When you agree with it it's a fact but it magically becomes an opinion when you don't.
When you agree with it it's a fact but it magically becomes an opinion when you don't.
I agree. In order for the Raptors to win more than they did last year, Bargnani should score 0pts and play defense and get at least 20 rebounds!Brandon wrote:
Impossible. He is what he is.
That rumoured trade is absolute garbage for the Magic and you can't use that as an argument for Lopez, just like you can't use some bullshit column on ESPN against Bargnani.
^^^
I completely agree with you. That is exactly my point. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some folks see Lopez as a suitable core piece for a Dwight Howard deal, and other folks see Bargnani as a player suitable for amnesty. Personally, I disagree with both propositions.
So let's get this straight (please feel free to verify/correct my numbers):
1. The Raptors have 95 possessions per game.
2. Around 16% of Bargs possessions end in a turnover. That means if he had ALL the possessions, he would get off around 80 shots.
3. He gets 21.4 points from 17.8 shots ... so if he took ALL the shots, the Raptors would score 96 points per game. And Bargs would be king of the league: HE would score 96 points PER GAME!!
4. On average, the Raptors give up 110 points per game. So the Raptors would be the worst team in the league, while making Bargs the king.
The Raptors actually scored something closer to 103 points per night. That's 7 points more than they would score if they let Bargs take all the shots. I'm confused over why it is good that Bargs scores a lot of points?
I'm also confused why the number of shots don't matter to Papa Burgundy, only the points scored.
Last edited by Kuh; Fri Dec 9th, 2011 at 07:22 PM.
Okay, as a vocal critic of Bargnani, I don't see the point of amnestying him. Is he not tradable? If he isn't, THEN I might think about it, but I don't see him being untradeable.
Instead of replying to each of the comments that I'd want to, I'm going to just write a general one that addresses most of what people have said so far.
After a certain player was traded right before the trade deadline, these were his stats:
G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
27 23 38.1 7.9 17.5 .450 2.0 5.4 .361 3.5 4.4 .805 1.3 3.4 4.7 3.4 1.7 0.2 2.1 2.2 21.3
Here were Bargnani's:
G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
66 66 35.7 8.0 17.8 .448 1.2 3.4 .345 4.3 5.3 .820 1.1 4.1 5.2 1.8 0.5 0.7 2.3 2.4 21.4
And just so you know, that same first player put up similar stats the previous season when he was given similar minutes. Their stats are INCREDIBLY similar, except for the first player averaged more assists and steals and Bargnani was a slightly better shot blocker and rebounder. Really, though the differences are pretty minimal. And both players had pretty much the exact PER last season. And Bargnani is two years old than the first player.
Bargnani will make $10 million next season. The first player is a restricted free agent who is getting almost no interest from around the league.
Both players got those stats on bad teams, both players are poor defenders and neither player brings much else to the table except for scoring, which they do pretty well.
Bargnani is 6 inches taller than the first player.
So before people start talking about how incredibly important scoring is, or how Bargnani's stats are similar to Brook Lopez, so should be valued the same, let's just get some perspective. The first player is Marcus Thornton. Who couldn't get playing time in New Orleans and may or may not be back in Sacramento.
Yes, he's 6 inches shorter, but that makes the similarity of the stats all the more eye opening. Really, who the hell cares whether Bargnani is 7 feet if he doesn't actually use his height to an advantage. You could get Marcus Thornton for a fraction of the points and still get the same stats. If stats are all you're looking for.
Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
Follow me on Twitter.
Would you stop using "evidence" and "statistics" to back up your controversial "opinions" please? You can use evidence to prove anything that's even remotely true.
Marcus Thornton was offered 4years for $31mil to re-sign with the Kings.
I guess they value scoring.
EDIT: The Hornets are among four or five teams with "significant interest" in free agent guard Marcus Thornton.The Kings have said they want to keep Thornton, and they'll have the option to match any offer sheet he signs with another team. His fantasy value in Sacramento is clouded by the arrival of Jimmer Fredette, but there is a chance Thornton would start at SG. Dec 4 - 11:52 AMSource: Sam Amick on Twitter
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nba/...arcus-thornton
Last edited by TheGloveinRapsUniform; Fri Dec 9th, 2011 at 09:11 PM.
Bargnani is shit get over it.
This is very different from building around Thornton, and hoping to hide his deficiencies at all costs
Not sure what youre trying to get at, all i said was they value scoring coz Thornton averaged 21pts in 27 games with the Kings.This is very different from building around Thornton, and hoping to hide his deficiencies at all costs
Yes, Sacramento values scoring, which is not surprising considering they are a lottery team that hasn't been to the playoffs in years and need to make money for their owners who don't have a lot.
While I'm obviously no fan of THornton (and believe that Sacramento is going to regret offering that contract), doesn't it worry you that a player who is 6 inches shorter than Bargnani was able to get eerily similar stats, including nearly matching him in the rebounding department? And that player is not even close to considered an All-Star. Imagine if Thornton just averaged a rebound or 2 more? Hey, if Bargnani can conceivably do it, why not Thornton?
This is my whole point about people bringing up these meaningless, surface stats and pretending they mean more than they do. Averaging 21 ppg in the NBA is definitely an accomplishment, but too many people seem to overvalue it, especially when it's done on a bad team. Someone I've brought up as an example before is Tony Campbell. Another guy who could score on a bad team.
See, what people who overvalue scoring seem to forget is that the players who score on good teams, are actually able to do other things to help their team, as well. It's an INCREDIBLY important aspect that never seems to get mentioned. That's why they get the minutes and shots they do. Stick Marcus Thornton on Mavericks and he gets 10 mpg. If that. Why? Because good teams already have scorers. And those scorers do other things other than score. So a guy like Thornton or Bargnani are simply not nearly as valuable as they are on a bad team, who just needs someone to fill up the score sheet.
There's a reason why a guy like Al Harrington scores and plays less the better the team he is on. Why an excellent scorer, like Corey Maggette, can score nearly 20 ppg for Golden State, yet be given away for cap space and why, despite his ability to score on a team that desperately needed scoring (Milwaukee), he averaged the fewest mpg in 10 years and barely lasted a year before being shipped off to another lottery team.
Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
Follow me on Twitter.
I second this sarcasim
Awesome way for ESPN to garner traffic doesn't it. What's next, insult the Prime Minister for being so stiff? Oh wait, he is stiff.
“The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King
I'm just pointing out the glaring difference between the way Sacramento values scoring, and the way Toronto values scoring.
Yikes man ... yes, he had a horrible supporting cast. Not their 'fault', not his either. How many games would the Raps have won last year with Dirk starting in place of Bargs? 5 more? 10 at most ... and he was the MVP of the NBA finals - with an amazing supporting cast to cover up his many shortcomings as a complete basketball player.
The only way to bag a classy lady is to give her two tickets to the gun show... and see if she likes the goods.
Who is player B? Similar stats to Bargs, but missing several PPG.
The only way to bag a classy lady is to give her two tickets to the gun show... and see if she likes the goods.
The lead man has to take the heat of the opposing team's defensive schemes ... as soon as he stops being aggressive and trying to push through that pressure and score, then the defense collapses on all of his inferior scoring teammates.
The only way to bag a classy lady is to give her two tickets to the gun show... and see if she likes the goods.
Let's take the fairly uncontroversial Win Shares. Dirk last year had 11.1, Bargnani 2.6...
But if Dirk adds 5-10 wins to a bad team -- that's exactly what great players do that fungible or even bad players cannot. You're treating that as if it's trivial, and it isn't. Three players capable of adding 8-10 wins to a bad team is what gets you a top 4 playoff seed and 50+ wins over 60 losses and a lottery pick.
I don't know why this conversation is about Dirk, since he's not much like Bargnani. Dirk rebounds the ball and plays defense. Dirk makes lots of difficult shots in crunch time. A team can construct an offensive system around Dirk. In short, Dirk is a superstar. But he's also far past his prime. Bargnani is entering his. So Bargnani has a youthful advantage that Dirk lacks. Dirk's best years were ages 26-28. Bargnani is entering that period now. If they were comparable players Bargnani would be putting up similar numbers. He isn't.
I think they should trade Bargnani to wherever Superman ends up, because he needs that level of interior support.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote