Could be a combination of the two, honestly,
I would say it has more to do with him being a starter, but definitely a combination of both.
Bradley and Crawford were good for 30+ shot attempts in every game. That extra 30 shots means a lot for less aggressive guys like Green and Wallace.
Wallace hasn't taken shots since he was in Brooklyn. He's had 4 and 6 FG attempts in the last two games, which, yes, is amazingly above his average, but hardly just pulling the trigger because Crawford is gone.
Probably has to do with starting, rhythm and routine (as he had recently complained about).
I don't get your point. Crawford obviously doesn't directly affect how many shots Wallace takes, but without him and Bradley there's many more shots to go around (twice as many on some nights). I don't think I can explain it simpler than that.
Also I don't see how last year's Nets relate to the Celtics at all. They had 3 elite scorers in Lopez, Johnson, and Williams, plus another excellent one in Blatche. They almost exclusively played pick/roll or isolation, and hardly anyone took shots outside those 4. These Celtics are the complete opposite with no go-to guys, constant ball movement, and scoring by commitee. Wallace without a doubt SHOULD be taking more shots than last year.
Yes, Wallace should be taking more shots. He should have taken more earlier those year, he should have taken more last year in Brooklyn. He has been reluctant to shoot for some time. You stated that with Crawford gone and Bradley out there are more shots for Wallace, and while mathematically true I responded that he hasn't been taking more shots, and this is an aspect of his game that ha been going on for some time (hence mentioning his reluctance to shoot in Brooklyn). I don't get what is off the wall or befuddling about pointing out that fact (even in this offense which you say should provide more shots for him than NJ earlier in the year he wasn't shooting) . It doesn't mean he isn't playing better but he hasn't all of a sudden shaken his aversion to shooting which has plagued him for some time.
P.s. Last season he averaged 6.6 fga's per game, his first under double digits since 2004. He was obviously reluctant to shoot. You stated he should have been shooting more in this offense/with these players, yet he attempting 3.4 fg's a game. He essentially went crazy last game and nearly doubled that with 6 attempts. I don't disagree that Wallace has looked a little better but it isn't cause he's regained the desire to light it up scoring. Doesn't seem like I was stating some wild left field thing.
I still don't understand your point, as I never said anything close to "Wallace has regained the desire to light it up scoring." I said removing 2 extremely aggressive shooters will result in more shots for non-aggressive shooters like Wallace and Green by process of elimination.
Also, "playing better" which the OP says, is not the same thing as taking more FGA. Scoring isn't even limited to more FGA, you seem to ignore FTs. Wallace has attempted 6 FTs in 2 straight games, just because those strong drives aren't ending in FGA doesn't mean he's not being aggressive and attempting to score. Even if he doesn't come up with a FGA or FTA, you can't ignore how penetration draws defenders and gets his teammates open (9 assists vs WAS which never could've happened with Crawford's slow walking and perimeter-dribbling habbits).
Alright, and I think you're missing my point, so a bit of a stalemate, but the short version its the trend in Wallace over the last two years to be disinclined from shooting and being an aggressor on offense allows one to hedge their optimism that this will have just such a positive effect on his game as all indications have been that even when given opportunities to scoreaggressive he has often passed them up (hence the stats offered. Have there not been numerous opportunities for him so far this season to be more aggressive? He's responded with perceived disinterest in a strong offensive role and just a hair over 3 shots a game). Alli was saying is that what seem to take as a golden opportunity evidence has shown it is not necessarily one Wallace will grab. I don't think I made this argument out of thin air but in response to what you wrote. If that wasn't clear or just unseen I don't know.
I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points but two years of evidence is also hard to ignore.
