Everything Bargnani

[e2thed]

I'm just randomly going to go out on a limb here.....

ANDREA BARGNANI WILL AVERAGE 7-8 REBOUNDS A GAME NEXT YEAR

Hey Ruuuuupaul, quit crying in the locker room and be a fake tough guy.

[Multipaul]

""Offense" isn't a skill, it's a group of skills."

Well said Apollo

[MangoKid]

Kemba

Kemba is NOWHERE near being the next Rose. Ben Gordon, perhaps, but definitely not Rose.

[Multipaul]

Kemba is NOWHERE near being the next Rose. Ben Gordon, perhaps, but definitely not Rose.

Never count the kid out, the tourney is just getting warmed up

[Tim W.]

They were trying to build around Deng like the Raptors are around Bargnani. Neither is the main focus but both are/were a focus point. The parallel is there and I think you've totally missed the boat on Bargnani in your assessment by the way. Bargnani does a bunch of things very well, not just one, they just all happen to be offensive focused. "Offense" isn't a skill, it's a group of skills.

I have no idea where you got that Chicago was trying to build around Deng. The year after he was drafted, they won 47 games while he was a role player, and was never, ever the leading scorer on the team. Eddy Curry went from being the leading scorer to Ben Gordon, to Derrick Rose.

As for Bargnani's skills, he's an exceptional shooter, from anywhere on the floor, but if he's not hitting his shot, he's useless. He doesn't pass well, doesn't get to the line at a high rate, doesn't get offensive boards, doesn't score much from inside 10 feet and isn't a good post up player. And Bargnani is a volume shooter. He needs a lot of shots to have an impact. His slump in January showed what kind of an impact he has when he's not hitting. A negative one.

Deng is a good role player because he has a good all around game. If his shot isn't going down, he's still useful.

[Tim W.]

Kemba is NOWHERE near being the next Rose. Ben Gordon, perhaps, but definitely not Rose.

Kemba isn't a PG. He's a short 2 guard. I agree completely with the Gordon comparison.

[Apollo]

I have no idea where you got that Chicago was trying to build around Deng. The year after he was drafted, they won 47 games while he was a role player, and was never, ever the leading scorer on the team. Eddy Curry went from being the leading scorer to Ben Gordon, to Derrick Rose.

If you actually pay attention to what I said you'll see I said he wasn't the main focus but a focus point when they were "re-building". Between 2006 and 2008 he posted All-Star level numbers. Based on your immense hatred of Andrea Bargnani, you of all people must grasp the concept that scoring isn't the most important factor in determining worth... Right? And as such your statement about Curry, Gordon and Rose is pointless as is... After that tremendous stretch between 2006-2008 the Bulls deemed Deng so important to the cause that they went out and gave him a six year, $71M contract. That deal pays him close to $13.5M/yr over the next three years. I don't know about you but I don't think a great GM like Pax just hands out mega deals to guys who aren't meant to be a focus point, a highly important piece that they planned to build around with other players. Just like Bargnani. I stand by my comments. I think they're bang on.

2008, upon inking the deal...

Pax:

"It's the type of thing that gives him security and gives us the direction we're going to go here in the future."

Deng:

"The coach is talking about how he's going to use me and what he thinks of me as a player. I definitely feel as though the Bulls see me as a cornerstone of the team, but I am only going to show that by working hard. I have no problem with that because I know I'm going to do it."

Del Negro:

"I think he has room for improvement and is going to be a big cornerstone of what we do and what this franchise is going to do for a long time."

Link
Link

As for Bargnani's skills, he's an exceptional shooter, from anywhere on the floor, but if he's not hitting his shot, he's useless. He doesn't pass well, doesn't get to the line at a high rate, doesn't get offensive boards, doesn't score much from inside 10 feet and isn't a good post up player. And Bargnani is a volume shooter. He needs a lot of shots to have an impact. His slump in January showed what kind of an impact he has when he's not hitting. A negative one.

Deng is a good role player because he has a good all around game. If his shot isn't going down, he's still useful.

Bargnani handles the ball well for a big man. He's not a bad passer for a big man. As far as I'm concerned shooting long range is a skill, just like shooting mid range and close range are skills. If they weren't separate then you would not see some great long range shooters struggle with the mid range or in close. Last season when he faced single coverage he had excellent scoring efficiency for a guy who takes a lot of long range shots. This year his efficiency has gone down because he's drawing double teams but needs to take a lot of shots because the offense on the Raptors is weak with him out of the equation.

[Multipaul]

If you actually pay attention to what I said you'll see I said he wasn't the main focus but a focus point when they were "re-building". Between 2006 and 2008 he posted All-Star level numbers. Based on your immense hatred of Andrea Bargnani, you of all people must grasp the concept that scoring isn't the most important factor in determining worth... Right? And as such your statement about Curry, Gordon and Rose is pointless as is... After that tremendous stretch between 2006-2008 the Bulls deemed Deng so important to the cause that they went out and gave him a six year, $71M contract. That deal pays him close to $13.5M/yr over the next three years. I don't know about you but I don't think a great GM like Pax just hands out mega deals to guys who aren't meant to be a focus point, a highly important piece that they planned to build around with other players. Just like Bargnani. I stand by my comments. I think they're bang on.



Bargnani hand handle the ball well for a big man. He's not a bad passer for a big man. As far as I'm concerned shooting long range is a skill, just like shooting mid range and close range are skills. If they weren't seperate then you would not see some great long range shooters struggle with the mid range or in close. Last season when he faced single coverage he had excellent scoring efficiency for a guy who takes a lot of long range shots. This year his efficiency has gone down because he's drawing double teams but needs to take a lot of shots because the offense on the Raptors is weak with him out of the equation.

Excellent analysis. I think Bargs has some tremendous passing skills for a big man as well, and contrary to what Tim says, Bargs can be very aggressive and gets to the line often. He also keeps the defense honest by switching up inside/outside.

[Tim W.]

If you actually pay attention to what I said you'll see I said he wasn't the main focus but a focus point when they were "re-building". Between 2006 and 2008 he posted All-Star level numbers. Based on your immense hatred of Andrea Bargnani, you of all people must grasp the concept that scoring isn't the most important factor in determining worth... Right? And as such your statement about Curry, Gordon and Rose is pointless as is... After that tremendous stretch between 2006-2008 the Bulls deemed Deng so important to the cause that they went out and gave him a six year, $71M contract. That deal pays him close to $13.5M/yr over the next three years. I don't know about you but I don't think a great GM like Pax just hands out mega deals to guys who aren't meant to be a focus point, a highly important piece that they planned to build around with other players. Just like Bargnani. I stand by my comments. I think they're bang on.

I'm going to ignore the "immense hatred for Bargnani" comment, because I've already discussed that ad nauseum.

2008, upon inking the deal...

Pax:

Deng:

Del Negro:

Link

There's a huge difference, in my mind, between being one of the cornerstones of a team and building around a player. Building around a player, to me, means that he is the franchise player. A cornerstone of a team simply means one of the important pieces. Pau Gasol is a cornerstone of the Lakers, but it's built around Kobe.

I'm not saying that they didn't see Deng as an important piece, but they certainly weren't building around him. And when he signed the contract, lots of supporting type players were getting that kind of money (see Iguodala).

Bargnani handles the ball well for a big man. He's not a bad passer for a big man. As far as I'm concerned shooting long range is a skill, just like shooting mid range and close range are skills. If they weren't separate then you would not see some great long range shooters struggle with the mid range or in close. Last season when he faced single coverage he had excellent scoring efficiency for a guy who takes a lot of long range shots. This year his efficiency has gone down because he's drawing double teams but needs to take a lot of shots because the offense on the Raptors is weak with him out of the equation.

Yes, Bargnani handles the ball well for a 7 footer, but it would be below average for a SF, so it's not as if his handles are "crazy", as some suggest. He's not a bad passer, but he's not a good one. Considering how often he has the ball, he should be averaging far more assists than he does.

And Bargnani is an excellent mid-range shooter, a fair long range shooter (he's only had 1 out of 5 seasons where he averaged close to 40%) and a good shooter close to the basket. Bargnani's efficiency understandably went down this year, but it was never all that great to begin with.

Besides, you can talk all you want about his offense (or scoring, to be precise), but it doesn't hide the fact that he's only valuable 50% of the time he's on the court. Neither Davis or Amir are great offensive players, but they are both valuable on the offensive end because they both move well without the ball, grab offensive boards and shoot very efficiently. Both of them are better role players because they are valuable 100% of the time they are on the court.

Bargnani has a place in the league. There's no doubt about it. But it's either as a good player on a bad team, like Michael Beasley or even Monta Ellis, or as a 15-20 mpg role player off the bench who can score and create matchup problems, but isn't depended on. Because he absolutely kills your team half the time he's on the floor, he can't be a cornerstone on a good team. Not if you have title aspirations.

[Multipaul]

I'm going to ignore the "immense hatred for Bargnani" comment, because I've already discussed that ad nauseum.



There's a huge difference, in my mind, between being one of the cornerstones of a team and building around a player. Building around a player, to me, means that he is the franchise player. A cornerstone of a team simply means one of the important pieces. Pau Gasol is a cornerstone of the Lakers, but it's built around Kobe.

I'm not saying that they didn't see Deng as an important piece, but they certainly weren't building around him. And when he signed the contract, lots of supporting type players were getting that kind of money (see Iguodala).



Yes, Bargnani handles the ball well for a 7 footer, but it would be below average for a SF, so it's not as if his handles are "crazy", as some suggest. He's not a bad passer, but he's not a good one. Considering how often he has the ball, he should be averaging far more assists than he does.

And Bargnani is an excellent mid-range shooter, a fair long range shooter (he's only had 1 out of 5 seasons where he averaged close to 40%) and a good shooter close to the basket. Bargnani's efficiency understandably went down this year, but it was never all that great to begin with.

Besides, you can talk all you want about his offense (or scoring, to be precise), but it doesn't hide the fact that he's only valuable 50% of the time he's on the court. Neither Davis or Amir are great offensive players, but they are both valuable on the offensive end because they both move well without the ball, grab offensive boards and shoot very efficiently. Both of them are better role players because they are valuable 100% of the time they are on the court.

Bargnani has a place in the league. There's no doubt about it. But it's either as a good player on a bad team, like Michael Beasley or even Monta Ellis, or as a 15-20 mpg role player off the bench who can score and create matchup problems, but isn't depended on. Because he absolutely kills your team half the time he's on the floor, he can't be a cornerstone on a good team. Not if you have title aspirations.

"he absolutely kills your team half the time"

Raps havent had much success without him this year have they? Where were Davis and Amir to save the day in those games?

Your hatred is eclipsing reality in this case Tim.

[Apollo]

There's a huge difference, in my mind, between being one of the cornerstones of a team and building around a player. Building around a player, to me, means that he is the franchise player. A cornerstone of a team simply means one of the important pieces. Pau Gasol is a cornerstone of the Lakers, but it's built around Kobe.

I'm not saying that they didn't see Deng as an important piece, but they certainly weren't building around him. And when he signed the contract, lots of supporting type players were getting that kind of money (see Iguodala).

Good thing I didn't call him their franchise player. Based on their comments in 2008 when they signed him he was going to be used as a piece to build around. They never said the piece and that's not the message I was trying to send out here either. It wasn't clear after my initial post but I did make this clear in the follow up when I realized how my first post could be misunderstood.

The big difference here Tim, in regards to your Lakers example, is that Deng was a Bull before Rose and was established with back to back stellar seasons and had praise coming from Bulls brass about him being a piece they that planned to build with.

Yes, Bargnani handles the ball well for a 7 footer, but it would be below average for a SF, so it's not as if his handles are "crazy", as some suggest. He's not a bad passer, but he's not a good one. Considering how often he has the ball, he should be averaging far more assists than he does.

Excellent point... If he played SF.

And Bargnani is an excellent mid-range shooter, a fair long range shooter (he's only had 1 out of 5 seasons where he averaged close to 40%) and a good shooter close to the basket. Bargnani's efficiency understandably went down this year, but it was never all that great to begin with.

I disagree. 47% from the field last year for a guy who took as many long range shots as he did was very good.

Besides, you can talk all you want about his offense (or scoring, to be precise), but it doesn't hide the fact that he's only valuable 50% of the time he's on the court.

This all would be a great point if I were suggesting he was something other than a one way player. You said he had one skill and that's all. I think you are completely wrong about that. Don't change the subject please. This debate was never about whether or not he could grab boards or play defense.

"he absolutely kills your team half the time"

Raps havent had much success without him this year have they? Where were Davis and Amir to save the day in those games?

Their win % without him this season was 0.125. We all know their win % with him in the lineup is much higher than that. I agree with you.

[ezz_bee]

I'm sure somebody has mentioned this before but i'm not read all 122 pages...

How do people feel playing Bargs at SF, not all the time, but some of the time. your starting line up would be

Bargs
A. Johnson
J. Johnson
DeRozan
Calderon

First sub in is either Evans or Davis, FOR J. Johnson, you then have a lineup of
Evans
Amir
Bargs
Derozen
Calderon

thoughts?

[Apollo]

Bosh is faster on his feet than Bargnani. This is important because early on in Sam Mitchell's days here in Toronto, after they added a few players with size that permitted them to experiment with Bosh, Sam tried out the concept of Bosh playing SF. He didn't have the foot speed to be effective in that role. There could be cases where it might work on offense but if they rolled with Andrea, Ed and Amir at the same time I personally think it would work better with Amir or Ed guarding the SF. Both are much lighter and more athletic and as such have faster foot quickness. I don't think Bargnani has the lateral quickness needed to guard the majority of SF's... Just like Bosh didn't.

EDIT: And that's not to say I think Ed or Amir would be successful but I do think they would be more likely to be successful.

[Tim W.]

Good thing I didn't call him their franchise player. Based on their comments in 2008 when they signed him he was going to be used as a piece to build around. They never said the piece and that's not the message I was trying to send out here either. It wasn't clear after my initial post but I did make this clear in the follow up when I realized how my first post could be misunderstood.

The big difference here Tim, in regards to your Lakers example, is that Deng was a Bull before Rose and was established with back to back stellar seasons and had praise coming from Bulls brass about him being a piece they that planned to build with.

I obviously misunderstood your first comment. But, either way, Deng is a much better player to have as A piece than Bargnani because he is a better all around player.

Excellent point... If he played SF.

Bargnani is a good ball handler for a 7 footer. Unfortunately he's not good enough to really do all that much with it except drive straight to the hoop. That's my point. He can't bring the ball up the court, he doesn't beat many defenders off the dribble and the only time it's useful is when he gets his man to bite on his pump fake.

And he is not a good passer for a center who has the ball as much as he does. He's not a bad one, but he's certainly not a good one.

I disagree. 47% from the field last year for a guy who took as many long range shots as he did was very good.

Bargnani has a .369 career shooting percentage from the 3 point line. That puts him just below Jrue Holiday. He's a fair three point shooter who sometimes can get hot. And he's a very good 3 point shooter for a center. But overall, he's fair.

This all would be a great point if I were suggesting he was something other than a one way player. You said he had one skill and that's all. I think you are completely wrong about that. Don't change the subject please. This debate was never about whether or not he could grab boards or play defense.

The debate was whether he could be a cornerstone piece like Deng, which I don't think he can because he is only useful to your team half the time he's on the court.

Their win % without him this season was 0.125. We all know their win % with him in the lineup is much higher than that. I agree with you.

Well, what is their win percentage with him in games that Reggie Evans didn't play? .214. Not much higher than without Bargnani. And of the 8 games Bargnani missed, 7 were against teams that were above .500, so that completely skews those results. In fact it makes them completely faulty and should be thrown out.

It seems to me that Reggie Evans has more of a positive impact on the Raptor's win total than anyone on the team. Should we be making him a cornerstone of the team?

[Multipaul]

[QUOTE=Tim W.;71309]
Well, what is their win percentage with him in games that Reggie Evans didn't play? .214. Not much higher than without Bargnani. And of the 8 games Bargnani missed, 7 were against teams that were above .500, so that completely skews those results. In fact it makes them completely faulty and should be thrown out.
QUOTE]

No point in arguing with this guy, that last statement is ridiculous. He is basically saying "this team doesn't need Bargs to win...UNLESS..we are playing other good teams, in which case yes please we need him we need him!!!"