Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Bargnani

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

  • ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    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?
    Bargnani has played some small forward when the Raptors go zone, which about the only time he can play small forward. He's horrible defending the perimeter, so he can't defend other small forwards one on one.

    Really, though, is he that good that you have to start trying to figure out where you can play him that he'll hurt your team the least on defense? It seems to me that it's like having a really unique coffee table that's fairly nice, but doesn't really go with much, but you keep buying new furniture to try and compliment it, but nothing works. You should be getting rid of the coffee table because it's not that nice to begin with and it's simply too hard to find pieces to compliment it.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=Multipaul;71311]
      Tim W. wrote: View Post
      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!!!"
      I accidentally read your post (which is normally on ignore), but couldn't ignore this. Try and read that quote again. It says that the .125 winning percentage without Bargnani is completely faulty because most of those games he missed were against good teams. Care to guess what the Raptor's winning percentage is against +.500 teams are, with or without Bargnani? My point, and it's really not hard to figure out, is that the team would have most likely lost those games whether Bargnani played or not.
      Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
      Follow me on Twitter.

      Comment


      • Tim W. wrote: View Post
        Bargnani has played some small forward when the Raptors go zone, which about the only time he can play small forward. He's horrible defending the perimeter, so he can't defend other small forwards one on one.

        Really, though, is he that good that you have to start trying to figure out where you can play him that he'll hurt your team the least on defense? It seems to me that it's like having a really unique coffee table that's fairly nice, but doesn't really go with much, but you keep buying new furniture to try and compliment it, but nothing works. You should be getting rid of the coffee table because it's not that nice to begin with and it's simply too hard to find pieces to compliment it.
        Kind of like people who post with the same opinion....all the time...and no one agrees with them...but they keep telling people they should agree with them..but they don't....but they keep arguing the same singular argument over and over

        so should you get rid of all the other posters opinions or....?

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=Tim W.;71315]
          Multipaul wrote: View Post

          I accidentally read your post (which is normally on ignore), but couldn't ignore this. Try and read that quote again. It says that the .125 winning percentage without Bargnani is completely faulty because most of those games he missed were against good teams. Care to guess what the Raptor's winning percentage is against +.500 teams are, with or without Bargnani? My point, and it's really not hard to figure out, is that the team would have most likely lost those games whether Bargnani played or not.
          Classic Tim

          Comment


          • First of all what I should've said is that IF Bargs is playing > 30 mins next year, he will have greater than 7 rebs/36 mins

            and my reasoning is that...

            he just has to. Its just physics. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, F = m*a, and if you're playing centre in the NBA thats how many balls just come to you during a course of the game. (Name even any scrub on any roster that does not get that in extended minutes?)

            5.5 rebs averaging 36 minutes as a centre - something is happening here that does not make any sense! And what I'm saying that whatever it is, is so stupid that its not going to continue.

            Go ahead and actually try it:

            If you say the reason Bargs has 5.5 rebs a game is blank
            Then blank will not continue next year.


            Tim W. wrote: View Post
            He's averaged about the same amount of rebounds per minute since his rookie season. Why on earth would that suddenly jump? And that jump would be, at the very least, a 27% jump in his rebounding numbers! And that's just to get to 7. And that's for a guy who has averaged between 5.5 and 6.3 rebounds per 36 minutes his entire career. Logically (and realistically) there is no reason that next year is going to be any different from the previous 5 seasons.
            I hear you man and I'm well aware of all this. I know it would be bucking of a trend, thats why I made the prediction in bold

            But you see how you're asking "why on earth would it jump"? Im asking "why on earth is it so low to begin with"? It doesn't make sense.

            Whatever this actual reason is, has to be so dumb/illogical/crazy/stupid that it will not and cannot continue. According to physics.

            Apollo wrote: View Post
            How did you come to that estimate? It can't be based on his utter lack of improvement in that category this season... He's actually slightly regressed in that area. I guess he's been saving a little more energy for those extra shots he's been taking.
            This is an example, if the reason is that "he saves his energy for offense", then hes going to have to shoot less shots, or do arm extension of sets of 50 with 2 pound weights the whole summer....whatever the F''k

            Anyway, I know its been discussed to death. My post was kind of a vent, and kind of a psychosis-induced moment of clarity. But I do want my prediciton on the official RR record: if Bargs plays 36 mins a game next year he will have 7 rebs a game.

            Comment


            • Ruuuuu wrote: View Post
              First of all what I should've said is that IF Bargs is playing > 30 mins next year, he will have greater than 7 rebs/36 mins

              and my reasoning is that...

              he just has to. Its just physics. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, F = m*a, and if you're playing centre in the NBA thats how many balls just come to you during a course of the game. (Name even any scrub on any roster that does not get that in extended minutes?)

              5.5 rebs averaging 36 minutes as a centre - something is happening here that does not make any sense! And what I'm saying that whatever it is, is so stupid that its not going to continue.

              Go ahead and actually try it:

              If you say the reason Bargs has 5.5 rebs a game is blank
              Then blank will not continue next year.




              I hear you man and I'm well aware of all this. I know it would be bucking of a trend, thats why I made the prediction in bold

              But you see how you're asking "why on earth would it jump"? Im asking "why on earth is it so low to begin with"? It doesn't make sense.

              Whatever this actual reason is, has to be so dumb/illogical/crazy/stupid that it will not and cannot continue. According to physics.



              This is an example, if the reason is that "he saves his energy for offense", then hes going to have to shoot less shots, or do arm extension of sets of 50 with 2 pound weights the whole summer....whatever the F''k

              Anyway, I know its been discussed to death. My post was kind of a vent, and kind of a psychosis-induced moment of clarity. But I do want my prediciton on the official RR record: if Bargs plays 36 mins a game next year he will have 7 rebs a game.
              I support this Ruuuuuu 10000%

              Comment


              • Tim W. wrote: View Post
                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 far better than most seven footers. Most big men for that matter.

                Tim W. wrote: View Post
                He can't bring the ball up the court
                That's why teams deploy guards.

                Tim W. wrote: View Post
                he doesn't beat many defenders off the dribble
                He's second on the team at getting to the line. He must be consistently catching some guys off guard every game, no? He's also the best free throw shooter on the team

                Tim W. wrote: View Post
                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.
                47% from the field last season. Each season he's moved his game close to the rim. He's no longer a "3 point shooting center". He's a center who sometimes shoots threes. He does a lot more than park at the perimeter now.

                Tim W. wrote: View Post
                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.
                The debate was about whether or not Deng was a player the Bulls chose to build around. The past half dozen posts have been debating that. That's the point you attacked. I don't care if you think Bargnani is a cornerstone or not, that's personal opinion. I know Colangelo thinks he is but that's another debate in it's self... What I can prove is that Deng was considered such a player and that's what I did. It can't be argued otherwise because all the quotes and evidence is there.

                Tim W. wrote: View Post
                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.
                Not really. It's far more than what you have. I can produce a win record with him and without him. The record with him is much better. You're coming at this based solely on opinion. Figures are valuable to a debate even when they do not support your own views, Tim.

                Tim W. wrote: View Post
                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?
                You tell me. I don't think so but then again I have not been validating Bargnani's role as a cornerstone based on win percentage. What I did with win percentage is prove that they've have more success with him playing than without him playing. You can do with that whatever you want. Looks like you choose to totally disregard it because it flies in opposition to your Bargnani dogma. I've been a proponent of him being moved. It's all over this board. I just feel compelled to clear up this notion, which I feel is totally incorrect, about Bargnani's offense. He's a highly versatile scorer at the center spot. That's all he is at this point, no doubt.

                Comment


                • Apollo wrote: View Post
                  That's far better than most seven footers. Most big men for that matter.



                  That's why teams deploy guards.



                  He's second on the team at getting to the line. He must be consistently catching some guys off guard every game, no? He's also the best free throw shooter on the team



                  47% from the field last season. Each season he's moved his game close to the rim. He's no longer a "3 point shooting center". He's a center who sometimes shoots threes. He does a lot more than park at the perimeter now.



                  The debate was about whether or not Deng was a player the Bulls chose to build around. The past half dozen posts have been debating that. That's the point you attacked. I don't care if you think Bargnani is a cornerstone or not, that's personal opinion. I know Colangelo thinks he is but that's another debate in it's self... What I can prove is that Deng was considered such a player and that's what I did. It can't be argued otherwise because all the quotes and evidence is there.



                  Not really. It's far more than what you have. I can produce a win record with him and without him. The record with him is much better. You're coming at this based solely on opinion. Figures are valuable to a debate even when they do not support your own views, Tim.



                  You tell me. I don't think so but then again I have not been validating Bargnani's role as a cornerstone based on win percentage. What I did with win percentage is prove that they've have more success with him playing than without him playing. You can do with that whatever you want. Looks like you choose to totally disregard it because it flies in opposition to your Bargnani dogma. I've been a proponent of him being moved. It's all over this board. I just feel compelled to clear up this notion, which I feel is totally incorrect, about Bargnani's offense. He's a highly versatile scorer at the center spot. That's all he is at this point, no doubt.

                  Comment


                  • Scouts High On Kanter

                    Enes Kanter has been ineligible this season due to accepting more than $33,000 in impermissible benefits from a professional club in Turkey.

                    Several NBA scouts think the 18-year-oldwill become an impact player in the league.

                    “Where he ultimately lands depends on what underclassmen come out,” one NBA scout told Yahoo! Sports. “But he’s definitely top seven at worst. He’s just so skilled offensively. He has a decent midrange game and can definitely finish in the paint. He has good footwork, runs the floor well and is very agile for his size.

                    “From what the international scouts say, he’s the top big man coming out. He’s like a taller Al Horford. He can pick and pop, and score inside. He can pretty much fit into any system for any team that needs a center doesn’t matter if they’re a half-court or running team.”

                    One NBA general manager didn’t anticipate Kanter’s layoff hurting his draft stock.

                    “You end up studying him in camps and group workouts,” the GM said. “It’s hard to do an evaluation on any player that is 18 or 19 whether they play or don’t play. You’re looking at potential.”
                    Source: RealGM.com

                    Comment


                    • How does he play? I have only read about him in bits and pieces, never seen any footage. Do you see him as someone who would work with Bargs, or is he a Bargs replacement?

                      Comment


                      • Multipaul wrote: View Post
                        How does he play? I have only read about him in bits and pieces, never seen any footage. Do you see him as someone who would work with Bargs, or is he a Bargs replacement?


                        "No body dominated like Kanter."

                        Big guy who uses his body to do what he wants, when he wants. Banger. Not at all like Bargs.
                        Last edited by Joey; Wed Mar 16, 2011, 04:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                          Dayum i'm at work and the vid is blckd, will check later, thx Joey

                          Comment


                          • Apollo wrote: View Post
                            That's far better than most seven footers. Most big men for that matter.
                            Yes, he's a good ball handler for a big man. Most big men aren't good ball handlers. So he's better at something that most of his peers are bad at, but worse at it than the rest of the league.

                            Apollo wrote: View Post
                            That's why teams deploy guards.
                            Yes. But my point is that while he's a pretty good ball handler for his size, he's not really good enough at it that it makes him invaluable.

                            Apollo wrote: View Post
                            He's second on the team at getting to the line. He must be consistently catching some guys off guard every game, no? He's also the best free throw shooter on the team
                            He's the second best on the team because he takes more shots than anyone. His ratio of free throws to field goal attempts is still pretty low.

                            Apollo wrote: View Post
                            47% from the field last season. Each season he's moved his game close to the rim. He's no longer a "3 point shooting center". He's a center who sometimes shoots threes. He does a lot more than park at the perimeter now.
                            80% of his shots are jumpshots. And the majority of those are 15 feet and out. He also takes far more long 3s than he used to take. I don't have a problem with what he does on offense, but he's a jumpshooting center who doesn't hit a very high percentage of his shots in the paint (.533). He started out the season with a lot more of a varied game, but the last few months he's reverted to what he's most comfortable doing. Shooting jumpshots.

                            Apollo wrote: View Post
                            The debate was about whether or not Deng was a player the Bulls chose to build around. The past half dozen posts have been debating that. That's the point you attacked. I don't care if you think Bargnani is a cornerstone or not, that's personal opinion. I know Colangelo thinks he is but that's another debate in it's self... What I can prove is that Deng was considered such a player and that's what I did. It can't be argued otherwise because all the quotes and evidence is there.
                            I don't know how you can PROVE that the Bulls chose to build around Deng. You gave some evidence, but my point was there is a difference between Deng being an important piece and building around him. If you build around a player, you try and acquire players who will compliment him. I didn't see them doing that. What I saw was that they saw him as an important piece, but not someone they tried to build around. I saw no quotes that "proved" that wrong.

                            Apollo wrote: View Post
                            Not really. It's far more than what you have. I can produce a win record with him and without him. The record with him is much better. You're coming at this based solely on opinion. Figures are valuable to a debate even when they do not support your own views, Tim.
                            7 out of the 8 games he didn't play were against +.500 teams!!! Their record against +.500 teams is 6-36 (.188). So the team would have been expected to have fared about the same with him as without him. How on earth am I coming at this solely based on opinion? If Amir missed most of his games against +.500 teams, I would argue the same thing. It has nothing to do with WHO it is. It's simply looking at the facts. You can't say that the teams is obviously better with Bargnani by looking at the record with and without him because the results are far too skewed to be a good indicator. It's like making a poll and asking mostly just one group of people. Please explain to me how that would be a good indicator?

                            Apollo wrote: View Post
                            You tell me. I don't think so but then again I have not been validating Bargnani's role as a cornerstone based on win percentage. What I did with win percentage is prove that they've have more success with him playing than without him playing. You can do with that whatever you want. Looks like you choose to totally disregard it because it flies in opposition to your Bargnani dogma. I've been a proponent of him being moved. It's all over this board. I just feel compelled to clear up this notion, which I feel is totally incorrect, about Bargnani's offense. He's a highly versatile scorer at the center spot. That's all he is at this point, no doubt.
                            I have never said that the team is automatically better without Bargnani. My argument was that you can't prove anything by the win-loss record without and without him because the results are flawed. On a team with as little talent as the Raptors, taking away ANY decent players hurt them. The Raptors are 7-11 with Evans (.389) and 11-37 (.229) without him. That means that he seems to have a bigger impact on the team record than Bargnani does.

                            Of course, what it all indicates is that the team is better the more of it's players are healthy. And that's because they lack talent. Their record with a healthy roster is better than when players are missing.
                            Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                            Follow me on Twitter.

                            Comment


                            • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post


                              "No body dominated like Kanter."

                              Big guy who uses his body to do what he wants, when he wants. Banger. Not at all like Bargs.
                              I would have loved to see him play somewhere this year. I don't like the idea of drafting a player based mostly on his workouts, which is what will happen. That said, I love what I've seen so far from him AND what the scouts have said about him. If his knees are healthy, I wouldn't be upset at all if the Raptors drafted him. I think he would compliment Amir and Davis very well.
                              Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                              Follow me on Twitter.

                              Comment


                              • Tim W. wrote: View Post
                                I would have loved to see him play somewhere this year. I don't like the idea of drafting a player based mostly on his workouts, which is what will happen. That said, I love what I've seen so far from him AND what the scouts have said about him. If his knees are healthy, I wouldn't be upset at all if the Raptors drafted him. I think he would compliment Amir and Davis very well.
                                Sounds like with Bargs and Davis and Kanter we would be better off. Amir is the odd man out, third wheel, foul prone, doesnt really bing much on offense. Ship him out and pickup another 2 or 3 spot would be ideal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X