If banging in the paint with Reggie during practice hasn't toughened up Bargnani, I don't know what will...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything Bargnani
Collapse
X
-
Why is Jack the only announcer with the balls to say anything confrontational? It seems like he is the only one who is willing to call the players out publicly. Yet the people who are responsible for Bargnani's development have been seeing him through rose coloured glasses up until the end of the season. Give me a break Colangelo, Bargnani has always been about your identity in the league. It's funny how he is only feeling the heat once his contract/reputation is on the line. I'm not necessarily a Colangelo basher but it really is time for him to put up or shut up.
Comment
-
That's a good point... Colangelo is pretty much ruining any value Bargnani had by publicly criticizing him. I kind of see where Colangelo is coming from though. After saying all of this, it puts a lot of pressure on Bargnani to perform in 2011-2012 and if he fails to improve on his defense/rebounding, then it will be Bargnani, not Colangelo that would end up receiving most of the barbs.
Comment
-
ezz_bee wrote: View PostTim I feel bad for you (and not in a patronizing way) but you seem genuinely cornfuzed by those who seem really insistent that we can make Barg's work or should find a way to make it work. I believe I might be able to illuminate the situation for you. The majority of bargs fanatics (and I don't include Hugemenot, pronounced huge-me-noh en francais) is that they are of the opinion that bargnani's ability to score 20+ points a game, with his size and skill set, demonstrates that he is a more valuable player than your advanced stats/metrics demonstrate he is inefficient/ineffective. It doesn't really matter that you believe such people to be over valuing pure scoring numbers, nor does it matter that you use empirical evidence to support your position. Empirical evidence and statistical models despite their adherence to strict scientific rigour do not automatically become "true" even if we (you and I) believe it to be a superior method of determining "truth". Perfect analogies can be found in Climate Change discussion, arguments over how old the earth is (5000 years and we used to ride dinosaurs), or whether or not the holocaust actually happened. AND NO I'm not saying that bargnani supporters are also holacaust deniers just that if they are of the opinion that your statistical analysis is not as valid as their own perspective it is unlikely that more statistical evidence will change any minds. This isn't meant to be a criticism of your analysis, which I do believe to be statistically relevant and thus more reflective of the reality we live in, than some opinions of some of the more fanatical bargnani supporters, but you seem to be getting quite frustrated. If you accept the reality that the scientific method has never convinced everyone all at once of any one thing, and limited your debates about bargnani to those who will at least agree to argue from an empirical basis, like Hugemonet seems to be doing, you might not have to worry about losing your sanity. However, if you feel you need to be zealous (cheeky, I know!) in your defence of the superiority of the scientific method than have at 'er! You just may want to stop banging your head against the wall before your skull cracks!
1. A hypothesis is formed based on observations. In this case Bargnani is bad defensively and will likely not improve could be an example.
2. A testing method is devised in order to determine whether or not the hypothesis is valid. In this case, the test would be to look at data from Bargnani's early career and use that as a trend. Since Advanced stats have been correlated to give the best indication of a players defensive ability they seem like a good enough method.
3. Analyze the results. This is where the scientific method breaks down in this case: in the analysis you have to correct for variables. This is where the discussion arises, what variables should we correct for? Is the fact that the team is bad defensively without him something we should take into account? Or should we ignore that and say those games are not statistically relevant due to the fact that the team could not adjust to Bargnani's absence in the short time frame? Perhaps this years data should be discarded due to the massive role change Bargnani has experienced this season? Or maybe we should take into account the fact that sometimes Bargs guarded the four and other times the five and try and draw conclusions from that. Or maybe we should look at time zone changes and see if that is statistically relevant. Or maybe we should attempt to account for how often the team plays zone vs how often they play man D.
There are so many of these little variables in this situation that can be accounted for that, if you are following the scientific method, you cannot simply discard because they may lead to an alternate conclusion. This is where the debate occurs, which of these factors should be accounted for in the analysis and which ones should be thrown out. This is also where many of the people who like to throw under the bus forget the scientific method and start bringing up words like "excuses" and "Bargs' apologist" when really all that is happening is that we are requesting you to perform a statistically relevant study that has taken into account all of the variables present in the experiment.
This is not to say that the analysis that you folks have conducted is not relevant, just that it is incomplete and that you should take all of the relevant variables into account or find statistics to prove that they are not relevant. You should also remove your preconceived notions of what good defense is and find a statistical measure of what defines good, and more importantly in this case, adequate defense.
This is also an issue with climate change, which is an analogy that has been brought up before on this forum."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
-
Faux-ID wrote: View PostThat's a good point... Colangelo is pretty much ruining any value Bargnani had by publicly criticizing him. I kind of see where Colangelo is coming from though. After saying all of this, it puts a lot of pressure on Bargnani to perform in 2011-2012 and if he fails to improve on his defense/rebounding, then it will be Bargnani, not Colangelo that would end up receiving most of the barbs.
Comment
-
Faux-ID wrote: View PostThat's a good point... Colangelo is pretty much ruining any value Bargnani had by publicly criticizing him. I kind of see where Colangelo is coming from though. After saying all of this, it puts a lot of pressure on Bargnani to perform in 2011-2012 and if he fails to improve on his defense/rebounding, then it will be Bargnani, not Colangelo that would end up receiving most of the barbs.Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
Follow me on Twitter.
Comment
-
Phat Farmer wrote: View PostWhy is Jack the only announcer with the balls to say anything confrontational? It seems like he is the only one who is willing to call the players out publicly. Yet the people who are responsible for Bargnani's development have been seeing him through rose coloured glasses up until the end of the season. Give me a break Colangelo, Bargnani has always been about your identity in the league. It's funny how he is only feeling the heat once his contract/reputation is on the line. I'm not necessarily a Colangelo basher but it really is time for him to put up or shut up.Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
Follow me on Twitter.
Comment
-
Tim W. wrote: View PostHe's not saying anything the entire NBA doesn't know already. I really don't think he's done anything to his trade value.
Comment
-
Tim W. wrote: View PostLeo Rautins was the first guy I heard do it, during the season, but you have to remember that these guys work for the Raptors. They can't always say what they would like to, and you can bet they say something different in private than in public.
Comment
-
Faux-ID wrote: View PostI don't know about that... It probably hasn't killed his value, but it hurts when the player's own team no longer believes in him.. At the end of the day, Bargnani probably won't get traded, because they won't get nearly enough anyways.
I think the reason why Bargnani is not overly concerned with putting so much effort in the NBA 1) coz he already has a 5yr/10mil contract and 2) he can always go back to europe to play. Unlike other basketball players who are scared to lose their NBA contracts not because they suck but because europe is simply not an option. But for Bargnani, it still very much is.Last edited by TheGloveinRapsUniform; Tue Apr 26, 2011, 11:45 AM.
Comment
Comment