Everything Bargnani: Grumble, Grumble, Grumble

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

I get what you're saying. It just seems odds that while some are using stats to discuss/argue (in this case) Bargnani, you're using stats to discuss/argue statistical integrity. It seems rather off-topic.

---

I don't know how it could be more on-topic, actually. By using meaningless stats to discuss/argue a point, you render the discussion/argument meaningless. No statistical integrity = no meaning and no use to the argument. There has to be some validity to the points on either side of a debate, doesn't there? In this debate, one side is arguing that their meaningless data points have actual merit, and the other side is arguing that they don't.

It's not really a debate about Bargnani at all, anymore.

Quote:

---

jimmie wrote:

I don't know how it could be more on-topic, actually. By using meaningless stats to discuss/argue a point, you render the discussion/argument meaningless. No statistical integrity = no meaning and no use to the argument. There has to be some validity to the points on either side of a debate, doesn't there? In this debate, one side is arguing that their meaningless data points have actual merit, and the other side is arguing that they don't.

It's not really a debate about Bargnani at all, anymore.

---

That's exactly why it's off topic.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

That's exactly why it's off topic.

---

I don't think I've ever seen a thread that became so stupid

The original point was: we should start bargnani so we can get more out of him.

Everyone agrees that this is a bad idea, but are willing to insult each oother over the methodologies of arriving at that conclusion.... Retarded

Very close to closing this. This thread has strayed it's course.

Is Bargnani better starting? He's had 3 solid games since coming back into the first five.

Quote:

---

BallaBalla wrote:

I don't think I've ever seen a thread that became so stupid

The original point was: we should start bargnani so we can get more out of him.

Everyone agrees that this is a bad idea, but are willing to insult each oother over the methodologies of arriving at that conclusion.... Retarded

---

yep... somehow my stripper analogy a few pages back became one of the most constructive arguments in the thread.....

Quote:

---

p00ka wrote:

Matt, if you wish to carry on using "facts" that are meaningless to the argument you wish to make, what can I say, but have a nice day, and have fun, eh.

---

Enjoy your day as well.

Quote:

---

jimmie wrote:

I don't know how it could be more on-topic, actually. By using meaningless stats to discuss/argue a point, you render the discussion/argument meaningless. No statistical integrity = no meaning and no use to the argument. There has to be some validity to the points on either side of a debate, doesn't there? In this debate, one side is arguing that their meaningless data points have actual merit, and the other side is arguing that they don't.

It's not really a debate about Bargnani at all, anymore.

---

It has always been about Bargnani on my end - specifically the Raptors are worse with him.

If there is any way to show how the Raptors are better with him, please enlighten me. I asked p00ka but all I got was theoretical jibberish.

We can look at win shares, defensive rating, +/-.... whatever you choose which all show credible reasons for the state of wins and losses with a whole load of variables but they all have the one constant: Bargnani.


Can anyone support this claim:

This season, the Raptors are better WITH Bargnani.

wow, i had to take tums after reading the back and forth between pooka, matt and nilanka. and im still confused as to where pooka stands.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

It has always been about Bargnani on my end - specifically the Raptors are worse with him.

If there is any way to show how the Raptors are better with him, please enlighten me. I asked p00ka but all I got was theoretical jibberish.

We can look at win shares, defensive rating, +/-.... whatever you choose which all show credible reasons for the state of wins and losses with a whole load of variables but they all have the one constant: Bargnani.


Can anyone support this claim:

This season, the Raptors are better WITH Bargnani.

---

Pooka didn't agree with one of your subarguments. That doesn't mean he has to provide arguments in favour of the complete opposite view, which somehow, quite weirdly, you appear to want him to do. I didn't see any theoretical jibberish as well; the only problem with his argument I see (in this debate) is the confrontational (frontpage comment section) attitude he brings to the debate.

Challenging a subargument isn't going off topic as well. That the thread isn't going anywhere anymore is, as with most debates on a forum, simply because no side is going to acknowledge being wrong or even acknowledge the point being made is not an unreasonable one.

Quote:

---

TheGloveinRapsUniform wrote:

wow, i had to take tums after reading the back and forth between pooka, matt and nilanka. and im still confused as to where pooka stands.

---

Read what Jimmie said and you'll get it. When in doubt, go with Jimmie, one of the most sensible posters on the site in any discussion. There's no reason to side against pooka's argument just because he's, well ... pooka.

Quote:

---

TheGloveinRapsUniform wrote:

wow, i had to take tums after reading the back and forth between pooka, matt and nilanka. and im still confused as to where pooka stands.

---

he isn't pro-bargs... but he's against the use of "manipulated" advanced stats being used to discredit him..

so he isn't arguing the ends... he's arguing the means

Quote:

---

heinz57 wrote:

he isn't pro-bargs... but he's against the use of "manipulated" advanced stats being used to discredit him..

so he isn't arguing the ends... he's arguing the means

---

83% of people I talked to agree with your rationale, but 50% are opposed. ;-)

Quote:

---

CalgaryRapsFan wrote:

83% of people I talked to agree with your rationale, but 50% are opposed. ;-)

---

"60 percent of the time, it works everytime"

Quote:

---

Soft Euro wrote:

Read what Jimmie said and you'll get it. When in doubt, go with Jimmie, one of the most sensible posters on the site in any discussion. There's no reason to side against pooka's argument just because he's, well ... pooka.

---

Im not siding against pooka or trying to discredit him in any way. Im just not sure as to where he stands.

is this accurate:

We are all in agreement that Bargnani should not be a part of this team.
Pooka is saying, I agree that he should not be a part of this team, but the reason some postes have on why he should not be on this team, is not accurate

correct?

Quote:

---

TheGloveinRapsUniform wrote:

Im not siding against pooka or trying to discredit him in any way. Im just not sure as to where he stands.

is this accurate:

We are all in agreement that Bargnani should not be a part of this team.
Pooka is saying, I agree that he should not be a part of this team, but the reason some postes have on why he should not be on this team, is not accurate

correct?

---

sort of... not really..

he's saying some of the statistics that are being brought up are horse shit... not they exist, or aren't real... he's questioning the validity of cherry picking advanced stats in order to discredit bargs...

kind of like... say you break up with a chick.... and your buddy asks you why you broke up with her... and you tell your buddy "oh it was her nose... i didn't like the way her nostrils were slightly upturned... and her nipples were strange... they were like innie nipples... and kinda peperroni like... not the big chicago pepperoni... the small tiny pepperonies you can buy in bulk at no frills... and her eyes were slightly uneven... and she has construction worker fingers"

he arguing against the nit picking... and basically advocating saying straight up "i broke up with her cuz she ugly"

that's what i take away from it anyways

Quote:

---

heinz57 wrote:

sort of... not really..

he's saying some of the statistics that are being brought up are horse shit... not they exist, or aren't real... he's questioning the validity of cherry picking advanced stats in order to discredit bargs...

kind of like... say you break up with a chick.... and your buddy asks you why you broke up with her... and you tell your buddy "oh it was her nose... i didn't like the way her nostrils were slightly upturned... and her nipples were strange... they were like innie nipples... and kinda peperroni like... not the big chicago pepperoni... the small tiny pepperonies you can buy in bulk at no frills... and her eyes were slightly uneven... and she has construction worker fingers"

he arguing against the nit picking... and basically advocating saying straight up "i broke up with her cuz she ugly"

that's what i take away from it anyways

---

shit, i need another tums

Quote:

---

Soft Euro wrote:

Pooka didn't agree with one of your subarguments. That doesn't mean he has to provide arguments in favour of the complete opposite view, which somehow, quite weirdly, you appear to want him to do. I didn't see any theoretical jibberish as well; the only problem with his argument I see (in this debate) is the confrontational (frontpage comment section) attitude he brings to the debate.

Challenging a subargument isn't going off topic as well. That the thread isn't going anywhere anymore is, as with most debates on a forum, simply because no side is going to acknowledge being wrong or even acknowledge the point being made is not an unreasonable one.

---

p00ka's posts have left me confused as to WTF he is actually talking about. Maybe he can provide me with the correct reasons why Toronto is worse with Bargnani? If it is not based on wins and losses with him playing/not and with him coming off the bench/not, then what is it?

I have admitted being in the wrong on numerous occasions. Clearly in this case, and many others, I'm just not all that smrt.

The reality is:
- the Raptors are, well now, 5-25 with Bargnani as a starter,
- they are 0-9 when he scores 20 or more,
- I've yet to come across a stat for this season that shows he helps Toronto in any way,
- numerous stats show the Raptors are worse with Bargnani on the floor.

From this I conclude the Raptors are better off without Bargnani this season and the better he does individually in the one thing he is suppose to be good at, the worse the outcome for the team. That is what I have been talking about.


I acknowledge there are are all sorts of reasons one could offer as to why the record is what it is with Bargnani (other teams best player ate bad sushi before the game, starting PG off opponent missed his nap, team didn't do the correct sequence in the warm up, the bus hit 4 red lights from the hotel to arena versus 2, Devlin only blamed the refs 87 times instead of the usual 93, someone flushed an arena toilet as Bargnani's ball was in mid air creating a butterfly effect causing the shot to miss and his confidence to take another plummet). But I always thought sport glory and criticism was outcome/production based: wins-losses/statistics. This subargument is bullshit in my opinion and splitting hairs for no other reason other than to be a dick. If the 'facts' I have provided are not suitable as to why Toronto is better WITHOUT Bargnani this season, and if p00ka or jimmie feel the same way, please show me how I could show this statement to be true so in the future I can be sure to state it properly. If wins and losses don't matter, lets give everyone a championship every year. If statistics don't matter, lets end the debate of best ever to play now and give the award to Popeye Jones because, well, I loved him when he played. MJ? Wilt? LeBron? Russell? Nah man. Fuck that shit man. Wins/losses/championships don't mean diddly squat. The debate of greatest coach ever? PJax? Red? Nah fuck that shit man. Number of championships or wins means nothing. Darrell Walker is the newly anointed great coach of all time. Why? Well look at the talent he had to work with... and they played in Canada.... and they played in the SkyDome. At some point some interpretation has to come in to what the numbers show. If you don't come to the conclusion the Raptors are a better team without Bargnani based on 5-25 as a starter and 0-9 when he score 20s or more (all of which happen to be games he started), then I don't know what to say and am going to clean up the drywall next to my desk that has accumulated from banging my head off it.

bargnani this summer will be either 1)amnestied or 2)sold for what we percieve as nothing ie. prospects, 2nd round picks. Quote me on that.

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

p00ka's posts have left me confused as to WTF he is actually talking about. Maybe he can provide me with the correct reasons why Toronto is worse with Bargnani? If it is not based on wins and losses with him playing/not and with him coming off the bench/not, then what is it?

I have admitted being in the wrong on numerous occasions. Clearly in this case, and many others, I'm just not all that smrt.

The reality is:
- the Raptors are, well now, 5-25 with Bargnani as a starter,
- they are 0-9 when he scores 20 or more,
- I've yet to come across a stat for this season that shows he helps Toronto in any way,
- numerous stats show the Raptors are worse with Bargnani on the floor.

From this I conclude the Raptors are better off without Bargnani this season and the better he does individually in the one thing he is suppose to be good at, the worse the outcome for the team. That is what I have been talking about.


I acknowledge there are are all sorts of reasons one could offer as to why the record is what it is with Bargnani (other teams best player ate bad sushi before the game, starting PG off opponent missed his nap, team didn't do the correct sequence in the warm up, the bus hit 4 red lights from the hotel to arena versus 2, Devlin only blamed the refs 87 times instead of the usual 93, someone flushed an arena toilet as Bargnani's ball was in mid air creating a butterfly effect causing the shot to miss and his confidence to take another plummet). But I always thought sport glory and criticism was outcome/production based: wins-losses/statistics. This subargument is bullshit in my opinion and splitting hairs for no other reason other than to be a dick. If the 'facts' I have provided are not suitable as to why Toronto is better WITHOUT Bargnani this season, and if p00ka or jimmie feel the same way, please show me how I could show this statement to be true so in the future I can be sure to state it properly. If wins and losses don't matter, lets give everyone a championship every year. If statistics don't matter, lets end the debate of best ever to play now and give the award to Popeye Jones because, well, I loved him when he played. MJ? Wilt? LeBron? Russell? Nah man. Fuck that shit man. Wins/losses/championships don't mean diddly squat. The debate of greatest coach ever? PJax? Red? Nah fuck that shit man. Number of championships or wins means nothing. Darrell Walker is the newly anointed great coach of all time. Why? Well look at the talent he had to work with... and they played in Canada.... and they played in the SkyDome. At some point some interpretation has to come in to what the numbers show. If you don't come to the conclusion the Raptors are a better team without Bargnani based on 5-25 as a starter and 0-9 when he score 20s or more (all of which happen to be games he started), then I don't know what to say and am going to clean up the drywall next to my desk that has accumulated from banging my head off it.

---

Even when he has a good game, this team is not able to get over the hump i.e. Win a game. I'm with you Matt, we aren't winning with him as a Raptor. He can have 20 points, 10 rebounds, but if we don't win, it doesn't matter. Now, we aren't saying he IS the reason for un-success, but he sure as hell has an impact - a negative one, regardless if he's playing well. It just doesn't work here.

I know I'm being redundant in my post, but just trying to emphasis, we aren't getting anywhere with him as a Raptor, neither will he get anywhere as a Raptor.

Let's not kid ourselves here. It makes very little sense why someone would go through such lengths to discredit the methodologies of arriving at the conclusion that Bargnani sucks, unless they were trying to defend Bargnani, even on a subconscious level.

As the great Judge Judy often says, "if it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true".

p00ka is a Bargnani fan (whether he wants to admit it or not).