Everything Bargnani: Grumble, Grumble, Grumble

[Nilanka]

but but but at least my post was in the form of a question, not an assumption! lol

[Matt52]

That was quite the kick of the hornets nest. lol

Lots of good conversation - even if it is over kill.

I'll rewind a bit and say:

Damn, it is quite the coincidence that when Bargnani scores 20 or more this year the Raptors are 0-9. That is very interesting considering his greatest attribute to the team is suppose to be scoring. Hmmmm, I wonder what causes there are to explain this striking coincidence between Raptor losses and Bargnani scoring this season. Is it his inefficiency? Is it the more playing time he gets the worse the defense is shown to statistically be causing his net impact on the court to be negative? Is it because his scoring opportunities come at the expense of higher percentage scoring opportunities for his teammates? I'm not sure what the exact cause is but it is certainly quite the coincidence and certainly adds another circumstantial log to the "Bargnani needs to go fire" which continues to burn ever more intense.

[Nilanka]

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.

But wouldn't you agree that some expectations are reasonable (subjective term, I know), while others are not?

It was unreasonable to expect Bargnani to turn into a franchise-changing megastar, simply because he was drafted 1st overall. But it was reasonable to expect a 7 footer to adequately (another subjective term) rebound and protect the paint.

Some expectations come directly from one's job description. When these are missed, that's when people get upset (and deservedly so).

[Axel]

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.

I don't think anyone has said that he is the root cause (sole reason) for the team losing those games. But you cannot deny that when a player is paid to do one specific task, there is serious concern that when he does that one task in high numbers and the team loses. I do think that FG% is more telling than PPG, but that doesn't mean that PPG has no merit and that all stats using PPG should be dismissed as arbitrary.

A similar idea would be plotting the correlation between Steve Nash's assists and a team scoring or winning. There are going to be other factors that determine the whole picture which wont be captured (like if Nash gives up the open 3 point shot for himself to pass to a teammate for 2pts) but that doesn't diminish the fact that when Nash does his primary function well, his team has had greater success. The same cannot be said of Barg's. His primary function hasn't elevated the team to victory.

[heinz57]

i haven't been able to keep track of this thread..

are we still all in agreement on bargs being shit and needing to go, but arguing the semantics of how we got to that conclusion?

[ebrian]

i haven't been able to keep track of this thread..

are we still all in agreement on bargs being shit and needing to go, but arguing the semantics of how we got to that conclusion?

Yes. That's exactly it. And this all started because someone was crazy enough to suggest that to make him suck less, he should START games.

[Matt52]

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?

So when a player goes off his rookie contract, gains more experience in the league, enters his physical prime, and starts earning more money fans should not expect, at minimum, a plateau in production? And if a substantial decline occurs it is on the fan for having the expectation the player should meet a certain production he has done in the very recent past?

That sounds like passing the buck and a great example of lack of accountability for ones actions.

Sport is about competing to win. Professional sports is about fans paying to see see athletes compete. The declining production of an athlete (assumption made he is healthy and entering his prime) can lead to questioning the competitive nature and motivation. This is especially true, in my opinion, when he has shown the ability to meet and even exceed expectations - albeit in a small sample size of ~50% of games played last season - in the very recent past.

As for talking about what to do about the REST of the crap on the roster, I am not sure that is a fair statement. Now it is certainly circumstantial and hardly evidence of Bargnani being the cause of the following facts but..... the Raptors are:

1) 14-13 when he does not play,
2) 19-18 when he either does not play or comes off the bench (5-5 off the bench),
3) 5-20 when he starts.

Again, I am not saying Bargnani is the cause of the Raptors being 5-20 when he starts. However, it is extremely interesting and quite the coincidence. So at this time I, personally, am not prepared to talk about the rest of the crap on the roster contributing to losing because the rest of the crap on the roster has shown the ability to win more than they lose this season without the presence of Bargnani - albeit it could be just an anomaly or coincidence.

[Matt52]

i haven't been able to keep track of this thread..

are we still all in agreement on bargs being shit and needing to go, but arguing the semantics of how we got to that conclusion?

Yes.

Carry on.

[jimmie]

But wouldn't you agree that some expectations are reasonable (subjective term, I know), while others are not?

It was unreasonable to expect Bargnani to turn into a franchise-changing megastar, simply because he was drafted 1st overall. But it was reasonable to expect a 7 footer to adequately (another subjective term) rebound and protect the paint.

Some expectations come directly from one's job description. When these are missed, that's when people get upset (and deservedly so).

I'm glad you can accept that the definition of "reasonable expectations" and "reasonable reaction to missed expectations" is subjective.

There are no such expectations about, say, Aaron Gray, though, are there?

You'll say, "but, but Aaron Gray wasn't picked #1? He isn't being paid $10M per year! You can't compare the two!" And you'd be right, pretty much. But they share the same basic "job description", don't they?

Both play the same position. Both are big, tall guys. One was unfairly expected to average 20 and 10, based solely on being picked #1, getting a big extension, and being labelled a franchise/key player by successive coaches and his GM.

If, say, AB had been picked 15th, and averaged 15 and 5 through 7 years, and was making $10M a year, yet he wasn't also propped up with expectations he couldn't EVER meet, would this hate campaign be the same? The only variables that are different are draft position and expectations. Maybe people would complain a bit about his salary. But it's not out of line for that kind of production, so that would be a nitpick complaint.

I think most would be happy(ier?) with having a 7-foot floor-spacer who could be counted on in that way, most likely as a gunner off the bench a la Ryan Anderson or Channing Frye in his PHX days.

That's the basis for my saying the expectations are the responsibility of those who hold them, not the player. It's not excusing lack of production, it's understanding that the expected production may simply be impossible for that player. If he doesn't have the tools to average 8 boards per game, or the instincts to play great help D, he just doesn't have them. Expecting that production when it isn't EVER going to happen is on you.

I suppose some it also has to do with where your expectations come from. In my experience playing and coaching basketball, I've seen players with no end of athletic talent who work their asses off, yet can't seem to grasp floor-spacing and the instinctual side of the game. I've also seen players with no business being on the floor with those same athletes, yet they can hold their own because they have an innate ability to find the right easy pass, or the right spot under the basket for a board, etc. There are skills -- esp. by the time players reach the NBA level -- that can't be taught. I think the areas where Bargs is weakest are those types of skills. Help defense can't be taught; you either can react to evolving situations quickly enough or you can't. Rebounding is similar. It's the same reason a guy like Calderon can thrive with a lack of athleticism and guys like Sebastian Telfair can't find a starting gig anywhere.

In terms of how individuals deal with expectations, sure, you're entitled to get upset, the same way I'm entitled to say, "oh well, THAT sure didn't work out the way I had hoped" and move on to other issues without beating my head against a wall trying to get the player moved out of town.

[p00ka]

Wow, somebody's a tad wound up and unable to get past this. What the heck, I'll play along and go with Matt's spin.

It is a very relevant point in my opinion.

Also 4-24 as a starter is relevant as well when considering Raps are a .500 team with him off the bench and 1 game over .500 with him out. This one is more important in my opinion.

That was quite the kick of the hornets nest. lol

Lots of good conversation - even if it is over kill.

I'll rewind a bit and say:

Damn, it is quite the coincidence that when Bargnani scores 20 or more this year the Raptors are 0-9. That is very interesting considering his greatest attribute to the team is suppose to be scoring. Hmmmm, I wonder what causes there are to explain this striking coincidence between Raptor losses and Bargnani scoring this season. Is it his inefficiency? Is it the more playing time he gets the worse the defense is shown to statistically be causing his net impact on the court to be negative? Is it because his scoring opportunities come at the expense of higher percentage scoring opportunities for his teammates? I'm not sure what the exact cause is but it is certainly quite the coincidence and certainly adds another circumstantial log to the "Bargnani needs to go fire" which continues to burn ever more intense.

So when a player goes off his rookie contract, gains more experience in the league, enters his physical prime, and starts earning more money fans should not expect, at minimum, a plateau in production? And if a substantial decline occurs it is on the fan for having the expectation the player should meet a certain production he has done in the very recent past?

That sounds like passing the buck and a great example of lack of accountability for ones actions.

Sport is about competing to win. Professional sports is about fans paying to see see athletes compete. The declining production of an athlete (assumption made he is healthy and entering his prime) can lead to questioning the competitive nature and motivation. This is especially true, in my opinion, when he has shown the ability to meet and even exceed expectations - albeit in a small sample size of ~50% of games played last season - in the very recent past.

As for talking about what to do about the REST of the crap on the roster, I am not sure that is a fair statement. Now it is certainly circumstantial and hardly evidence of Bargnani being the cause of the following facts but..... the Raptors are:

1) 14-13 when he does not play,
2) 19-18 when he either does not play or comes off the bench (5-5 off the bench),
3) 5-20 when he starts.

Again, I am not saying Bargnani is the cause of the Raptors being 5-20 when he starts. However, it is extremely interesting and quite the coincidence. So at this time I, personally, am not prepared to talk about the rest of the crap on the roster contributing to losing because the rest of the crap on the roster has shown the ability to win more than they lose this season without the presence of Bargnani - albeit it could be just an anomaly or coincidence.

haha, the snark is cute. I'll see if I can match. After all, if jmmie's explanations can't sink in most heads, and the mob can't give it up and move on, maybe I need to take another look at these kinds of stats. I included the first above quote to bring it back to what you said was the "more important" set of stats, though you now seem to be back to putting some focus on the less important "0-9 when scoring 20+". Oh, wait, now it's back to the "most important" ones again. We'll go with that, and even try to make use of Matt's snark and terminology for affect.

You may have swung me over to these kind of stats being relevant and meaningful thing, so wouldn't it be interesting to formulate them for other players, as I did much earlier, but Matt called it cherry picking because I excluded the games since Rudy arrived. I still think that was valid seeing as the Rudy trade massively changed the complexion of the team and combining TEAM win/loss on both sides of the trade to draw conclusions seems a tad nebulous to me. What the heck, maybe use them both and see if there are any conclusions to be drawn from looking at both scenarios!

Kyle Lowry's "Matt52 Stats" (since I don't know a more appropriate title than the inventor himself) prior to the Jose/ED---> Rudy trade:
Kyle....
As starter:-------- 3-15 .166
Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466
Did not play:------ 7-6 .538
Holy shit! At least before the trade, if Kyle doesn't play, the Raps are a .538 winning percentage, playoff team. When he comes off the bench, we don't do as well as when he's out. Ouch, that's not a good sign. But maybe he needs to be a starter. OUCH, that .166 winning percentage when he starts is a huge sign, isn't it? Maybe it's just a coincidence?

Anyway, Kyle's season total "Matt52 Stat", with additional (since Gay trade) "team win/loss as a starter":
(Take what you will from the "as a starter" is the only category of the 3 that's affected since the trade)
Kyle....
As starter:-------- 11-24 .314
Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466
Did not play:------ 7-6 .538
Well, with the post trade 8-9 record added, Kyle's "Matt52 Stats" improve dramatically in the "as a starter" category, but one has to wonder if that's due to Gay or Lowry, seeing as there is such a dramatic upturn (though still below .500) in the winning percentage as a starter. Can one conclude from this that Kyle needs his best buddy to play reasonably well as a starter? Maybe it's just coincidence, but it sure seems that way. The sad thing is that the overall "Matt52 Stat" still looks really abysmal. Unless it's a coincidence, the team is still at it's best when Lowry doesn't play, a tad worse when he comes off the bench, but fn terrible when he starts.

Again, I am not saying Lowry is the cause of the Raptors being 3-15 without Gay, and 11-24 including Gay's presence, when he starts. However, it is extremely interesting and quite the coincidence. So at this time I, personally, am not prepared to talk about the rest of the crap on the roster contributing to losing because the rest of the crap on the roster has shown the ability to win more than they lose this season without the presence of Lowry - albeit it could be just an anomaly or coincidence.

I've been won over. The "Matt52 Stat" tells an incredible amount and I think fans who want this team to do well should boo Lowry as he steps on the floor, and rise up in daily revolt until he's gone.

[Matt52]

Wow, somebody's a tad wound up and unable to get past this. What the heck, I'll play along and go with Matt's spin.








haha, the snark is cute. I'll see if I can match. After all, if jmmie's explanations can't sink in most heads, and the mob can't give it up and move on, maybe I need to take another look at these kinds of stats. I included the first above quote to bring it back to what you said was the "more important" set of stats, though you now seem to be back to putting some focus on the less important "0-9 when scoring 20+". Oh, wait, now it's back to the "most important" ones again. We'll go with that, and even try to make use of Matt's snark and terminology for affect.

You may have swung me over to these kind of stats being relevant and meaningful thing, so wouldn't it be interesting to formulate them for other players, as I did much earlier, but Matt called it cherry picking because I excluded the games since Rudy arrived. I still think that was valid seeing as the Rudy trade massively changed the complexion of the team and combining TEAM win/loss on both sides of the trade to draw conclusions seems a tad nebulous to me. What the heck, maybe use them both and see if there are any conclusions to be drawn from looking at both scenarios!

Kyle Lowry's "Matt52 Stats" (since I don't know a more appropriate title than the inventor himself) prior to the Jose/ED---> Rudy trade:
Kyle....
As starter:-------- 3-15 .166
Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466
Did not play:------ 7-6 .538
Holy shit! At least before the trade, if Kyle doesn't play, the Raps are a .538 winning percentage, playoff team. When he comes off the bench, we don't do as well as when he's out. Ouch, that's not a good sign. But maybe he needs to be a starter. OUCH, that .166 winning percentage when he starts is a huge sign, isn't it? Maybe it's just a coincidence?

Anyway, Kyle's season total "Matt52 Stat", with additional (since Gay trade) "team win/loss as a starter":
(Take what you will from the "as a starter" is the only category of the 3 that's affected since the trade)
Kyle....
As starter:-------- 11-24 .314
Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466
Did not play:------ 7-6 .538
Well, with the post trade 8-9 record added, Kyle's "Matt52 Stats" improve dramatically in the "as a starter" category, but one has to wonder if that's due to Gay or Lowry, seeing as there is such a dramatic upturn (though still below .500) in the winning percentage as a starter. Can one conclude from this that Kyle needs his best buddy to play reasonably well as a starter? Maybe it's just coincidence, but it sure seems that way. The sad thing is that the overall "Matt52 Stat" still looks really abysmal. Unless it's a coincidence, the team is still at it's best when Lowry doesn't play, a tad worse when he comes off the bench, but fn terrible when he starts.

Again, I am not saying Lowry is the cause of the Raptors being 3-15 without Gay, and 11-24 including Gay's presence, when he starts. However, it is extremely interesting and quite the coincidence. So at this time I, personally, am not prepared to talk about the rest of the crap on the roster contributing to losing because the rest of the crap on the roster has shown the ability to win more than they lose this season without the presence of Lowry - albeit it could be just an anomaly or coincidence.

I've been won over. The "Matt52 Stat" tells an incredible amount and I think fans who want this team to do well should boo Lowry as he steps on the floor, and rise up in daily revolt until he's gone.

You seem to be confused.

You just can't use stats this way, p00ka. I thought you knew that? All of these types of discussion are circumstantial and merely a coincidence.

But to play along with your nonsense, as always, you have excluded the Bargnani factor (which I cannot stress enough is merely circumstantial/coincidental afterall) which does remain a constant and once removed from the equation the Raptors are 7-7 with Lowry starting minus Big Poppa Puff. It is also fascinating how 10 of those 14 games are versus playoff and +.500 teams and the Raptors still manage to play .500.

But throw Bargnani back in to the starting lineup and they go 1-3 with 109ppg scored against (remove the PHX game and it is a whopping 121.7ppg). In the prior 14 games, how many points did they give up per game? 93.4. Wowzers!

Coincidental and circumstantial surely but certainly revealing nonetheless.

[p00ka]

You seem to be confused.

You just can't use stats this way, p00ka. I thought you knew that? All of these types of discussion are circumstantial and merely a coincidence.

But to play along with your nonsense, as always, you have excluded the Bargnani factor (which I cannot stress enough is merely circumstantial/coincidental afterall) which does remain a constant and once removed from the equation the Raptors are 7-7 with Lowry starting minus Big Poppa Puff. It is also fascinating how 10 of those 14 games are versus playoff and +.500 teams and the Raptors still manage to play .500.

But throw Bargnani back in to the starting lineup and they go 1-3 with 109ppg scored against (remove the PHX game and it is a whopping 121.7ppg). In the prior 14 games, how many points did they give up per game? 93.4. Wowzers!

Coincidental and circumstantial surely but certainly revealing nonetheless.

lmfao,,,,, so now cherry picking and extenuating circumstances are part of the "Matt52 Stat" criteria, but just the ones that fit your narrative? Damn this gets more confusing with each newly formulated bit of criteria. LOL, precious, and that's neither coincidence or surprising.

[Matt52]

lmfao,,,,, so now cherry picking and extenuating circumstances are part of the "Matt52 Stat" criteria, but just the ones that fit your narrative? Damn this gets more confusing with each newly formulated bit of criteria. LOL, precious, and that's neither coincidence or surprising.

p00ka p00ka p00ka.

Haven't you been following?

I made a statement. A few people objected, yourself included, to the way I used or manipulated the stat/information. I appreciated the lesson being the dim-witted sort I am. I modified my statement hoping to clarify.

Now you come back with your Lowry nonsense and I am starting to wonder about your goals and objectives here.

This is still the "Everything Bargnani: Grumble, Grumble, Grumble" thread and your post ignored the most important part of this thread. I simply added Bargnani to the numbers/stats/facts your provided.

All of these numbers are circumstantial and likely coincidental after all. It is on the reader to interpret the stats/numbers/facts.

Please try and avoid the p00ka 2-step moving forward. The conversation is and was always that the Raptors are better without Bargnani this season. *focus*

[Matt52]

Fill in the blanks:

5. Andrea Bargnani: three years, $33 million
Player A: 29.2 MPG, 13.0 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 40% FG, 31% 3FG, 11.4 PER.
Player B: 29.7 MPG, 12.0 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 39% FG, 32% 3FG, 12.4 PER.

Player A is ___________. Player B is ____________.

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU, ANDREA BARGNANI????????

14. We didn't even mention his stupefyingly awful defense, or the fact that the Raptors are minus-7.1 points per 100 possessions when Bargnani plays, and plus-0.8 points per 100 possessions when he sits. I hope Phoenix trades for Bargnani and teams him with Beasley.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-contracts-nba



I'm pretty sure these stats are circumstantial and coincidental, too. More of a pile on than anything else.

[planetmars]

LOL! Just read that article. And guys like Doug Smith think that there is a market for Bargnani. Love to see what Bryan ends up getting for him.

[ebrian]

What happened to the boo bargnani thread! We'll never hear the likes from VoiceOfReason again.

:sadface:

[enlightenment]

Fill in the blanks:






http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-contracts-nba



I'm pretty sure these stats are circumstantial and coincidental, too. More of a pile on than anything else.

Wow... Byron Mullens... at least he rebounds eh?

[Soft Euro]

Wow... Byron Mullens... at least he rebounds eh?

Well, they just got Mullens out of the line-up, alledgly because they wanted more rebounding; his replacement had 2 rebounds.

[enlightenment]

Well, they just got Mullens out of the line-up, alledgly because they wanted more rebounding; his replacement had 2 rebounds.

If Byron Mullens cant rebound (7.3 rpg) then what exactly is Bargnani doing (3.7 rpg) ???

[NoPropsneeded]

If Byron Mullens cant rebound (7.3 rpg) then what exactly is Bargnani doing (3.7 rpg) ???

whats the opposite of rebounding?