Still not good enough to justify keeping him over Amir or Davis. Not even close.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything Bargnani
Collapse
X
-
-
-
JoePanini wrote: View PostYou might not have said it, but it was implied wasn't it? Or are you arguing that he isn't the best player, but he isn't not the best player? Because if that is the case, then you're contradicting your point.
We can't know if the team will be better or worse if he was replaced now can we? But in 2001 I doubt anyone would want to replace AI with a "more efficient" scorer. There are very few high volume guards who shoot efficiently. One reason is because they take shots that "lesser" players would never take, and those are shots which make them superstars in the game.
I'm not saying the stat doesn't work, I'm saying this is a bad example to support your argument which says it does work. In the case of the 76ers during AI's prime, him being 9th on his team in WS, thus apparently being 9th best player, shows that the stat doesn't always work. The thing is, the stat doesn't see the game and doesn't consider the large amount of variables in a basketball game which cannot be recorded statistically.
So you honestly believe that AI wasn't the best player on the team, and that he didn't deserve MVP? And that the 76ers didn't need AI. And I never said Mutombo was modest, rather the team (other than Iverson) as a whole, and I don't think anyone would ever expect Mutombo to lead the 76ers through the playoffs?
And yes there are high volume guards who shoot efficiently... they just happen to be great players.
I also never said the stat, or any stats, always work. I said before, and I'll say again, they are a tool. They are not perfect. No one is saying they are. That doesn't mean they are wrong though either, shouldn't be used, or can't be applied to individuals.
Do I believe Iverson was the best player on his team? Yes. But he shot too much and if he would have adjusted his game (ie. passed the ball) he could have been a true great. Instead he was a ball hog and that lead to serious inefficiencies with his game. Did he deserve the MVP? No, not even close. Did the 76ers need Iverson? Yes. But do I think they would they have been better with a more efficient player, even if that meant less scoring from that position? Yes without a doubt.
Comment
-
GarbageTime wrote: View PostYou never answered my question. And if we can't tell if the team will be better or worse if he was replaced how can we say he didn't deserve the statistical value he ended up with?
And yes there are high volume guards who shoot efficiently... they just happen to be great players.
I also never said the stat, or any stats, always work. I said before, and I'll say again, they are a tool. They are not perfect. No one is saying they are. That doesn't mean they are wrong though either, shouldn't be used, or can't be applied to individuals.
Do I believe Iverson was the best player on his team? Yes. But he shot too much and if he would have adjusted his game (ie. passed the ball) he could have been a true great. Instead he was a ball hog and that lead to serious inefficiencies with his game. Did he deserve the MVP? No, not even close. Did the 76ers need Iverson? Yes. But do I think they would they have been better with a more efficient player, even if that meant less scoring from that position? Yes without a doubt.
There are very few, and the fact that there does not prove any point you've been trying to put out. Yes there are great shooting guards who shoot efficiently, the correlation between that and the 76ers becoming better with AI traded is inexistant. And if you say that the 76ers could have traded AI for a "great" and "efficient" shooting guard, wouldn't that make AI a great player too, considering a team were hypothetically willing to trade their great player for him?
Exactly, which is why I said that AI was a bad example which doesn't work in your favor. I never said that stats are irrelevant to the game and are wrong, just that they aren't exactly shown in their "brightest moment" when Allen Iverson is considered the 9th best player on his team when he was MVP. In fact I even said in my earlier post that I get what you mean, and agree to a certain extent, only this was a horrible example.
And this whole final paragraph you have written, does it have anything to do with your argument that Iverson being 9th on his team is justifiable and is a good example to how WS is a very effective tool to evaluate a player? No.
Just for argument sake, I will say this. Iverson might have been a ball-hog, but him taking those shots. That's what made them win games, many times he took bad shots, many times he made those bad shots. Many times, if he didn't take those shots, the 76ers would have lost. In comparison to all the times he was effective as a high-volume scorer, his "failures" and "inefficiencies" were pretty minimal.
As for your last sentence, well that's just obvious. That's like saying the Raptors would be a better team if Chris Paul replaced Jose, or Dwight replaced Bargnani. Actually, it's not even that far fetched. I actually disagree with the statement itself, with the roster the 76ers had, anything that wasn't a superstar probably would have meant that they would have been what Cleveland is today.
Comment
-
RaptorsFan4Life wrote: View PostIDK, I'd personally choose Bargs and Amir. Davis is good but you can't replace the heart and effort of Amir.
Comment
-
Apollo wrote: View PostNot even close? Did we watch the same game? Bargnani played pretty good.
Comment
-
It's a big IF but if he does play like this I would like him to stay on. I am cautiously optimistic that he has turned the tide on effort but it is one game. If Casey can keep him motivated to play with effort (my big knock against him) which translates into defense and rebounds then I think he has a solid future.
Comment
-
JoePanini wrote: View PostYou want me to literally list why he was the best player on his team? Are you serious?
Even if you did, all you could give me is 'opinion'. Which is perfectly fine (and expected).... but that says nothing about who truly IS the 'best' player on the team.
Comment
-
JoePanini wrote: View PostBecause we witnessed the season he had with 76ers and the situation you brought up is hypothetical?
There are very few, and the fact that there does not prove any point you've been trying to put out. Yes there are great shooting guards who shoot efficiently, the correlation between that and the 76ers becoming better with AI traded is inexistant. And if you say that the 76ers could have traded AI for a "great" and "efficient" shooting guard, wouldn't that make AI a great player too, considering a team were hypothetically willing to trade their great player for him?
Exactly, which is why I said that AI was a bad example which doesn't work in your favor. I never said that stats are irrelevant to the game and are wrong, just that they aren't exactly shown in their "brightest moment" when Allen Iverson is considered the 9th best player on his team when he was MVP. In fact I even said in my earlier post that I get what you mean, and agree to a certain extent, only this was a horrible example.
And this whole final paragraph you have written, does it have anything to do with your argument that Iverson being 9th on his team is justifiable and is a good example to how WS is a very effective tool to evaluate a player? No.
Just for argument sake, I will say this. Iverson might have been a ball-hog, but him taking those shots. That's what made them win games, many times he took bad shots, many times he made those bad shots. Many times, if he didn't take those shots, the 76ers would have lost. In comparison to all the times he was effective as a high-volume scorer, his "failures" and "inefficiencies" were pretty minimal.
As for your last sentence, well that's just obvious. That's like saying the Raptors would be a better team if Chris Paul replaced Jose, or Dwight replaced Bargnani. Actually, it's not even that far fetched. I actually disagree with the statement itself, with the roster the 76ers had, anything that wasn't a superstar probably would have meant that they would have been what Cleveland is today.
So you are telling me that if someone else (or combination of other players) used the possessions Iverson did, its impossible that they made those shots would have been made or the team would have been as successful?
Comment
Comment