One of the things that really stands out for me is the assists. Yes, he's bad at rebounding, but it's just as damning that he's this bad at assisting as well. We knew that of course, but this is one more of those things he showed promise in in his first years (in my opinion) that didn't develop at all.ebrian wrote:
All the more reason why arguing against the methodology was such a waste of time/effort, if we all agree on the conclusion.
"2 plus 2 equals 4"
"You're crazy! 3 plus 1 equals 4!"
"I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder
Well said.
I agree almost completely except for the use of so called advanced stats like PER and WS. I don't like those at all, and I personally don't consider these advanced stats at all, but reductionist stats. Real advanced stats are adding information instead of reducing information to a single number which is derived in a debatable fashion. Most of those don't add anything to boxscore stats. Off those kind of stats I'm more receptive to things like Offensive and Defensive Rating over the course of more than one season as they signal trends that boxscore stats don't necessarily give.
I disagree with the bolded. I think the stats do indeed show a correlation....they just don't necessarily establish causation.
The correlation being that it's harder to win games with Bargnani a key contributor (which is different than saying Bargnani is the sole reason why we lose).
"I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder
We keep disagreeing about this. You give two ways of coming to a conclusiong that are both right. Let me try (with emphasis on 'try') to give a similar analogy. Suppose you have a table with 4 pies. Now someone says "see, there are 3 on the left and 2 on the right side of the table; together that makes 4 pies." I agree that there are 4 pies, so I should not say anything about the way this guy came to the same conclusion as me?
You're absolutely right. I realized that I meant they only show a correlation (same thing as being coincidental), without establishing a causality - hence, circumstantial evidence.
There's clearly enough hard evidence, so there's no reason to even have to resort to the more circumstantial evidence at this point. And that's coming from one of the most vocal supporters of Bargnani, up until this season.
Except of course, that when looked at these stats over the complete career of Bargnani the team is actually much better when he scores 20 points or more, which makes this much smaller sample size extra suspect.
An added critique of these kind of stats is that they're very crude, e.g. it would be much better to look at his effeciency in relation to the amount of shots he takes.
I understand the point you're trying to make. Our difference in opinion stems from whether or not we accept Matt's evidence to be truthful or not.
I believe that they are indicative of Bargnani's value to this team, and that they shouldn't be dismissed based on the somewhat poor counter examples provided in this thread.
It's not universally accepted that isolated stats don't provide value. Therefore Matt's numbers can't be considered "wrong".
"I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder
Looking at Bargnani's whole career makes sense (statistically speaking), but doing so doesn't take into account that a player can change (in this case, for the worse) since early in his career. At what point does a larger sample size becomes a less accurate indicator of Bargnani's value today?
"I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder
I think the point is that there's enough statsitical and observable reasons to want Bargnani traded, that there's no reason to even resort to the cherry-picked stat such as the team's record in games when Bargnani scores a certain number of points.
Basing an opinion on circumstantial arguments only weakens your point and invites criticism. I think that's what p00ka had issue with, since you can find similar statlines to "prove" the same argument for players like Jordan and Kobe, that are being used to support the stance of #tradeBargnani, but anybody would be a complete buffoon to jump on a #tradeJordan or #tradeKobe bandwagon. That's why such arguments stink much more of "hating", even when they're being presented as statistical, with no intended "hating".
Matt's stat regarding the Raps record when he scores 20+ points is even more telling considering Bargnani's #1 attribute to this team, has always been scoring. If the team can't win when he most does the thing he is best at, then that is obviously a problem. Rudy Gay's #1 attribute isn't steals, so the Raps record when he records 4+ steals is completely tripe (as intended). Accpeting that certain players have key areas of responsibility and the correlating affect it has on the team, is totally a fair justification of using stats to state the obvious "Bargnani is terrible"
Go Raps Go
In Casey We Trust
"The idea isn't to block every shot, the idea is to make your opponent think you might" - Bill Russell
While you are correct in your first sentence, you are incorrect in your second. Mathematically speaking, again.
The "correlation" doesn't proved that it's harder to win games with AB. It shows there is a coincidence. That is, when Bargs scores more than 20 in the sample size used, the Raptors have shown a tendency to lose more.
There is absolutely no statistical/mathematical way to link those two statements. I understand that may be difficult to grasp, when we all see Bargnani not getting rebounds and playing poor help defense on a regular basis, but it's true.
At the same time, there are no stats that can prove that there ISN'T a causal relationship between Bargs scoring 20 and the Raptors losing. It could be true, but it can't be proven with the data we currently have on hand. It may never be able to be proven. And that's why some people object to it being used as substantiated proof that 'Bargs scoring 20 = Raptors losing more'.
Disclaimer (for the nth time): I am NOT, by posting this, trying to defend AB. I'm just saying you should stick to beating him up over things you can say are actually, substantially true/factual. Actually, I'm not saying "you need" to do anything. You can argue his suckage based on whatever spurious criteria you like; but by the same token, don't expect everyone to buy it wholesale or agree with it all without poking some holes in the argument.
Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
That's exactly the type of argument I disagree with. The telling/damning fact is not the number of points scored, but more likely it's the inefficiency with which those points were scored in most of those games, that has any statistical merit. On the surface, who's to say that those games he scored 20+ points were games in which the entire team shot poorly, so Bargnani had to be relied on more to score?
See, that's the problem with drawing conclusions from circumstantial evidence - you can't prove that any one player is the root cause of the outcome in a team game. Present statistics of a highly ineffcient scorer who contributes little else on either end of the court - regardless of the outcomes of games - and I would be much more receptive.
Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Fri Mar 8th, 2013 at 01:40 PM.
I think this sums up the gist of the debate pretty well. I don't think we can simply write it off as coincidence either. The "truth" likely lies somewhere between 'coincidence' and 'direct causation', where like you said, will probably never be proven one way or the other.
"I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder
True, and maybe will start to let this thread wind down...? ;-)
The larger point is, we can find stats to 'prove' anything, as long as we don't care too much about being mathematically or factually correct in our 'proof'...
Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
My snarky response to this is: BOOOOOOO.
But -- OK. I agree. C'mon people, there is PLENTY of evidence to support how bad Bargnani is. Stop being lazy!
Btw in terms of the Win Shares and Ratings and all that -- I agree with what people said about those types of stats -- it's the reason I feel posting rankings (which illustrates how bad Bargnani has been over a course of the last 60 years) instead of just pulling out the individual numbers of a player versus another player. This way it's not about how much worse Bargnani is than the next guy, but rather just how bad he has been against players in NBA history. I don't feel the need to prove Bargnani is worse than Ron Seikaly, or Tim Duncan. My purpose is just to show he's bad.
Last edited by ebrian; Fri Mar 8th, 2013 at 01:54 PM.
your pal,
ebrian
haha my bigger question is, is this even a debate anymore? Why are we even debating whether Bargnani is good or bad, or whether he should be on the team next year or not?My snarky response to this is: BOOOOOOO.
But -- OK. I agree. C'mon people, there is PLENTY of evidence to support how bad Bargnani is. Stop being lazy!
I was a vocal supporter of his up until his regression this year and I resigned myself long ago to the fact that he and the Raptors need a fresh start without each other, regardless of whatever skill/potential he may have and regardless of whether he may blossom elsewhere.
I'm in 100% agreement, but how could you say this without proof???
"I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder
but but but at least my post was in the form of a question, not an assumption! lolI'm in 100% agreement, but how could you say this without proof???
Maybe that's part of my frustration, too. It's like debating whether or not Rob Ford is fit to be the mayor of Toronto. We all know he's not, so why are we getting bent out of shape continuing to talk about the specific ways in which he continues to prove that he's unfit to be mayor?
I also hoped for Bargnani to find his niche among the other talented players on this roster. He hasn't, and that -- his production, I'm talking about, because this stuff about lack of effort etc. falls in the same 'can't prove it' category as the wonky stats-based arguments -- is primarily on him. The *expectations*, though, and the subsequent hate that he hasn't lived up to them, is on those who harbored the expectations, combined with those who raised those expectations. Not on Bargs. I had the expectations, too. But I don't feel a need to pin *my* disappointment on the player. That's on me, and if I choose to rant about it or take a more measured approach is also on me.
Why not more discussion of what they might get for Bargs in the summer, or better yet, just make the assumption he's gone by July and talk about more 'fun' things, like what to do about the REST of the crap on the roster, that is ALSO contributing to a losing situation?
Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
