Everything Bargnani: Grumble, Grumble, Grumble

[Soft Euro]

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).

I don't agree at all. Maybe pooka is a Bargnani fan, but that shouldn't matter a lot. I think it makes sense. During the years I've been annoyed at all the things said about Bargnani without proper evidence, these things freak me out (this discussion is not one of them btw, as it's a very small thing). It's been the reason for my name and my rant in my first post ever on here. This made me even a little bit pro Bargnani while there is barely any reason to be.

I hate discussions where lots (most) of people are in agreement with one side of the argument and consequently good reasoning is no longer needed. I'm all for fair criticism, but reasoning which (in my opinion) just uses wrong arguments to reiterate some broadly accepted opinion doesn't do it for me.

[Nilanka]

I don't agree at all. Maybe pooka is a Bargnani fan, but that shouldn't matter a lot. I think it makes sense. During the years I've been annoyed at all the things said about Bargnani without proper evidence, these things freak me out (this discussion is not one of them btw, as it's a very small thing). It's been the reason for my name and my rant in my first post ever on here. This made me even a little bit pro Bargnani while there is barely any reason to be.

I hate discussions where lots (most) of people are in agreement with one side of the argument and consequently good reasoning is no longer needed. I'm all for fair criticism, but reasoning which (in my opinion) just uses wrong arguments to reiterate some broadly accepted opinion doesn't do it for me.

Fair enough.

But just curious as to why you (or p00ka) don't come to the defense of Gay, Lowry, or DeRozan (for example) when similar stats are used to draw erroneous conclusions...

I understand that Bargnani gets picked on more than others, but that isn't a coincidence.

Edit: We're all fans here, so it makes perfect sense for emotions to get involved. Just don't pretend you're an impartial mediator, that's all. In other words, there's nothing wrong with being a Bargnani fan. Just admit it. [Not necessarily meant to be towards you, Soft Euro]

[Soft Euro]

Fair enough.

But just curious as to why you (or p00ka) don't come to the defense of Gay, Lowry, or DeRozan (for example) when similar stats are used to draw erroneous conclusions...

I understand that Bargnani gets picked on more than others, but that isn't a coincidence.

First of all, I don't come to the defense of Bargnani very often; I don't know how often I've done it, but probably not more than once every two months. I would come to the defense of the others as well, I must say, I can't remember I've ever done this, but I also can't remember it was ever needed (with plenty of others who will around). The opinions there have been much more evenly divided which also means people don't throw out weird arguments out there as easily as it won't be accepted by the 'community' and if they do, they'll get plenty of scorn. With Bargani, he's the underdog now, and sometimes he's getting gangraped.

[Nilanka]

With Bargani, he's the underdog now, and sometimes he's getting gangraped.

There's only 1 person to blame for this....

[Soft Euro]

There's only 1 person to blame for this....

Three...

[Nilanka]

Three...

Is one of them Reggie Evans?

[Soft Euro]

Is one of them Reggie Evans?

Haha

Well, of all things, Bargnani isn't responsible for his number one selection, his contract and his playing time. If those things had been different, he wouldn't be a target right now (and maybe not even in the league anymore).

[ebrian]

My guess is it's because pooka thinks math and facts actually matter, even when what you are presenting is just an "opinion". You can argue that Bargnani sucks for a ton of reasons, but when you bring "facts" and stats into your argument, they really should actually, you know, mean something. And the ones being presented don't actually mean anything because you can't prove causality or correlation between Bargnani's individual stats and those of the team as a whole. Mathematically speaking, I mean.

If you're just trying to add to a narrative, it's fine, but there's no actual value to using those stats the way people are using them here. They are completely meaningless as related to the argument at hand.

Fine, but again -- why bother? Who cares if people are arguing with inappropriate stats -- fact remains that Bargnani is terrible. He's not a man who deserves defense from any of us who care about this team. Here, I'll quote some research I did in the Boo Bargnani thread:

Since 1946, there have been a total of 109 players who were 6'11 or taller and averaged 20 or more minutes per game over the span of their careers.

Amongst those, guess where Bargnani ranks:

In rebounds per game? #100
In player efficiency? #80
In field goal percentage? #96
In blocks per game? #82
In Defensive rating? #109

[planetmars]

Fine, but again -- why bother? Who cares if people are arguing with inappropriate stats -- fact remains that Bargnani is terrible. He's not a man who deserves defense from any of us who care about this team. Here, I'll quote some research I did in the Boo Bargnani thread:

Wow.. there were 9 worse rebounders then Bargnani? That I find shocking!

[ebrian]

Hmm. I just ran it again and it seems it's changed.. I must've done something in the filter. But anyway, here's the rehash:

On a search for all players 6'11+ with 22+ mpg averaged over their careers. Totals are different because some stats didn't exist until certain times, or if they don't have the stat the player doesn't show up on the ranking:

In rebounds per game? #106 (out of 108)
In player efficiency? #82 (out of 109)
In field goal percentage? #101 (out of 108)
In blocks per game? #70 (out of 103)
In Defensive rating? #103 (out of 103)

Why defend a guy like this? Apparently this thread is about giving this guy more minutes.

[ebrian]

Btw, if you bring it up to 30+ mpg, 35 total guys on the list and where Bargnani ranks:

Per game --
Total rebounds: 35th
Field Goal Percentage: 34th (Nate Thurmond last)
PER: 32nd
Blocks: 30th
Assists: 34th
Steals: 33rd
Total Rebound %: 35th
Offensive Rating: 29th
Defensive Rating: 35th
Offensive Win Shares: 33rd
Defensive Win Shares: 32nd

Usage Percentage: 13th

[Raptor_11]

Btw, if you bring it up to 30+ mpg, 35 total guys on the list and where Bargnani ranks:

Per game --
Total rebounds: 35th
Field Goal Percentage: 34th (Nate Thurmond last)
PER: 32nd
Blocks: 30th
Assists: 34th
Steals: 33rd
Total Rebound %: 35th
Offensive Rating: 29th
Defensive Rating: 35th
Offensive Win Shares: 33rd
Defensive Win Shares: 32nd

Usage Percentage: 13th

I wish someone would show D.Casey this stuff.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Btw, if you bring it up to 30+ mpg, 35 total guys on the list and where Bargnani ranks:

Per game --
Total rebounds: 35th
Field Goal Percentage: 34th (Nate Thurmond last)
PER: 32nd
Blocks: 30th
Assists: 34th
Steals: 33rd
Total Rebound %: 35th
Offensive Rating: 29th
Defensive Rating: 35th
Offensive Win Shares: 33rd
Defensive Win Shares: 32nd

Usage Percentage: 13th

Out of morbid curiosity, could you run the same report and show where Dirk falls. The only reason I ask is that we know that Bargnani isn't a 'traditional' big, so I'm interested in a comparison to a big with a similar style (especially the player he's most often been compared to).

Bargnani's rebounding numbers and offensive efficiencies have often been excused due to his style of play, while the intangible benefits of things like 'spreading the floor' are pointed out as advantages that aren't captured by stats. It would be very telling to see where Dirk falls, relative to Bargnani.

Thanks!

[Nilanka]

Casey has a built-in rebuttal that instantly quiets the mob. Something about hell and water....

[ebrian]

Out of morbid curiosity, could you run the same report and show where Dirk falls. The only reason I ask is that we know that Bargnani isn't a 'traditional' big, so I'm interested in a comparison to a big with a similar style (especially the player he's most often been compared to).

Bargnani's rebounding numbers and offensive efficiencies have often been excused due to his style of play, while the intangible benefits of things like 'spreading the floor' are pointed out as advantages that aren't captured by stats. It would be very telling to see where Dirk falls, relative to Bargnani.

Thanks!

It's a good point actually, since Bargnani is really known for his offense... or at least, he's supposed to be. I've moved up the offensive categories and defensive have been pushed down. I've also bolded the ones where Dirk is significantly better than Bargnani.

Dirk Nowitzki (Andrea in brackets):

Per game --
PER: 7th (32nd)
Offensive Rating: 2nd (29th)
Offensive Win Shares: 2nd (33rd)
Field Goal Percentage: 29th (34th)
Assists: 11th (34th)
Total rebounds: 26th (35th)
Blocks: 22nd (30th)
Steals: 13th (33rd)
Total Rebound %: 33rd (35th)
Defensive Rating: 23rd (35th)
Defensive Win Shares: 13th (32nd)

Usage Percentage: 5th (13th)

[CalgaryRapsFan]

It's a good point actually, since Bargnani is really known for his offense... or at least, he's supposed to be. I've moved up the offensive categories and defensive have been pushed down. I've also bolded the ones where Dirk is significantly better than Bargnani.

Dirk Nowitzki (Andrea in brackets):

Per game --
PER: 7th (32nd)
Offensive Rating: 2nd (29th)
Offensive Win Shares: 2nd (33rd)
Field Goal Percentage: 29th (34th)
Assists: 11th (34th)
Total rebounds: 26th (35th)
Blocks: 22nd (30th)
Steals: 13th (33rd)
Total Rebound %: 33rd (35th)
Defensive Rating: 23rd (35th)
Defensive Win Shares: 13th (32nd)

Usage Percentage: 5th (13th)

Yikes, thanks for that. For me, those stats are even more gruesome with the Dirk comparisons. I've never been as hard on his rebounding numbers as others, simply because his style of play, nor am I a big fan of defensive stats in general. However, the win-share stats, PER, offensive rating, assists & steals really point out 2 things for me: just how ineffcient a scorer he is and how little he contributes besides scoring.

[Matt52]

Can anyone tell me how to explain the Raptors are better without Bargnani besides using wins/losses and statistics?

I am still waiting for a response as to how to properly explain this.

[Nilanka]

Can anyone tell me how to explain the Raptors are better without Bargnani besides using wins/losses and statistics?

I am still waiting for a response as to how to properly explain this.

Other than stats, crowd reaction is the only true indicator

[Soft Euro]

Can anyone tell me how to explain the Raptors are better without Bargnani besides using wins/losses and statistics?

I am still waiting for a response as to how to properly explain this.

I don't think there are many people, if any, who (still) think that. I don't think anybody argued that here either.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Can anyone tell me how to explain the Raptors are better without Bargnani besides using wins/losses and statistics?

I am still waiting for a response as to how to properly explain this.

As I've read through this thread, I think I've come up with a way to explain the issues that some people have had with various arguments made by various posters on both sides of the debate - for the record, I thought Jimmie did a good job trying to explain it yesterday.

I also think I should start by saying that my assumption is based on the fact that so much blame & "hate" has been dumped on Bargnani over the years - some well deserved and some well beyond his control (ie: draft position, salary) - that the "piling on" can get frustrating to take, even when the bulk of the pile is quite legit.

Basically, I think the personal stats (like those in ebrian's recent posts) and unbiased observations of game action are accepted as factual evidenciary proof of Bargnani's "suckage". By this, I mean stats like PER, Offensive Rating, Offensive Win Share, Defensive Win Share, as examples, and observations such as poor help defense. Those stats are based purely on the indivdual and all pass the eye-test, without bias.

However, I think people take issue with circumstantial evidence, such as the team's record in games when he scores a certain # of points, for example. These sorts of coincidental stats show no direct correlation between Bargnani and the outcome. These sorts of 'stats' can be found to support any argument about any player, good or bad. For example, there might be a statline that shows the team is 8-0 all-time when Bargnani scores 7 points and has 3 rebounds, but that doesn't mean the team should adopt a strategy to ensure Bargnani hits exactly that statline and then gets benched, since it's purely coincidental; no game is ever decided by a single player's statline.

Even the most vocal Bargnani supporter, past or present, can accept irrefutable evidence based on stats that observation can validate. However, after all the years of "Bargnani bashing", it can get frustrating to have that compounded by purely circumstantial evidence, be it hand-picked coincidental statlines or factors beyond Bargnani's control.

Hopefully that makes sense and helps shed some light on the ongoing discussion...