doubts his ability to score though. Iverson is the biggest threat to score on the Sixers, so his FG% is crap. When he played for the Dream TEam this summer, everyone else on the team was a great scorer too. It took the pressure and focus off him, so his FG percentage SKYROCKETED. When IVerson got back, he started have crap FG%s again. Iverson was the same player, just that he got better looks because he wasn't the #1 option anymore. 

TT gets an advantage because he opposing defenses focus on Marbury first, and then Houston when he is healthy and possibly KT. He is gonna get better looks than Houston, that is for sure. TT as a better shooter then Houston? I admit that TT is a pretty decent shooter, and his stats since coming over are amazing, but Houston is widely regarded as one of the top shooters in the league. He might be a somewhat one-dimentional player, but no one ever doubted his shooting ability. I think it is a bit absurd to consider TT a better shooter than Houston. Ask around theleague, I think most people would agree that Houston is a better shooter. 

However, Van Horn was a third option on the team too when he was still here. Teams would look for Marbury and Houston first, and possibly KT first (for an inside presence), just like TT. Both players play the same option on the team in NY IMO. KVN is the #2 option on the Bucks now though, so his FG% being lower is logically understanderable, but we should remember that since Houston was injuried for a long time, TT was basically the #2/3 option on the Knicks for the majority of his games,just like KVH. TT has better numbers right now because he is just shooting and playing better right now. I do believe that TT's FG% will go down if he shoots more thought. It will still be good,but that as good as it is now. 

Dang, this is one long, confusing post. It seems like I am arguing for both sides, right? Well that is because I think both sides have valid points. We shouldn't call a persona better shooter just because he has a better FG%, but TT is playing really well recently. We didn't lose that much, we might have gained a little too, by trading away KVH. I agree with Rashidi that TT won't maintain that FG% if he shoots more, but I also believe that TT is a better scorer/shooter than advised before, and could be a very good #2/3 option behind Marbury and Houston,maybe even a better fit than KVH. This is one confusing post, so I would appreciate it if some of you guys would give me some input on my ideas (or tell me if you can't understanda single word =P). Please be civil though, if just to humor me.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Yes Dracono you are all over the place, but it's not a simple issue. I think the problem is some people think about a better "shooter" while others think about a better "scorer" without making the verbal distinction.

For instance, the reason Harringtons FG% is better than TT isn't because of his pecking order, or that nobody is keying on him, it's because he gets his points cose to the basket. Almost all bigmen have a better Fg% than guards because close shots are higher percentage than far.

Thus VH could be a better shooter, but TT could have a higher FG% because he's got a better inside game. Also Vh could have a better midrange game, but TT a better three point game.

So Alpha, and perhaps it was KBF, may be correct that VH is a better "pure shooter" but if TT (or whoever) is able to convert at a higher rate, however he does it, that has merit of it's own. People don't criticize Duncan for not being more like Dirk, though Dirk is clearly the better shooter.

This team just so happened (past tense) to have lots of good shooters and almost NO inside presence (unless you like Deke and Harringtons offense), and as a result we had the lowest number of freethrow attempts in the league, and because eveyone liked to hang around outside, a low rebound rate. With the addition of TT, Nazr, and Baker, both those stats are rising. Now we need Houston back, and Penny to get it going again, to help rebalance the scale as we are in need of more outside shooting.

I doubt that explanation proves anything but does it make sense of anything?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

One additional note regarding "scoring option" pecking order. If you have a balanced team offensively, a defense can really only double team one player at a time or they'll be really exposed and abused. So a defense will key on you number one scoring option, OR your number one ball handler, but it's far less relevant to second options and third and fourth. 

VH's FG% should not be lower than TT's simply because he is the Bucks second option, especially when they have such a strong first option in Redd. And in Houston's absence, which has been most of TT's time here he's been the second option too.

However, where the pecking order will show up is in shot attempts. A second option should be expected to take more shots than a fourth option, and that is one of the primary differences between TT's and VH's Career. VH was what option for his years in NJ? First or second. Second for Philly. Third here (half a season out of his entire career). Whereas TT was sixth man for the Bucks for several years, then fourth option behind Cassell, Big Dog and Ray Allen. Thus he's had and is used to far less shot attempts over his career.

Now back to defense. This team has been suffering mightily because in Houston's absence Marbury has been our best scorer and primary ballhandler at once. Defenses can key on Marbury and be very disruptive to the offense. When you have a dynamic alternative scorer that he can dump off to keying on him becomes dangerous, but without that you kill the whole offense by keying on one guy.

As such, with Houston down, whoever would be the more offensively aggresive betweenVH or TT would be the better fit for the team. Perhaps at this stage in their careers that was VH, I don't know --Has TT's shot attempt average here matched what VH's was here yet? Part of TT's career developement here will need to be taking more shots and moving up, at least mentally, as a scoring option.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Having a higher FG% doesn't mean that you are a better shooter


Ok that is obviously true...

If two pllayers take the same # of shots,But if player A has a better FG% than player B and player A has a better 3 point % than player B,can you just look at the numbers and say Player A shoots better than player B???



> Has TT's shot attempt average here matched what VH's was here yet


Read my post and that is exactly what I answered..its as close as an apples to apples comparison as there is..Let me ask you..How can you agree or disagree with anyone till you know the answer to that question?????

Its fundamental to this debate....Thats why I get on Alfa and rashidi....They post opinions and alot of excuses..I think this whole debate will be cleared up if people can answer the question i posed to you


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> 
> Read my post and that is exactly what I answered..its as close as an apples to apples comparison as there is..Let me ask you..How can you agree or disagree with anyone till you know the answer to that question?????
> 
> Its fundamental to this debate....Thats why I get on Alfa and rashidi....They post opinions and alot of excuses..I think this whole debate will be cleared up if people can answer the question i posed to you


Sorry truth, I must have missed it, or been distracted, what exactly is the question to me?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Whenever we debate on "shooters" and what makes a good shooter,I tend to look at stats...Alfa will say that tells half the story and immediately Rashidi will pull out stats on Shaq and Othello harrington,completely missing the poinin a comparison between two similar players such as KVH and TT...

My question was this



> If two pllayers take the same # of shots,But if player A has a better FG% than player B and player A has a better 3 point % than player B,can you just look at the numbers and say Player A shoots better than player B???


I say YES,without a doubt....The naysayers,are going to have many reasons as to why its not true..Whats interesting is the naysayers have completely conflicting excuses as to why they say the stata are misleading...Alfa commented that TT is just a one on one player,and Rashidi in a separate post wrote that TT cant create and gets open looks...

Thats why their argument is very muddled..10 different guys 10 different excuses.....


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I know my writing styleis hard to read as a rule, so I don't mean to be critical, but some parts of yesterdays discussion got a bit hard for me to follow. For instance truth, when you got into player A and A2 vs B and B2, that got a bit awkward, and Rashidi, I was sincere in not following your long post above.

Unless people want to just accept that the outcome of this trade is still unknown and accept that so far TT has basically played equal to VH (with a rebound vs assists vs turnovers quibble here or there) maybe we should restate whatever remaining issues there are again in a more simple fashion?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> Whenever we debate on "shooters" and what makes a good shooter,I tend to look at stats...Alfa will say that tells half the story and immediately Rashidi will pull out stats on Shaq and Othello harrington,completely missing the poinin a comparison between two similar players such as KVH and TT...
> 
> My question was this
> ...


I see. I don't think it's simple. I think TT may have a better 3 pt shot and a better inside game, but a worse midrange game. So how would I answer who is the better shooter?

I think it's not worth considering in that light. I consider who is the more effective scorer, or the better fit for the team. For me, in Houston's absence, and the absence of anything reliable from Hardaway and KT, that person may have been VH. But in the presence of any other good midrange shooters, the answer would be TT, if he keeps playing with aggression.


----------



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

How about I just end this topic by saying....YES THE TRADE WAS GREAT!

Thank You.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> when you got into player A and A2 vs B and B2


Oak,i would never do that,its just if the initials KVH or TT are in a post Rashidi just can not see straight..I tried a different approach..Actualy,i am tired of debating with him..

He likes Eisly or Ward over Marbury,fine

He likes KVH and Doleac,FINE

He likes Layden,Fine

He doesnt consider making the playoffs important,FINE..

He likes posting about KVH in a Knick forum,FINE

He doesnt mind looking like a fool when TT serves KVH a donut in the second half,Fine


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Sounds good to me. I actually prefer TT's game to VH's. If he keeps playing close to the way he's been playing, putting up 19 and 5, I'll be more than happy.

Actually, him, Marbury, and Sweetney, are the guys I do put a lot of faith in right now.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Me too...I actually love Sweetney..Cant believe I am saying that,but the guy has dropped 20 pounds,and every ounce of it shows in his performance..

I also like Marbury,and for some odd reason I like baker...

I like TT and I do think he can be really good..I liked the way he wanted the ball against the Wizards..We deparately need that..Someone needs to break down the D when marbury gets trapped and doubled..Hopefully it will be TT


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> For instance, the reason Harringtons FG% is better than TT isn't because of his pecking order, or that nobody is keying on him, it's because he gets his points cose to the basket. Almost all bigmen have a better Fg% than guards because close shots are higher percentage than far.


Which is exactly what I've been saying for the past week. Except when it comes out of my mouth it's "irrational and emotional". Go figure. So what if VH has a similar career FG% to TT? That doesn't mean TT is as good a shooter or scorer as KVH is.



> Whenever we debate on "shooters" and what makes a good shooter,I tend to look at stats...Alfa will say that tells half the story and immediately Rashidi will pull out stats on Shaq and Othello harrington,completely missing the poinin a comparison between two similar players such as KVH and TT...


Except that YOU are the one missing MY point when I do this. My point is that you can't judge a player by their FG%, beautifully illustrated by using two players with high FG%'s who can't shoot as an example. Perhaps you got confused, or perhaps you just assumed my "irrational emotionality". Given that you seem to think I am often "irrationally emotional", it is very likely that this is not the first thing I've said to go over your head. When Rashidi supposedly takes something in a different direction, he is not. He is showing you another example under similar circumstances. It is not Rashidi's fault that you are bad at connecting dots.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Rashidi, not to sound like a moderator, but this board wilkl function a lot more smoothly if we all take responsibility for making ourselves easily understood. I include myself in that. So if we see people don't get our points I suggest we rephrase them rather than insult the reader for not getting us. Fair?

I think the reason your Shaq and Harrington examples were off base was because their shooting percentages aren't confused by good 3pt shooting, like VH and TT. It's a lot easier to compare a couple of pure shooters, or a couple of bangers, than it is some tweeners. Forwards who can shoot are probably the hardest to compare by the numbers.

However, that is to say it's hard to say which is the better "pure" shooter or which is the better post-up guy by looking at his numbers. But if either guy can convert it into points with the same efficiency, should we care what kind of shot they are using to do it? Two points is two points, no? And 50% on threes vs 50% on threes is the same thing, no?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Thank you OAK.....

Rashidi,you immediately think i am attacking you or need to be defensive...I object to Harrington and Shaq examples because they are totally different type of players than KVH and TT..

And keep in mind I am 100% agreeing with you regarding 2 point FG%....Yes one guy can be a banger down low like a ben wallace and he should not be compared to a perimeter playing foward...

The point I am trying to make with you,or at least find out your feelings is this;

We both agree that just because we know 2 players two point fg% we really cant tell who the better shooter or scorer is due to the reasons you listed..

But I am asking you IF we take 2 players who are similar,like Stevie Franchise and Marbury,assume they shoot the apx same number of shots,and we know their 2 point fg% AND three point%, dont you think then and only then we can look at the numbers and compare??????

I think the 3 point % kind of bring things together and gives you a good idea on thier respective scoring and shooting abilities..Dont you agree?????

We have to come up with some sort of common understanding on how we define "shooting" and scoring


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> Rashidi, not to sound like a moderator, but this board wilkl function a lot more smoothly if we all take responsibility for making ourselves easily understood. I include myself in that. So if we see people don't get our points I suggest we rephrase them rather than insult the reader for not getting us. Fair?
> 
> I think the reason your Shaq and Harrington examples were off base was because their shooting percentages aren't confused by good 3pt shooting, like VH and TT. It's a lot easier to compare a couple of pure shooters, or a couple of bangers, than it is some tweeners. Forwards who can shoot are probably the hardest to compare by the numbers.
> ...


I totally agree and I think that would make this board run a lot better.



> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> For instance, the reason Harringtons FG% is better than TT isn't because of his pecking order, or that nobody is keying on him, it's because he gets his points cose to the basket. Almost all bigmen have a better Fg% than guards because close shots are higher percentage than far.


I think you misunderstood, my post was talking about Harrington and Kurt Thomas, KT, not TT. KT plays PF, so I thought that it would be a suitable comparision. Granted, KT has more of a midrange game and doesn't always shoot close to the basket like Harrington, but I thought that KT was the closest guy I could use for a comparision on the Knicks. 

I tend to disagree a bit on your take on the "scoring option" Oakley.Yes the #1 option will always gather the most attention, but the second option gathers attention too. The opposing team knows that the #1 option won't be taking every shot, so their next target will be the #2 option. Thats about all the players the defense can really focus on. They won't always just focus on the #1 option, IMO, they will look out for a duo. This is just what I felt when I play b-ball games anyway, but I don't think the game changes that much. Also, the #1 option on the Knicks is Marbury, a VERY dangerous scorer. #2 is Houston, a very deadly shooter. The defense can't let Marburry penatrate or Houston shoot, so they focus more on those two players. KVH is a pretty good shooter himself, but not as deadly as Houston or Marbury for sure. KVH is left with less pressure and better looks. On the Bucks, the #1 scoring option is Redd. Redd has made great strides recently is a one great shooter, but he is not at Marbury's level as a scorer yet. I think he actually is comparable to Houston in his offensive game. The Buck's opposing teams will focus on Redd and Van Horn, and Redd isn't that much better than Van Horn, so KVH gets a lot of attention too. Redd and KVH are almost equal in scoring ability on the Bucks, but Marbury and possibly Houston are a lot better. KVH will get better looks in NY IMO. 

I also agree we need to keep the terms "shooter" and "scorer" serperate right now. KVH is a better shooter, but TT is at least KVH's equal as a scorer. I do think TT is a better fit in NY right now with Houston back though.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dcrono3</b>!
> 
> I think you misunderstood, my post was talking about Harrington and Kurt Thomas, KT, not TT. KT plays PF, so I thought that it would be a suitable comparision. Granted, KT has more of a midrange game and doesn't always shoot close to the basket like Harrington, but I thought that KT was the closest guy I could use for a comparision on the Knicks.


Sorry, at that point I wasn't really addressing your post directly. After I saw you go back and forth a bit I decided to just "take it from the top" and start fresh... at least fresh in my mind.



> I tend to disagree a bit on your take on the "scoring option" Oakley.Yes the #1 option will always gather the most attention, but the second option gathers attention too. The opposing team knows that the #1 option won't be taking every shot, so their next target will be the #2 option. Thats about all the players the defense can really focus on. They won't always just focus on the #1 option, IMO, they will look out for a duo. This is just what I felt when I play b-ball games anyway, but I don't think the game changes that much. Also, the #1 option on the Knicks is Marbury, a VERY dangerous scorer. #2 is Houston, a very deadly shooter. The defense can't let Marburry penatrate or Houston shoot, so they focus more on those two players. KVH is a pretty good shooter himself, but not as deadly as Houston or Marbury for sure. KVH is left with less pressure and better looks. On the Bucks, the #1 scoring option is Redd. Redd has made great strides recently is a one great shooter, but he is not at Marbury's level as a scorer yet. I think he actually is comparable to Houston in his offensive game. The Buck's opposing teams will focus on Redd and Van Horn, and Redd isn't that much better than Van Horn, so KVH gets a lot of attention too. Redd and KVH are almost equal in scoring ability on the Bucks, but Marbury and possibly Houston are a lot better. KVH will get better looks in NY IMO.
> 
> I also agree we need to keep the terms "shooter" and "scorer" serperate right now. KVH is a better shooter, but TT is at least KVH's equal as a scorer. I do think TT is a better fit in NY right now with Houston back though.


I don't disagree with anything you say here, but we were comparing TT and VH numbers, sometimes as post trade numbers, sometimes career. I felt the need to lay down some basics. For instance, in terms of recent numbers, ie post trade, Houston has been out or a shell of himself, TT has basically been our second option, just as VH is in Mil., so it makes for a fair comparison of recent shooting percentages and shot attempts. But when you look at their past numbers, it needs to be kept in mind that VH was carrying a lot of the load in NJ and Philly, while most of that time TT was 6th man, or 4th option at best, so there is no reason to expect him to be putting up first or second option type output.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Rashidi,you immediately think i am attacking you or need to be defensive...


I wonder what forced me into such a mentality.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

i am willing to say we are both at fault...but you do seem to go at it with other posters,not just me...you are a contraversial dude


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>son of oakley</b>!
> 
> I don't disagree with anything you say here, but we were comparing TT and VH numbers, sometimes as post trade numbers, sometimes career. I felt the need to lay down some basics. For instance, in terms of recent numbers, ie post trade, Houston has been out or a shell of himself, TT has basically been our second option, just as VH is in Mil., so it makes for a fair comparison of recent shooting percentages and shot attempts. But when you look at their past numbers, it needs to be kept in mind that VH was carrying a lot of the load in NJ and Philly, while most of that time TT was 6th man, or 4th option at best, so there is no reason to expect him to be putting up first or second option type output.


That is true, but I was stating that TT and KVH's FG % don't really show who is the better shooter because of options. I agree that TT would be able to score more if he was a higher option, but I think that when he shoots and scores more, his FG% would go down. Thats all i was trying to say. I agree with you for themost part, I think we misunderstood each other a bit, haha.


----------

