Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Bargnani

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • p00ka wrote: View Post
    I see SoftEuro provided 6 years of evidence that the point your implying with the "0-9 with 20+ points" flies in the face of his historical impact when he scores 20+.
    Not really. They win less than half the time, historically, when he scores 20+.

    Again, the larger point is that he has little to no impact on making this organization a winner. All you have to do is look at the team's win/loss record the last 6 years to demonstrate that point.

    Comment


    • Just to clarify because I recall someone in this thread mention that "they" (MultiPaul & Tim W.) were both banned. MultiPaul? Yes. Tim? No. Tim choose to leave on his own accord. Had too much "bangin' his head against the wall" with his peers. It was shame because he was one of my personal favourite contributors here at RR. I've reached out to him since then to see if he'd reconsider coming back, but to no avail. Buddahfan was another solid contributor here as well. If I recall correctly, he got tired of arguing here at RR. That personally doesn't make sense to me because at the end of the day, isn't that what message boards are for? If we all agreed on everything and had one big circle jerk, wouldn't that make a discussion forum obsolete? I don't get it but they're welcome to return at any point.

      Comment


      • heinz57 wrote: View Post
        anytime a new bargnani thread pops up... expect me to try and derail it.

        the topic has been done to death..
        I'm tempted to start a new Bargs thread just to see how dedicated you are to your craft

        "Does Bargnani stink like doo-doo?" is all I've got so far...

        Comment


        • Doc Naismith wrote: View Post
          Just to clarify because I recall someone in this thread mention that "they" (MultiPaul & Tim W.) were both banned. MultiPaul? Yes. Tim? No. Tim choose to leave on his own accord. Had too much "bangin' his head against the wall" with his peers. It was shame because he was one of my personal favourite contributors here at RR. I've reached out to him since then to see if he'd reconsider coming back, but to no avail. Buddahfan was another solid contributor here as well. If I recall correctly, he got tired of arguing here at RR. That personally doesn't make sense to me because at the end of the day, isn't that what message boards are for? If we all agreed on everything and had one big circle jerk, wouldn't that make a discussion forum obsolete? I don't get it but they're welcome to return at any point.
          This. the point isn't to be heard. the point is to be heard and to listen to others.

          it's like people on twitter who have thousands of followers... but only follow like 10 people... well, then what the hell is the point? just start a blog. don't join a social network just to pimp yourself, without being social.

          Comment


          • Doc Naismith wrote: View Post
            Just to clarify because I recall someone in this thread mention that "they" (MultiPaul & Tim W.) were both banned. MultiPaul? Yes. Tim? No. Tim choose to leave on his own accord. Had too much "bangin' his head against the wall" with his peers. It was shame because he was one of my personal favourite contributors here at RR. I've reached out to him since then to see if he'd reconsider coming back, but to no avail. Buddahfan was another solid contributor here as well. If I recall correctly, he got tired of arguing here at RR. That personally doesn't make sense to me because at the end of the day, isn't that what message boards are for? If we all agreed on everything and had one big circle jerk, wouldn't that make a discussion forum obsolete? I don't get it but they're welcome to return at any point.
            I don't need to know the story or anything, and I'm sure there was a good reason but I miss Multipaul's optimism. The negativity on this board makes me have to take a break sometimes.
            Eh follow my TWITTER!

            Comment


            • Nilanka wrote: View Post
              I'm tempted to start a new Bargs thread just to see how dedicated you are to your craft

              "Does Bargnani stink like doo-doo?" is all I've got so far...
              somebody send Multipaul a telegram that i'm coming to join him... Nilanka is conducting my train ride straight to ban-town

              Comment


              • slaw wrote: View Post
                Not really. They win less than half the time, historically, when he scores 20+.

                Again, the larger point is that he has little to no impact on making this organization a winner. All you have to do is look at the team's win/loss record the last 6 years to demonstrate that point.
                LOL, a common RR 2-step: if argument "A" doesn't work, change the topic to argument "B" *sigh*

                That aside this incredibly simplistic and naive "team record" argument is used so often here. Hasn't anyone debunked this yet, or are you just listening to what you want? You do understand that basketball is a TEAM game, right? Tell me, have you not been critical of management & coaching over this period? How about the other 14 player mixes over those 6 years? Have you been critical of them? I'd say the answer to all 3 is a resounding YES. Yet you put the team win/loss record on Bargnani that he doesn't contribute to a "winner"?

                Based on this silly reasoning of yours, Paul Pierce was garbage/useless/"no impact on making (his) organization a winner" for 4 years prior to KG and Ray joining him. Not a rookie, starting with his 3rd year in the league, his team's winning percentage over 4 years was 42% with the last year being a 24 win season. By comparison, the 6 year won/loss record by the Raptors TEAM, that you cite, was 43%. If you exclude last years abomination of a season (no training camp, insanely compressed schedule, his absence when they did worse than with him), the previous 5 years the team winning percentage was 45%.

                So based on your reasoning, Pierce was bad for the Celtics and he contributed to winning even less than Bargnani has done. Is that a good judgement of Paul Pierce? There are plenty more such examples if you're still unable to see the silliness in judging a player's value by his team's bare record. Here's a quick one: in Michael Jordon's (the best of all time) first 3 seasons, his TEAM'S winning percentage was 44%. Was he not a winner? They didn't become a "winner" until he had Pippen (another HOFer) and Horace Grant on his team, just like Pierce wasn't a "winner" until he had 2 HOFers on his team.

                Using bare individual statistics ignores many key contributing factors in judging a player. That's bad enough, but using bare team stats (win/loss) to judge an individual's value is beyond silly. There's much about Bargnani to criticize, but the original "0-9 record" argument, as well as this larger "team win/loss" is unnecessary grasping at empty straws.

                Getting back to the original implication about the Raps doing better without his scoring, the team record over the 6 years you speak of says very differently, contrary to your "Not really"
                Last edited by p00ka; Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:23 PM.

                Comment


                • pooka, what are you talking about? Dude, Bargnani's box score statistics are awful. His advanced metrics are awful. The team hasn't improved with him here or won. I don't need to cherry pick stats. Using any measure available, the guy is a below average player.

                  Is the Raptors awfulness all his fault? No, never said that. Colangelo is ultimately responsible for the crappy roster and second rate coaches but Bargnani certainly hasn't done anything to help turn it around. In fact, a big part of the reason for the failure here has been the insistence on making him a focal point of the rebuilding efforts when he wasn't capable of filling that role. Again, is that his fault? Only in the sense that he never rose to the occassion.

                  I can't speak for anyone else but I've never been a Bargnani fanboy or hater. He is what he is. Given a defined role (like Mitchell gave him his rookie year) and making him a mere complimentary piece might work but it won't work here. It's too late. Again, it's not all his fault but he hasn't exactly helped either.

                  Comment


                  • Trade Bargs + Derozan + 2014 1st round pick for Kevin Love + Alexey Shved from the Wolves.

                    Lowry
                    Shved
                    Gay
                    Love
                    Val

                    With bench Ross, Fields, Amir as our primary bench. Perhaps sign a veteran big to backup Val and a decent backup PG.

                    Comment


                    • slaw wrote: View Post
                      pooka, what are you talking about? Dude, Bargnani's box score statistics are awful. His advanced metrics are awful. The team hasn't improved with him here or won. I don't need to cherry pick stats. Using any measure available, the guy is a below average player.

                      Is the Raptors awfulness all his fault? No, never said that. Colangelo is ultimately responsible for the crappy roster and second rate coaches but Bargnani certainly hasn't done anything to help turn it around. In fact, a big part of the reason for the failure here has been the insistence on making him a focal point of the rebuilding efforts when he wasn't capable of filling that role. Again, is that his fault? Only in the sense that he never rose to the occassion.

                      I can't speak for anyone else but I've never been a Bargnani fanboy or hater. He is what he is. Given a defined role (like Mitchell gave him his rookie year) and making him a mere complimentary piece might work but it won't work here. It's too late. Again, it's not all his fault but he hasn't exactly helped either.
                      Huh? What am I talking about? I'm talking about the subject you changed the discussion to. So now that argument "B" doesn't fly, you now want to expand it to argument "C" and "D"? Not jumping on this never ending merry-go-round.

                      I jumped in here because despite all the criticism that can be justifiably leveled at AB, the "0-9 when he scores 20+" was flawed anecdotal evidence that offers nothing of value to a discussion when presented as a stand-alone "point". That's been well "proven", if you will. You then countered with changing the topic to his not contributing to a winner based on nothing but the team's win/loss record over 6 years. I pointed out how flawed that simple reasoning is. Now you want to expand it to yet another argument. No mas!!!!

                      You don't like what he delivers to our team. I don't like what he delivers to our team. We differ on how useful it is to re-hash the same old arguments over and over and over. Apparently we also differ in the validity we assume in points that I think are misguided interpretation of stats to support an agenda/narrative. If that works for you, I'm glad it offers you some comfort.

                      BARGNANI STINKS!!!!!!!! there, I tried, but somehow that doesn't contribute much to the "winner" (as in me gaining something from being a fan) attitude I try and maintain, that is illustrated by my signature.
                      Last edited by p00ka; Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:08 PM.

                      Comment


                      • tenforthewin wrote: View Post
                        Trade Bargs + Derozan + 2014 1st round pick for Kevin Love + Alexey Shved from the Wolves.

                        Lowry
                        Shved
                        Gay
                        Love
                        Val

                        With bench Ross, Fields, Amir as our primary bench. Perhaps sign a veteran big to backup Val and a decent backup PG.
                        LOL MAN OMG HAHAHAAH.. wow
                        Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.

                        Comment


                        • tenforthewin wrote: View Post
                          Trade Bargs + Derozan + 2014 1st round pick for Kevin Love + Alexey Shved from the Wolves.

                          Lowry
                          Shved
                          Gay
                          Love
                          Val

                          With bench Ross, Fields, Amir as our primary bench. Perhaps sign a veteran big to backup Val and a decent backup PG.

                          Comment


                          • p00ka wrote: View Post
                            Huh? What am I talking about? I'm talking about the subject you changed the discussion to. So now that argument "B" doesn't fly, you now want to expand it to argument "C" and "D"? Not jumping on this never ending merry-go-round.

                            I jumped in here because despite all the criticism that can be justifiably leveled at AB, the "0-9 when he scores 20+" was flawed anecdotal evidence that offers nothing of value to a discussion when presented as a stand-alone "point". That's been well "proven", if you will. You then countered with changing the topic to his not contributing to a winner based on nothing but the team's win/loss record over 6 years. I pointed out how flawed that simple reasoning is. Now you want to expand it to yet another argument. No mas!!!!

                            You don't like what he delivers to our team. I don't like what he delivers to our team. We differ on how useful it is to re-hash the same old arguments over and over and over. Apparently we also differ in the validity we assume in points that I think are misguided interpretation of stats to support an agenda/narrative. If that works for you, I'm glad it offers you some comfort.

                            BARGNANI STINKS!!!!!!!! there, I tried, but somehow that doesn't contribute much to the "winner" (as in me gaining something from being a fan) attitude I try and maintain, that is illustrated by my signature.
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                              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.
                              So different teammates in/out, different opponents, vastly different schedule, as well as many other factors, make no difference. Just your analysis of start/bench/out stats. Well, let's do that for someone else over a 40% bigger sample size.

                              Prior to the big trade, moving Jose and ED out, Gay in, the Raps played 46 games, compared to your 33 game sample for Bargs. Using the same participation criteria to evaluate Lowry's effectiveness over that span:

                              As starter:-------- 3-15 .166

                              Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466

                              Did not play:------ 7-6 .538

                              Does this mean the Raps are much better when Lowry doesn't start, and better still when he doesn't play at all?

                              Comment


                              • p00ka wrote: View Post
                                So different teammates in/out, different opponents, vastly different schedule, as well as many other factors, make no difference. Just your analysis of start/bench/out stats. Well, let's do that for someone else over a 40% bigger sample size.

                                Prior to the big trade, moving Jose and ED out, Gay in, the Raps played 46 games, compared to your 33 game sample for Bargs. Using the same participation criteria to evaluate Lowry's effectiveness over that span:

                                As starter:-------- 3-15 .166

                                Off the bench:---- 7-8 .466

                                Did not play:------ 7-6 .538

                                Does this mean the Raps are much better when Lowry doesn't start, and better still when he doesn't play at all?
                                It's all fine to isolate bargs for this season. Take his whole tenure and see how is record is

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X