Danilo Gallinari

[Alex English]

Current Rating: 77
Suggested Rating: 82

I'm not sure how we bump Chandler, but not Gallinari, he's the best player on the Nuggets.

34.1 mpg, 17.1 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 2.1 apg, 0.7 spg, 0.3 bpg, 42.1 FG%, 37.3 3P%, 89.0 FT%,

[Brian Scalabrine]

Always liked his game, 82

[Walt Frazier]

Some in this league have always underrated him.

82 should be good.

[Kevin Hollis]

79

[Jeremiah Hill]

He's 6'10" and shoots 40%.

77

[Alex English]

Jan 11, 2017 2:56:44 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

He's 6'10" and shoots 40%.

77

What kind of shots does he take? FG% and height aren't related. FG% and shot selection are though. A simple look at someone's FG% can be very misleading.

His FG% is 42.1% which isn't great, but 42% of his attempts are threes. So his 2P FG% is 45.6% and his 3P FG% is 37.3%. He's also very good at getting to the line where he shoots 89%. Take all that into account and see his TS% is 59.7%.

That's a tenth off Lebron James (59.8%) and higher than Damian Lillard (59.6%), Jimmy Butler (58.7%), Kemba Walker (58.7%), Kyrie Irving (58.3%), Paul George (57.9%), Klay Thompson (57.9%), Anthony Davis (57.4%) and a bunch of other really good players that you wouldn't assume by just looking at their overall FG%.

[Jeremiah Hill]

Jan 11, 2017 3:45:23 GMT Alex English said:

Jan 11, 2017 2:56:44 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

He's 6'10" and shoots 40%.

77

What kind of shots does he take? FG% and height aren't related. FG% and shot selection are though. A simple look at someone's FG% can be very misleading.

His FG% is 42.1% which isn't great, but 42% of his attempts are threes. So his 2P FG% is 45.6% and his 3P FG% is 37.3%. He's also very good at getting to the line where he shoots 89%. Take all that into account and see his TS% is 59.7%.

That's a tenth off Lebron James (59.8%) and higher than Damian Lillard (59.6%), Jimmy Butler (58.7%), Kemba Walker (58.7%), Kyrie Irving (58.3%), Paul George (57.9%), Klay Thompson (57.9%), Anthony Davis (57.4%) and a bunch of other really good players that you wouldn't assume by just looking at their overall FG%.

True shooting WAY overvalues 3 pointers and undervalues 2 pointers while also giving a false narrative to good free throw shooters. He's shooting 1% better than league average from 3 point land. Why is he taking Curry percentages of 3's? When he's not a great 3 point shooter. 

His effective shooting percentage is 50% which puts him right under fellow chuckers Jordan Clarkson and Lou Williams. 

I'm not saying he's bad, but he's the definition of average. He might draw a few more FTs than some but he's average at 3pt shooting and bad at finishing inside the arc. Its just the numbers. He offers little to nothing in regards to rebounding he's a slightly above average passer but he's not especially athletic.

I just don't see an 80 ovr rating from what is essentially shitty Kyle Korver. 

[Jeremiah Hill]

www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/player-effective-field-goal-leaders/2016/

[Alex English]

Jan 11, 2017 4:12:33 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

True shooting WAY overvalues 3 pointers and undervalues 2 pointers while also giving a false narrative to good free throw shooters.

How does it do that exactly? The TS% formula doesn't differentiate between two point attempts and three point attempts.

How does it give a false narrative to good free throw shooters? That's a perfectly valid way to score points. Not only that, it's actually the most efficient way to score points.

Jan 11, 2017 4:12:33 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

He's shooting 1% better than league average from 3 point land. Why is he taking Curry percentages of 3's? When he's not a great 3 point shooter.

A player's optimal shot selection is relative, league averages and what Curry might be doing is irrelevant. On average teams should shoot tons of threes and avoid mid-range shots. On an individual level someone like DeRozan should be doing the opposite and shooting a lot of mid-range shots because he's dogshit at shooting threes while being one of the best in the NBA from mid-range.

For Gallinari:

37.3% * 3 = 1.119 points per attempted three
37.6% * 2 = 0.752 points per attempted mid-range shot
60.8% * 2 = 1.216 points per shot at the rim
89.0% * 2 = 1.780 points per trip to the free throw line

Obviously he should avoid mid-range shots like the plague and do his best to get to the free throw line. Getting to the free throw line is easier said than done of course, but Gallinari does a good job of it.

186/580 = 32.1% of his offensive production comes from threes
112/580 = 19.3% of his offensive production comes from mid-range
96/580 = 16.6% of his offensive production comes at the rim
186/580 = 32.1% of his offensive production comes at the line

I'd say he's doing a solid job of taking the best shots for his game.

Jan 11, 2017 4:12:33 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

His effective shooting percentage is 50% which puts him right under fellow chuckers Jordan Clarkson and Lou Williams. 

Effective FG% is an incomplete stat if you want to use it to judge who the most efficient NBA scorers are. Points scored at the free throw line are as good as any other points. Getting to the line is a valuable skill that puts easy points on the board if you have a high FT%. I think the false narrative is from eFG% not TS%. Ignoring free throws is ignoring almost a third of Gallinari's offensive production. However it makes no sense for us to ignore those points when the scoreboard doesn't.

Gallinari is a player who would be an inefficient chucker but he isn't because of good shot selection and a talent for getting to the free throw line.

[Jeremiah Hill]

What about his horrible shot selection? Shooting 5 3pters a game and only hitting league average isn't exactly helping them win.

[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]

Check his per 36 and you will see that overall, his numbers did not improve.

That production is 79, for me.

[Alex English]

Jan 11, 2017 5:42:47 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

What about his horrible shot selection? Shooting 5 3pters a game and only hitting league average isn't exactly helping them win.

Actually I think it is. The Nuggets TS% as a team is 54.6% (league average is 54.8%) and the TS% of a Gallinari three point attempt is 56.0%. If you prefer eFG%. The Nuggets eFG% as a team is 50.5% (league average eFG% is 50.9%) and the eFG% of a Gallinari three is again 56.0%.

So Gallinari shooting threes is actually more efficient than the average offensive play in the NBA as a whole and for the Nuggets specifically.

[Jeremiah Hill]

Jan 11, 2017 6:21:23 GMT Alex English said:

Jan 11, 2017 5:42:47 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

What about his horrible shot selection? Shooting 5 3pters a game and only hitting league average isn't exactly helping them win.

Actually I think it is. The Nuggets TS% as a team is 54.6% (league average is 54.8%) and the TS% of a Gallinari three point attempt is 56.0%. If you prefer eFG%. The Nuggets eFG% as a team is 50.5% (league average eFG% is 50.9%) and the eFG% of a Gallinari three is again 56.0%.

So Gallinari shooting threes is actually more efficient than the average offensive play in the NBA as a whole and for the Nuggets specifically.

True shooting percentage of a three point attempt is stupidest thing I've ever heard Alex. 

The definition of True Shooting Percentage is that it is a combination of 2pt and 3pt attempted. 

(2pt FGM + 1.5*3pt FGM) / FGA

There is the exact equation. 

His effective field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 basically average for someone to be considered a "shooter" in the NBA. 

His true shooting field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 which is the same thing.

Even if you were gonna fuck up the numbers to try and make a point with (1.5x 3ptFGA 1.8) / 4.9 is 55% which makes him exactly 0.2% better than your stupid league average.

So by your own metrics he's average at 3 pointers. Overall he's an average player. Even though his FTR (amount of free throws drawn by percentage) is good and right under Harden, his other advanced stats have more in common with Tristan Thompson and Mason Plumlee than Harden or Jimmy Butler.  Stats

Kind of funny how "stars" free throw rates are in the 40s now adays and Michael Jordan in his prime was in the mid 30's and people thought he got every call. Really shows how the game has changed since then. 

You can continue to try and make every player in the NBA an 85 but I'm gonna stick with common sense mixed with some stats.  

[Walt Frazier]

Jan 11, 2017 8:32:39 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

Jan 11, 2017 6:21:23 GMT Alex English said:

Actually I think it is. The Nuggets TS% as a team is 54.6% (league average is 54.8%) and the TS% of a Gallinari three point attempt is 56.0%. If you prefer eFG%. The Nuggets eFG% as a team is 50.5% (league average eFG% is 50.9%) and the eFG% of a Gallinari three is again 56.0%.

So Gallinari shooting threes is actually more efficient than the average offensive play in the NBA as a whole and for the Nuggets specifically.

True shooting percentage of a three point attempt is stupidest thing I've ever heard Alex. 

The definition of True Shooting Percentage is that it is a combination of 2pt and 3pt attempted. 

(2pt FGM + 1.5*3pt FGM) / FGA

There is the exact equation. 

His effective field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 basically average for someone to be considered a "shooter" in the NBA. 

His true shooting field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 which is the same thing.

Even if you were gonna fuck up the numbers to try and make a point with (1.5x 3ptFGA 1.8) / 4.9 is 55% which makes him exactly 0.2% better than your stupid league average.

So by your own metrics he's average at 3 pointers. Overall he's an average player. Even though his FTR (amount of free throws drawn by percentage) is good and right under Harden, his other advanced stats have more in common with Tristan Thompson and Mason Plumlee than Harden or Jimmy Butler.  Stats

Kind of funny how "stars" free throw rates are in the 40s now adays and Michael Jordan in his prime was in the mid 30's and people thought he got every call. Really shows how the game has changed since then. 

You can continue to try and make every player in the NBA an 85 but I'm gonna stick with common sense mixed with some stats.  

#1 - Highest rating in this thread is an 82, with multiple lower than that. No one is making him an 85, simmer down. There's a HUGE difference between an 82 and an 85 in a lot of people's minds.

#2 - You are implying some here think he is closer to Harden/Butler than he is to Tristan/Plumlee. In fact, the highest ratings in this thread for Gallinari put him pretty much in the middle of those groups of players, if not a little closer to the Tristan/Plumlee group.

You're overreacting, exaggerating, etc.

[Andrei Kirilenko]

78

[Alex English]

Jan 11, 2017 8:32:39 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

True shooting percentage of a three point attempt is stupidest thing I've ever heard Alex. 

The definition of True Shooting Percentage is that it is a combination of 2pt and 3pt attempted. 

(2pt FGM + 1.5*3pt FGM) / FGA

There is the exact equation. 

His effective field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 basically average for someone to be considered a "shooter" in the NBA. 

His true shooting field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 which is the same thing.

Even if you were gonna fuck up the numbers to try and make a point with (1.5x 3ptFGA 1.8) / 4.9 is 55% which makes him exactly 0.2% better than your stupid league average.

So by your own metrics he's average at 3 pointers. Overall he's an average player. Even though his FTR (amount of free throws drawn by percentage) is good and right under Harden, his other advanced stats have more in common with Tristan Thompson and Mason Plumlee than Harden or Jimmy Butler.  Stats

Kind of funny how "stars" free throw rates are in the 40s now adays and Michael Jordan in his prime was in the mid 30's and people thought he got every call. Really shows how the game has changed since then. 

You can continue to try and make every player in the NBA an 85 but I'm gonna stick with common sense mixed with some stats.  

First of all, I don't get why you're so angry, like Walt said. My rating for him is an 82, not an 85, I'm not saying he's some great player but he's way better than the five seconds of analysis that is "6'10" and shoots 40%." This is one of my favourite things in the world, I'm a huge nerd for advanced stats and I could argue about it all day. I've been defending Gallo way more than I actually care about him as a player. But statistical analysis gets me hard.

True shooting percentage of a three point attempt is stupidest thing I've ever heard Alex. 

I don't see what's stupid about it. Breaking down your offensive outcomes by each type of play allows your team to see what the most efficient ways are for you to score. I think most NBA teams do it using a Points Per Possession metric, but any kind of this analysis can be very valuable. It can tell you to stop running plays for Payer X in this situation and run more plays for Player Y in that situation. It's at the point where teams that don't do something similar to this are considered dinosaurs and I'm not sure any of those front offices are even left in the NBA because analytics has taken over the game.

The definition of True Shooting Percentage is that it is a combination of 2pt and 3pt attempted. 

(2pt FGM + 1.5*3pt FGM) / FGA

There is the exact equation. 

No this is the equation for eFG%. The equation for TS% is:

TS% = Pts / 2(FGA + (0.44 * FTA)

His true shooting field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 which is the same thing.

No it isn't:

TS% = 1.119 / 2(1 + (0.44 * 0)
TS% = 1.119 / 2
TS% = 55.95%

It's 1.119 because for every one attempted three he makes 0.373 of them. 0.373 * 3 = 1.119

TS% normalizes for field goals being worth 2 points and takes into account free throw shooting which eFG% doesn't do. But since for only a single attempted three Gallo obviously isn't shooting any free throws, TS% and eFG% will be the same.

eFG% = (0 + 1.5*0.373) / 1
eFG% = 55.95%

It's saying Gallinari shooting a three is equivalent to a player shooting 56% from two. If you're shooting 56% from two, that's pretty damn good. So a Gallinari three is actually a good attempt for the Nuggets.

Even if you were gonna fuck up the numbers to try and make a point with (1.5x 3ptFGA 1.8) / 4.9 is 55% which makes him exactly 0.2% better than your stupid league average.

This is actually fucking up the numbers since it's reducing everything to per game averages and so you lose numbers in the rounding. The real number will be:

(1.5 * 62) / 166 = 56.02%

So he's exactly 1.2% better than my stupid league average.

Kind of funny how "stars" free throw rates are in the 40s now adays and Michael Jordan in his prime was in the mid 30's and people thought he got every call. Really shows how the game has changed since then.

That's the effect of analytics on the game. Teams shoot way more threes and the try to get to the line as much as possible because those are the most efficient ways to score points. The Jordan days of the 90s was an era of iso ball, mid range games and low post offense. Players like DeRozan and Rudy Gay have 90s era games and plenty of people now hate them for it because it's inefficient and hardly helps their team win games.

[Jeremiah Hill]

Jan 11, 2017 19:11:35 GMT Alex English said:

Jan 11, 2017 8:32:39 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

True shooting percentage of a three point attempt is stupidest thing I've ever heard Alex. 

The definition of True Shooting Percentage is that it is a combination of 2pt and 3pt attempted. 

(2pt FGM + 1.5*3pt FGM) / FGA

There is the exact equation. 

His effective field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 basically average for someone to be considered a "shooter" in the NBA. 

His true shooting field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 which is the same thing.

Even if you were gonna fuck up the numbers to try and make a point with (1.5x 3ptFGA 1.8) / 4.9 is 55% which makes him exactly 0.2% better than your stupid league average.

So by your own metrics he's average at 3 pointers. Overall he's an average player. Even though his FTR (amount of free throws drawn by percentage) is good and right under Harden, his other advanced stats have more in common with Tristan Thompson and Mason Plumlee than Harden or Jimmy Butler.  Stats

Kind of funny how "stars" free throw rates are in the 40s now adays and Michael Jordan in his prime was in the mid 30's and people thought he got every call. Really shows how the game has changed since then. 

You can continue to try and make every player in the NBA an 85 but I'm gonna stick with common sense mixed with some stats.  

First of all, I don't get why you're so angry, like Walt said. My rating for him is an 82, not an 85, I'm not saying he's some great player but he's way better than the five seconds of analysis that is "6'10" and shoots 40%." This is one of my favourite things in the world, I'm a huge nerd for advanced stats and I could argue about it all day. I've been defending Gallo way more than I actually care about him as a player. But statistical analysis gets me hard.

True shooting percentage of a three point attempt is stupidest thing I've ever heard Alex. 

I don't see what's stupid about it. Breaking down your offensive outcomes by each type of play allows your team to see what the most efficient ways are for you to score. I think most NBA teams do it using a Points Per Possession metric, but any kind of this analysis can be very valuable. It can tell you to stop running plays for Payer X in this situation and run more plays for Player Y in that situation. It's at the point where teams that don't do something similar to this are considered dinosaurs and I'm not sure any of those front offices are even left in the NBA because analytics has taken over the game.

The definition of True Shooting Percentage is that it is a combination of 2pt and 3pt attempted. 

(2pt FGM + 1.5*3pt FGM) / FGA

There is the exact equation. 

No this is the equation for eFG%. The equation for TS% is:

TS% = Pts / 2(FGA + (0.44 * FTA)

His true shooting field goal percentage on a 3 is 37.3 which is the same thing.

No it isn't:

TS% = 1.119 / 2(1 + (0.44 * 0)
TS% = 1.119 / 2
TS% = 55.95%

It's 1.119 because for every one attempted three he makes 0.373 of them. 0.373 * 3 = 1.119

TS% normalizes for field goals being worth 2 points and takes into account free throw shooting which eFG% doesn't do. But since for only a single attempted three Gallo obviously isn't shooting any free throws, TS% and eFG% will be the same.

eFG% = (0 + 1.5*0.373) / 1
eFG% = 55.95%

It's saying Gallinari shooting a three is equivalent to a player shooting 56% from two. If you're shooting 56% from two, that's pretty damn good. So a Gallinari three is actually a good attempt for the Nuggets.

Even if you were gonna fuck up the numbers to try and make a point with (1.5x 3ptFGA 1.8) / 4.9 is 55% which makes him exactly 0.2% better than your stupid league average.

This is actually fucking up the numbers since it's reducing everything to per game averages and so you lose numbers in the rounding. The real number will be:

(1.5 * 62) / 166 = 56.02%

So he's exactly 1.2% better than my stupid league average.

Kind of funny how "stars" free throw rates are in the 40s now adays and Michael Jordan in his prime was in the mid 30's and people thought he got every call. Really shows how the game has changed since then.

That's the effect of analytics on the game. Teams shoot way more threes and the try to get to the line as much as possible because those are the most efficient ways to score points. The Jordan days of the 90s was an era of iso ball, mid range games and low post offense. Players like DeRozan and Rudy Gay have 90s era games and plenty of people now hate them for it because it's inefficient and hardly helps their team win games.



LeBron is another guy who gets to the line a lot, still doesn't approach the ridiculousness of what guys like Harden do. They are going to fix that rule when people realize they don't like watching 1 player shoot freethrows 15 times a game. 

But back to Danilo, regardless of him getting to the line. His good free throw stats and his average 3point shooting should already be accounted for in the sim. He's not crazy athletic, he's not an amazing defender, he doesn't contribute with extra passing and he doesn't rebound that well for his position or someone of his height. Where do we add points? 

[Walt Frazier]

Jan 11, 2017 19:47:13 GMT Jeremiah Hill said:

Jan 11, 2017 19:11:35 GMT Alex English said:

First of all, I don't get why you're so angry, like Walt said. My rating for him is an 82, not an 85, I'm not saying he's some great player but he's way better than the five seconds of analysis that is "6'10" and shoots 40%." This is one of my favourite things in the world, I'm a huge nerd for advanced stats and I could argue about it all day. I've been defending Gallo way more than I actually care about him as a player. But statistical analysis gets me hard.

I don't see what's stupid about it. Breaking down your offensive outcomes by each type of play allows your team to see what the most efficient ways are for you to score. I think most NBA teams do it using a Points Per Possession metric, but any kind of this analysis can be very valuable. It can tell you to stop running plays for Payer X in this situation and run more plays for Player Y in that situation. It's at the point where teams that don't do something similar to this are considered dinosaurs and I'm not sure any of those front offices are even left in the NBA because analytics has taken over the game.

No this is the equation for eFG%. The equation for TS% is:

TS% = Pts / 2(FGA + (0.44 * FTA)

No it isn't:

TS% = 1.119 / 2(1 + (0.44 * 0)
TS% = 1.119 / 2
TS% = 55.95%

It's 1.119 because for every one attempted three he makes 0.373 of them. 0.373 * 3 = 1.119

TS% normalizes for field goals being worth 2 points and takes into account free throw shooting which eFG% doesn't do. But since for only a single attempted three Gallo obviously isn't shooting any free throws, TS% and eFG% will be the same.

eFG% = (0 + 1.5*0.373) / 1
eFG% = 55.95%

It's saying Gallinari shooting a three is equivalent to a player shooting 56% from two. If you're shooting 56% from two, that's pretty damn good. So a Gallinari three is actually a good attempt for the Nuggets.


This is actually fucking up the numbers since it's reducing everything to per game averages and so you lose numbers in the rounding. The real number will be:

(1.5 * 62) / 166 = 56.02%

So he's exactly 1.2% better than my stupid league average.


That's the effect of analytics on the game. Teams shoot way more threes and the try to get to the line as much as possible because those are the most efficient ways to score points. The Jordan days of the 90s was an era of iso ball, mid range games and low post offense. Players like DeRozan and Rudy Gay have 90s era games and plenty of people now hate them for it because it's inefficient and hardly helps their team win games.



LeBron is another guy who gets to the line a lot, still doesn't approach the ridiculousness of what guys like Harden do. They are going to fix that rule when people realize they don't like watching 1 player shoot freethrows 15 times a game. 

But back to Danilo, regardless of him getting to the line. His good free throw stats and his average 3point shooting should already be accounted for in the sim. He's not crazy athletic, he's not an amazing defender, he doesn't contribute with extra passing and he doesn't rebound that well for his position or someone of his height. Where do we add points? 

#1 - I hate when people use the argument "Well, that should already be accounted for in the ratings. What if it's not? Then your argument is invalid? If you actually look at it, and see it is, then it's a 100% valid and great argument. Lay out all the players' ratings and say "hey, seriously, there's room for like one OVR point if we touch up a few things but the stats you're talking about are already represented in the ratings, so give it up." That's actually awesome when people do that. Just don't assume, b/c even Gallinari is a player that hasn't been changed the whole time I've been doing rating changes. I'm not saying Ian couldn't do them well, but I'm saying there are plenty of players out there who were created or changed a long time ago and we just can't assume they are correct. Even if a player hasn't changed a certain element of their game, sometimes when building/changing players we make sacrifices if there aren't enough points somewhere.

Anyway, that rant is over.

#2 - Having looked at the actual numbers, I'd say he could use a little on 3PT, but FG is fine. 2 points onto FT, which is basically nothing.IMO, his O-Aware should be higher, he's smart enough to go to the line and has a repertoire of moves to help him get there. His actual Inside Scr is fine, Dunk could be a hair higher (dunk means finishing at the rim in this game, layups and dunk, but also just like, fancier dunks and shit, which is stupid, but that's what that rating is). Handle could be a little higher, but perhaps pass could come down a somewhat equal amount. I think he could use some points in Speed (not a lot but a few), Quick (more here, he's sneaky), and a little in strong/jump, but more in Stamina, probably about 10 points.

I don't feel like doing a FULL in-depth now, but I think my 5-point increase was a little high. That said, y'all aren't going to move yours up, so I'll keep mine where it is to help him land in the 79-80 range which is probably where he needs to be.

[Jared Montini]

78

[Shane Battier]

82

[Mike Krzyzewski]

79

[Larry Bird]

82

[Charles Barkley]

Feb 11, 2017 5:32:04 GMT Larry Bird said:

82

This thread has been closed, please check the imminent rating changes thread stickied to the Stock Watch Discussion