Liston wrote:
View Post
I posed a series of questions like "Where are the pictures of..." just to make the larger point that, amongst the most vocal anyway, it's very rare people go out of their way like this to credit Bargs for the good he does in game. (keeping in mind I'm on the TRADE HIM WHILE PEOPLE STILL THINK HE'S VALUABLE! bandwagon)
To me it just seems like tired, treaded ground: did we really need a shot for shot breakdown of something like this again? The "3" under "Rebs" didn't tell us that? After a game in which he played well? Maybe I've just stopped hoping he'd improve, but I felt this illuminated nothing.
It's like if after John Wall's near triple double someone posted a breakdown of all 8 turnovers - sure, it's a valid criticism but it misses the larger context of that player's contribution and casts an otherwise good performance in an unfairly dim light. It seems doubly silly because Bargs has been a terrible rebounder forever, Triano basically told us it hadn't improved, so what did you expect?
So I have no problem with the criticism itself - which is more than fair - it's just the context and timing of it's presentation seemed silly.
Comment