Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Bargnani

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tbihis wrote: View Post
    And a team does not play the exact same teams, the same number of times every season, meaning the Raps may play Orlando once this season and then three times the next, which definitely affects Bargnani's Opponent PER coz he's going to face Howard more times than the last season.

    Umm the schedules are pretty consistent. You play every team atleast twice. You play your conference opponents atleast 3 times (there are 4 teams in your division you play 3 times) . You play your divisional opponents 4 times.

    The numbers aren't really that far off from one another. Plus its not like Bargnani is a rookie... people have 5 seasons, 367 games and 11k minutes to make a conclusion from. Over that time he has played/covered/been covered by a myraid of opponents from some of the worst in the league to the best. Statistics are best used with a large and varied sample to work from. Andrea has that. (by the way if Andrea's opponent was Dwight and only played him once that would be 1.2% of a season. If he played him 3 times that would be 3.6% of a season. Do you really believe that 2.4% of a season is going to make a significant difference to an individuals statistics?)

    But if we are going to say there are too many variables to judge him defensively using stats, than the same argument should be made to his offense. Therefore we don't know if he is actually a good or bad offensive player until he plays on a good offensive team that either wins or losses right? In fact the same argument should also be made about every player to play the game as they have had more, less or the same amount of variables effecting their game/stats. Michael Jordan is no longer one of the best players to ever play... he can't be. Too many variables to judge it. In fact when Michael finally played for a different team he wasn't good, and neither was his team. Was it actually Michael Jordan's team that made him that 'good' then? Its not fair to say that POB is any worse than Michael as the number of variables between the two players career is off the charts.

    Every player just is......

    Comment


    • Lowe did a pretty good job in his description of Bargnani.

      Lost in some of the Bargnani hate (which I admittingly take part in on a regular basis) is that he does have some strengths which could be quite valuable to an NBA team if used properly. However, I think the most frustrating part of the Bargnani experience is that he's being miscast as a franchise cornerstone, which you can't necessarily blame on Bargnani himself.

      We were a fringe playoff team when Bargnani was our second best player, and when he was made the main option we won 22 games. He is a good offensive player but not a great one, and his defensive shortcomings have been well documented. Even those who support the "Bargnani isn't as terrible on D as you might think" movement seem to rank him as an overall sub-par defender, but one that is adequate in a few scenarios. He does not appear to be a great leader and I can't say that I see much in the way of chemistry between him and most of his teammates. He fails the crucial "Do you make your teammates better?" test that all great players should pass, and you can even make the argument that his lack of rebounding, poor help defense, and a tendency to shoot the ball whenever he gets his hands on it actually takes away from his teammates.

      Please interrupt me when I list something that resonates with your idea of what a franchise cornerstone should be.

      The Jamal Crawford comparison has been listed a couple times now and I think that's essentially what Bargnani will evole into, whether it's in Toronto or not. If a franchise were to build around Crawford or say, Ben Gordon, then they'd be crucified and for good reason. But because Andrea is half a foot taller I feel like people maintain that it's a viable option.
      Last edited by Fully; Fri Aug 5, 2011, 10:26 AM.

      Comment


      • Fully wrote: View Post
        As fantastic as the advanced stat movement is, I think there are some cases where it doesn't tell the entire story. While breaking down every play on an individual basis provides more insight on the game then ever from an analytical point of view, it doesn't always capture that basketball is a team sport where five pieces have to interact in order to be successful.
        Breaking down plays is something completely different than advanced stats. If you look down at singular defensive possession you can precisely see what goes wrong with the teamdefense as well. I agree with you on the advanced stats though. For instance: it happens quite often that people compare a players PER with the PER of his direct opponent, but if you look at the games you would see that in many cases he won't be defending (of be defended by) his 'direct' opponent; basketball just isn't a game where every player on offense looks for his direct opponent and never leaves his side so statistical analyses can be made easier.

        Fully wrote: View Post
        I'd like to think that I watch the games with an open mind but maybe there's a little bias developing.
        I think, as you allude to, that you have a little bias developing and maybe you're being just a little negative in general (i'm not going to say "too negative" because well ... we're the Raptors) as from what I've seen in your post, you seem to visiualize the worst case scenario a lot more often than the other way round. Concerning the bias: you were the one who posted that you remembered the game where Speights supposedly burned Bargnani. I really did not know how that went so I looked it up and watched the plays, but it was absolutely not a case of Bargnani getting burned. (Speight even got his three offensive rebounds in the one minute and 43 seconds of the second quarter that Bargnani wasn't on the floor). An interesting question would be why you remember it that way while it wasn't what happened on the court. No offense intended btw.

        Fully wrote: View Post
        [...] it frustrates me that the team's direction is still building around a player like that. The talk of hiding him in a system like they did with Dirk in Dallas is crazy to me because Bargs is nowhere near his level in virtually all other aspects of the game.
        There is a lot of talk of hiding Bargnani and building around him. I don't certainly don't see it that way if we keep him. I we were really building around Bargnani we would have had a defensive center a long time ago and we would have gotten us some veterans on the perimeter instead of taking looks at Bayless and James Johnson. So I just don't see how we've been doing that.

        Concering the makeup of the team: in my opinion that's all a matter of perspective. I think we need a good defensive force in the frontcourt with more length and strength than Davis and Johnson anyway; no matter if we keep Bargnani or not. Also: in any team you need balance, no matter who we are going to put out there in a couple of years it needs to be a balanced team; if we keep DeRozan we would need at least two other players who can shoot the three; that would not be building around DeRozan, that's just getting a balanced team out there.

        I also think that Bargnani has some good traits on defense like stipulated in the article of Pruiti. I also think that the whole team was crap at rotating and closing down shooters with yes, Bargnani as the frontrunner in this department. Besides individual performances in teamdefense the ones I blame most for this is the coachingstaff. Having size in the frontcourt is incredibly important in this league right now if you look at the contending teams. A sevenfooter with at least a 7'2"/7'3" wingspan protecting the rim and the paint is a must and you probably need to pair him with another tall guy with good wingspan who is able to spread the floor (and I mean to win it all, not get a good regular season result). Davis and Amir don't have the physical makeup (and the skills) that are needed for this in my opinion. I might be wrong here, but that's the reason I'm not that high on Davis and Amir as starting powerforwards in the future. We'd still need that center and they would at least need to improve their ability to stretch the floor. The fact that Bargnani is such a terrible matchup for opponents, one that is very rare in the league, makes me interested to see what can happen if we have a more balanced team and better coaching. My opinion about this is based on the idea that if a team with Bargnani could work the ceiling for that team would be higher than if we would drop him and e.g. Ed Davis would work out.

        Comment


        • Mr W., in an earlier post you said:

          Tim W. wrote: View Post
          I usually hate saying things like this, but anyone who thinks that Bargnani is anything better than a bad defender knows little to nothing about basketball, or has simply not watched him play.
          But now you do it again:

          Tim W. wrote: View Post
          Who needs statistics to see Bargnani is a bad defender? Just watch him. There are some guys who may be better defenders than they appear and visa versa, and statistics point to this. But with guys like Bargnani it's pretty obvious. At least to anyone who knows basketball.
          This is pretty much a rhetorical fallacy and I'd appreciate if you would refrain from adding this to your statements. Because now what, if I disagree with you do I first have to prove that I know something about basketball or should I just stop from disagreeing with you because if I do I know little to nothing about basketball? I'm certainly not the best basketballbrain around but I'd prefer it if I could make my arguments without knowing that what I'm going to say is based upon my complete lack of basketball acumen.

          Comment


          • Fully wrote: View Post
            Lowe did a pretty good job in his description of Bargnani.

            Lost in some of the Bargnani hate (which I admittingly take part in on a regular basis) is that he does have some strengths which could be quite valuable to an NBA team if used properly. However, I think the most frustrating part of the Bargnani experience is that he's being miscast as a franchise cornerstone, which you can't necessarily blame on Bargnani himself.

            We were a fringe playoff team when Bargnani was our second best player, and when he was made the main option we won 22 games. He is a good offensive player but not a great one, and his defensive shortcomings have been well documented. Even those who support the "Bargnani isn't as terrible on D as you might think" movement seem to rank him as an overall sub-par defender, but one that is adequate in a few scenarios. He does not appear to be a great leader and I can't say that I see much in the way of chemistry between him and most of his teammates. He fails the crucial "Do you make your teammates better?" test that all great players should pass, and you can even make the argument that his lack of rebounding, poor help defense, and a tendency to shoot the ball whenever he gets his hands on it actually takes away from his teammates.

            Please interrupt me when I list something that resonates with your idea of what a franchise cornerstone should be.

            The Jamal Crawford comparison has been listed a couple times now and I think that's essentially what Bargnani will evole into, whether it's in Toronto or not. If a franchise were to build around Crawford or say, Ben Gordon, then they'd be crucified and for good reason. But because Andrea is half a foot taller I feel like people maintain that it's a viable option.
            Your statement is more or less spot on. And perhaps with the exception of the biggest Andrea haters out there, most would agree that if he was used significantly differently than he is/was, he would be much more useful. Much like a small towel... great for drying your face after a shave but there is no way you take it to the beach.

            But then you have another problem. Do you spend a large chunk of your money on a towel when you don't even have a razor, shaving cream or access to water yet? And the only reason you are even shaving is to look good at the beach?

            Comment


            • Tim W. wrote: View Post
              Who needs statistics to see Bargnani is a bad defender? Just watch him. There are some guys who may be better defenders than they appear and visa versa, and statistics point to this. But with guys like Bargnani it's pretty obvious. At least to anyone who knows basketball.
              I think thats what i was trying to imply, that stats cant really prove Bargnani is a bad a defender, nor if he is a good one.
              I cant really say ive seen all the games he played coz i havent, but if you say you saw all 66 games he played last season and every second he was on the floor for those 66 games and you say he's that bad defensively, then thats your opinion. IMO, the games i saw he played in, he definitely had mental lapses at times, but i wouldnt label him as a terrible defender. he was decent at times, good at times and not so good at other times. again, thats my opinion. I think its a bit arrogant for you to say that just because some people dont regard Bargnani as a bad defender that they dont know much about basketball. If he is as bad as you think he is then i dont think even one team will give him minutes in the NBA.

              Comment


              • It's a good article. I'm not a bargs fan by any stretch. I wrote him off about a season and a half ago. However, when I looked at what he gets paid versus his production. He is worth about what he gets paid maybe a little less. The problem is of course every year he makes a million more than the year before so if he doesn't improve than his value decreases. HOWEVER I will maintain that at trade deadline last year Bargs was a movable contract. I believe (based on research looking at his production) he could have been moved for 100% value on the dollar, give or take 10% in either direction. I still think he can be moved for relative value (not sure coangelo is willing to move him though) and if his defense doesn't improve his stock will not improve, and since his contract does, his overall value will drop significantly. I don't think it will plummet as some suggest. Bargs could still be moved for 75% of value at the theoretical trade deadline next season. If we hold bargs after that he's here until his contract expires or we get garbage back. IMO
                "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                Comment


                • Soft Euro wrote: View Post
                  Mr W., in an earlier post you said:



                  But now you do it again:



                  This is pretty much a rhetorical fallacy and I'd appreciate if you would refrain from adding this to your statements. Because now what, if I disagree with you do I first have to prove that I know something about basketball or should I just stop from disagreeing with you because if I do I know little to nothing about basketball? I'm certainly not the best basketballbrain around but I'd prefer it if I could make my arguments without knowing that what I'm going to say is based upon my complete lack of basketball acumen.
                  When it comes to Bargnani, Tim concocts a million different arguments. Sometimes he says he's an overall bad defender, then sometimes he says he's a decent one on one defender but a terrible help defender. If you try and challenge him, he always challenges you back by telling you to show evidence that he said such a thing, but i think its a bit time consuming to dig thru all his posts just to "prove him wrong". But i admire his tenacity on getting it out there that Bargnani is in no way shape or form a capable defender. And i respect that coz thats his opinion. But mine and other's opinion i think should be respected just the same. Doesnt mean he doesnt agree with us that we dont know anything about basketball.

                  Comment


                  • Soft Euro wrote: View Post
                    This is pretty much a rhetorical fallacy and I'd appreciate if you would refrain from adding this to your statements. Because now what, if I disagree with you do I first have to prove that I know something about basketball or should I just stop from disagreeing with you because if I do I know little to nothing about basketball? I'm certainly not the best basketballbrain around but I'd prefer it if I could make my arguments without knowing that what I'm going to say is based upon my complete lack of basketball acumen.
                    Big words FTW!

                    Seriously, if I say "anyone who knows anything about basketball knows Bargs is awesome" I'm just stating a very general opinion with nothing to bak it up. If you want to try to use the eye test to show something you could at least make the attempt to tell us what you are talking about using examples.
                    Last edited by hateslosing; Fri Aug 5, 2011, 11:20 AM.
                    "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

                    -Churchill

                    Comment


                    • Fully wrote: View Post
                      Lowe did a pretty good job in his description of Bargnani.
                      I have to admit that I don't know Lowe, but he sounds like a more talented twinbrother of me as he described better than I did my exact opinion about Bargnani and this situation.

                      Fully wrote: View Post
                      He does not appear to be a great leader and I can't say that I see much in the way of chemistry between him and most of his teammates. He fails the crucial "Do you make your teammates better?" test that all great players should pass, and you can even make the argument that his lack of rebounding, poor help defense, and a tendency to shoot the ball whenever he gets his hands on it actually takes away from his teammates.

                      Please interrupt me when I list something that resonates with your idea of what a franchise cornerstone should be.
                      bold added by me

                      I might be wrong, but as far as I know you don't think Bargnani is a good player... However, in your commentary you first put forward the idea that he is a viewed as a franchise cornerstone and a great player and this just isn't the case (anymore). He is not, and as a member of the "Bargnani isn't as terrible on D as you might think"-movement (I like this one, my compliments) I have to tell you that even we in the movement don't consider him as such (and we had long meetings to decide on our public position). He's is at most a piece of the puzzle and if he would get traded I think we would all say "oh well, let's see what we got in return and what are we going to do now." We would not pick fights or get mad or be 'done with this organization'. We are only interested to see what's going to happen with a good defensive player next to him (which we need anyway!) and Casey as the headcoach.

                      So, I don't think you have to convince anyone anymore that Bargnani isn't a great player or franchiseplayer, he's just a piece with some very interesting skills and some ugh-I-want-to-look-away deficiencies.

                      Comment


                      • tbihis wrote: View Post
                        When it comes to Bargnani, Tim concocts a million different arguments. Sometimes he says he's an overall bad defender, then sometimes he says he's a decent one on one defender but a terrible help defender. If you try and challenge him, he always challenges you back by telling you to show evidence that he said such a thing, but i think its a bit time consuming to dig thru all his posts just to "prove him wrong". But i admire his tenacity on getting it out there that Bargnani is in no way shape or form a capable defender. And i respect that coz thats his opinion. But mine and other's opinion i think should be respected just the same. Doesnt mean he doesnt agree with us that we dont know anything about basketball.
                        While I agree Tim may at times have problems accepting others opinions and b-ball knowledge (although I think you can say that about every person who posts regularily), he has NEVER been anything but consistent on his opinion, beliefs, expressions and arguments of Andrea Bargnani. I don't think I have ever read an individual who wavered any less over the years in regards to AB, than Tim.

                        Comment


                        • I am definitely on the side of 'Bargnani needs to go'. And I completely understand the argument that he would make a really good piece of a puzzle. However to use Bargnani as a piece / roll player you need a really good core to begin with. At this point we are 2-3 years away from having an established core.

                          Bargnani in my opinion is worth more as a trade asset then a potential good piece on a winning team 2-3 years from now. The more minutes Bargnani gets now creates less minutes for some of those core guys (Demar, Davis and JV), which can limit their development.

                          Bargnani could land a really good veteran who can teach the young guys what it means to win (ie, a coach on the floor), or it can land some more picks which could add to our future core. Keeping him on the roster for 2-3 years while we continue to develop that core is not good in the long term in my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • It's funny to take a look back at the draftprofile before Bargnani was drafted because they are still so relevant and predicted a lot of what has happened. Here are some things that were written about Bargnani on draftexpress.com before the draft.

                            On the negative side, there are concerns about most of the other parts of his game beyond his offense. While he’s a smooth and fluid athlete, he most certainly is not an explosive one. He plays under the rim for the most part, and has fairly small hands, which combined make him a below average rebounder, particularly in traffic. He gets pushed around too often and doesn’t fight back as much as you’d perhaps like to see.
                            Sound familiar? This is also why I never expect him to become a decent rebounder and am not going to judge him to harshly on this (though: 5 rebounds a game? Come on man).

                            All in all, Bargnani’s success will mostly depend on the situation he lands in, and how well he can adapt himself to the American style of play. If he falls on a team with a great coach who understands his strengths and will know how to utilize him, he will blossom. If he doesn’t, people will once again decry the European hype machine, which is a shame considering just how talented he really is. People forget that Nowitzki landed in Dallas to play for one of the best offensive minds in basketball in Don Nelson, which set the stage for what is sure to be a hall of fame career. Where Bargnani lands will be of utmost importance; and his team will have to design a fair share of their offense around him to really let him maximize his full potential.
                            Source

                            bold added by me

                            Comment


                            • The overarching goal here is to find two-way players. If you’ve been a regular reader of this blog, you know how much attention is paid to defense and efficiency with the ball. Those 18 points per game look nice in the box score, but if a player gets them by chucking up contested 20-foot jumpers and lazily watching opposing ball-handlers stroll into the lane, he’s going to have a hard time making this list (hi, Andray Blatche). A one-dimensional player seeking to make the top 65 or so better be darn good at that one dimension. Finding truly accomplished two-way players for the bottom 10 spots was basically impossible, making those places more a matter of taste than I’d like.
                              This is from the beginning of the above article. I think it's hilarious and telling that he has bargs at 66
                              "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                              "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                              "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                              Comment


                              • Soft Euro wrote: View Post
                                Breaking down plays is something completely different than advanced stats. If you look down at singular defensive possession you can precisely see what goes wrong with the teamdefense as well. I agree with you on the advanced stats though. For instance: it happens quite often that people compare a players PER with the PER of his direct opponent, but if you look at the games you would see that in many cases he won't be defending (of be defended by) his 'direct' opponent; basketball just isn't a game where every player on offense looks for his direct opponent and never leaves his side so statistical analyses can be made easier.



                                I think, as you allude to, that you have a little bias developing and maybe you're being just a little negative in general (i'm not going to say "too negative" because well ... we're the Raptors) as from what I've seen in your post, you seem to visiualize the worst case scenario a lot more often than the other way round. Concerning the bias: you were the one who posted that you remembered the game where Speights supposedly burned Bargnani. I really did not know how that went so I looked it up and watched the plays, but it was absolutely not a case of Bargnani getting burned. (Speight even got his three offensive rebounds in the one minute and 43 seconds of the second quarter that Bargnani wasn't on the floor). An interesting question would be why you remember it that way while it wasn't what happened on the court. No offense intended btw.



                                There is a lot of talk of hiding Bargnani and building around him. I don't certainly don't see it that way if we keep him. I we were really building around Bargnani we would have had a defensive center a long time ago and we would have gotten us some veterans on the perimeter instead of taking looks at Bayless and James Johnson. So I just don't see how we've been doing that.

                                Concering the makeup of the team: in my opinion that's all a matter of perspective. I think we need a good defensive force in the frontcourt with more length and strength than Davis and Johnson anyway; no matter if we keep Bargnani or not. Also: in any team you need balance, no matter who we are going to put out there in a couple of years it needs to be a balanced team; if we keep DeRozan we would need at least two other players who can shoot the three; that would not be building around DeRozan, that's just getting a balanced team out there.

                                I also think that Bargnani has some good traits on defense like stipulated in the article of Pruiti. I also think that the whole team was crap at rotating and closing down shooters with yes, Bargnani as the frontrunner in this department. Besides individual performances in teamdefense the ones I blame most for this is the coachingstaff. Having size in the frontcourt is incredibly important in this league right now if you look at the contending teams. A sevenfooter with at least a 7'2"/7'3" wingspan protecting the rim and the paint is a must and you probably need to pair him with another tall guy with good wingspan who is able to spread the floor (and I mean to win it all, not get a good regular season result). Davis and Amir don't have the physical makeup (and the skills) that are needed for this in my opinion. I might be wrong here, but that's the reason I'm not that high on Davis and Amir as starting powerforwards in the future. We'd still need that center and they would at least need to improve their ability to stretch the floor. The fact that Bargnani is such a terrible matchup for opponents, one that is very rare in the league, makes me interested to see what can happen if we have a more balanced team and better coaching. My opinion about this is based on the idea that if a team with Bargnani could work the ceiling for that team would be higher than if we would drop him and e.g. Ed Davis would work out.
                                The one thing I agree on is that it's a matter of perspective. I think the biggest gap in our views is just how valuable Bargnani would be if he was placed in his "best case scenario". That's a matter of personal opinion so I won't discredit anyone's basketball knowledge if they don't see it the same way as I do. I appreciate that you were willing to grant me the same respect, even though you're on the other side of the fence.

                                I've been enlightened by some of the findings you've brought forward in the thread, and I'll admit that I was wrong regarding the Speights game. However, I still maintain that Bargnani is an overall very bad defender after watching literally almost every Raptor game over the past five seasons. But once again, terms like bad, very bad, terrible, etc. are all extremely subjective so it's really about where you personally draw the line.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X