Barg on the NBA's All-Chuckers Team LOL wow!

[special1]

lol

I also strongly disagree that ED is not good enough to start for this team ("for this team" being the key point). He is a more mobile defender than Bargs, and a better rebounder, better help defender and I honestly think he would be more consistent knowing that he would be receiving consistent minutes

we already have enough guys in the starting rotation looking to get their own shot. AB and jose as a second unit would be really effective against the second unit of ANY team in the league

+1

I don't understand why posters come on here and claim that ED cannot be a starter on this team..... This team is 3-9!!!

We need to give ED minutes so that we know once and for all if he can really be a piece moving forward! I believe that he can be a good player for us (he won't be taking long 2's and 3's like Andrea and Amir). He plays the PF like a true PF (he just needs to continue to get bigger and stronger). He's already the best rebounder we have (besides JV of course). What lose in offence we'll make up in defence, rebounding and second chance points (if we lose anything at all as our offence can still run through Lowry, DD and JV and maybe fields as a 4th/5th option if he's fixed)...

Bargnani would be good with Jose and Amir - its like we moved our starting unit last year to our 2nd unit!! Honestly, how deep would our team be then???

We need to move forward with our young ballers - The future should start now!

[BallaBalla]

The problem is, Bargnani isn't good enough to start and we'd have a ton of issues defensively (see what I did there?).

We're 3-9. Zero reason to hold onto any particular unit/rotation. This team certainly can't get any worse trying Davis (or Amir) as our starter, just to shake things up a little and see what happens.

lol

I also strongly disagree that ED is not good enough to start for this team ("for this team" being the key point). He is a more mobile defender than Bargs, and a better rebounder, better help defender and I honestly think he would be more consistent knowing that he would be receiving consistent minutes

we already have enough guys in the starting rotation looking to get their own shot. AB and jose as a second unit would be really effective against the second unit of ANY team in the league

[Nilanka]

The problem is, Ed isn't good enough to start and We'd have a ton of issues offensively.

The Raptors have started just fine in the last 4-5 games (except Boston). It's usually when the bench comes in, the lead disappears.

The problem is, Bargnani isn't good enough to start and we'd have a ton of issues defensively (see what I did there?).

We're 3-9. Zero reason to hold onto any particular unit/rotation. This team certainly can't get any worse trying Davis (or Amir) as our starter, just to shake things up a little and see what happens.

[timdunkit]

The problem is, Ed isn't good enough to start and We'd have a ton of issues offensively.

The Raptors have started just fine in the last 4-5 games (except Boston). It's usually when the bench comes in, the lead disappears.

[Puffer]

...At the very least we should move him to the bench...

I'm finally onboard with this. If you can't trade him, let him play against some of the NBA's lesser talents. He might play with more energy if he is only getting 25 minutes a night. If Fields comes back with any kind of a shot, let JV and Ed start.

[BallaBalla]

There was an interesting point made by Jack Armstrong in yesterdays game about Bargnani's building a reputation for being a target defensively. In several games this season we've seen Andrea constantly being attacked by opposing players with the same result. He is a HUGE defensive liability and has cost us the game on more than one occasion #tradebargnani

+1

here's the thing...other teams LOVE when he's on the court because, even though he's talented offensively, he doesn't make up for how poor he is defensively. I am actually embarrassed watching him sometimes and i really think it's just time to move on.

At the very least we should move him to the bench. To the point which Grantland is making about effeciency, I think he would be more efficient as a 6th man who can come off the bench. If he's hot let him stay on, otherwise he shouldn't be used as anything more than a nick young type player who can come off the bench and score

[knowledgep]

There was an interesting point made by Jack Armstrong in yesterdays game about Bargnani's building a reputation for being a target defensively. In several games this season we've seen Andrea constantly being attacked by opposing players with the same result. He is a HUGE defensive liability and has cost us the game on more than one occasion #tradebargnani

+1 I've been tweeting on a daily basis about this #freeRaptorfans

[Ambidextrious]

Bargs now has all kinds of reputation in the NBA:

- Soft
- Worst rebounding big in the NBA
- Horrible defender

Now he's a chucker.

I can't say i disagree with any of them though.

There was an interesting point made by Jack Armstrong in yesterdays game about Bargnani's building a reputation for being a target defensively. In several games this season we've seen Andrea constantly being attacked by opposing players with the same result. He is a HUGE defensive liability and has cost us the game on more than one occasion #tradebargnani

[Miekenstien]

You would have to insult me, let me down time and time again, and psychologically and emotionally abuse me for 7 consecutive years and while I stand by you and defend you through thick and thin (minus a short spell at the end of year 5). After that is done, you have to give me a huge kick in the tender area 10 times while showing no remorse and making no effort to apologize and change. But after all of that, it is still my own fault for believing you could change your ways in year 7 in the first place.

haha

[mcHAPPY]

wow matt, you have really decided you hate bargs now. i applaud your convictions and hope to never cross you. i seems yours would be enmity for life. hahaha

You would have to insult me, let me down time and time again, and psychologically and emotionally abuse me for 7 consecutive years and while I stand by you and defend you through thick and thin (minus a short spell at the end of year 5). After that is done, you have to give me a huge kick in the tender area 10 times while showing no remorse and making no effort to apologize and change. But after all of that, it is still my own fault for believing you could change your ways in year 7 in the first place.

[Miekenstien]

tsk tsk tsk

People have not been reading the #tradeBargnani #freeRaptorfans thread

wow matt, you have really decided you hate bargs now. i applaud your convictions and hope to never cross you. i seems yours would be enmity for life. hahaha

[Craiger]

The prelude of the article before Zach Lowe lists the players is interesting as well; it's not just a list of chuckers.



The first bold I'd like to call the "Amir-Is-Great-argument" which could be found here some time ago. Btw; not intending this to be a defense of Bargnani (this year) on my part.

Just like the usage debate is "math in a vacuum" so is the corresponding response "theory in a vacuum".

Just how important and relevant and at what point there are diminishing returns towards usage has (atleast to my knowledge) never really been broken down with any degree of accuracy.

Yes there seems to be a general trend that usage means less efficiency - and this makes sense if only because more forced shots (shot clock, buzzer etc). But teams also have a tendency to give the ball to players who are thought to be better scorers or shooters (or perhaps players just take it upon themselves to do it), and in some ways force that usage vs efficiency result. There is also a tendency for teams to focus on scoring rather than efficiency, and as such could also be reinforcing this tendency.

If we look at Amir's efficiency vs usage over the years we see that there is almost no correlation between usage and efficiency. Now his usage is never particularily high (except in the ridiculously small sample size years - and even then his most efficient and least efficient years exist within his 2 most high usage years - but the samples are too small to put any level of vslur into).

With Bargnani we have relatively consistent usage and efficiency for his first 4 years (with a drop in efficiency in his 2nd year). We then see a jump in usage and a corresponding decrease in efficiency. Except this year where we see a small drop in usage and a rater large drop in efficiency. But this year can easily be excused due to a small sample, and his 2nd year could be viewed as an outlier. In which case we see that the theory does hold true - increased usage leads to decreased efficiency.

Lebron James we see a trend where efficiency increased with more usage (although this could easily be explained by experience and age). Its not perfect though, and his usage is always rather high as is his efficiency

So here's the problem - the theory does seems sound. Usage can lead to decreased efficiency. There is some evidence behind it, there is some reasonable/rational thinking behind it. But it doesn't always hold. Teams don't seem to bother with trying to find where players diminishing returns are, and even if they did how difficult is setting a 'shot limit' for players? Or a 'shot floor'?

Then their additional questions. If Amir was allowed to take as many shots as Bargnani, he may be less efficient than he has so far, but would he be even less efficient than Bargnani or would he still be more efficient? We don't get to see that because its never existed to compare

Plus how do coaches and GMs view it? I'm willing to bet Casey is more comfortable with Bargnani taking 22fters than Amir and if Amir took to many he'd see the bench. Bargnani though? There's no evidence that taking too many shots from an inefficient range is ever a problem.


I'm confident saying that there are unique diminishing returns for every player, and if someone can find an algorithm to find that, they are in for a big time pay day. But as it stands teams tend to believe certain players are better 'shot creators or makers' than others and therefore use them that way. The most successful teams however find players who can both maintain a high usage while being highly efficient. There's very little point in keeping someone who can't maintain that unless they have some individual function or play a specific role on a team.

Efficiency is king in basketball - on offense, defense and rebounding

[timdunkit]

Doesn't surprise me. He's really putting up a lot shots and not scoring efficiently. If he could get back to his percentages and reduce his attempts to 16 a game with 5 fta, that would be idea.

[The Great One]

Bargs now has all kinds of reputation in the NBA:

- Soft
- Worst rebounding big in the NBA
- Horrible defender

Now he's a chucker.

I can't say i disagree with any of them though.

[mcHAPPY]

tsk tsk tsk

People have not been reading the #tradeBargnani #freeRaptorfans thread