Everything Bargnani

[Joey]

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.

Fully agree, I love this guy, but if he ends up going down for a whole season because of a busted knee (ala Oden) then this entire fan base will riot in the streets. Maybe RR can organize it. hahaha

[Apollo]

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.

Ok, so he's being guarded by those whom aren't good at it and obviously aren't good at defending it and...

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.

He's good enough at it to the point where it's valuable to his particular style. It's enough to keep defenders honest. If it wasn't you wouldn't see defenders struggling to keep him in check without fouling him or giving him an easier look.

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.

Actually if you look at the stats leaders he has fairly common FTA compared to many people who score around what he does in the top 20. If you want to get specific, for those in the top 20 who take more than 3.5 3PTA/game his FG% is very comparable theirs...

80% of his shots are jumpshots. And the majority of those are 15 feet and out.

Where did those stats come from? Link?

He also takes far more long 3s than he used to take.

Wrong. He's averaging less per game than the two years prior. If you want to get really detailed, his ratio of 3PTA to FG has dropped almost every year. The percentage of his shots coming from beyond the arc has dropped tremendously since his rookie year to now. I have a post somewhere on this board showing this. It may even be in this massive thread...

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.

The stats suggest the team really struggles without that jump shooting center in the game. When he's playing and he doesn't produce on offense the team goes in the tank... This was presented in an article last month I think. Very interesting stuff.

I don't know how you can PROVE that the Bulls chose to build around Deng.

I can PROVE that they did choose him to be a piece to build around because the GM, head coach and player himself said it point blank when they gave him the massive contract that dwarfs Bargnani's five year deal.

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?

I don't want to come off as a smart ass here but the reason is because you never used those stats in the past post. For all I know you could have pulled it out of thin air. Either way, that record you posted with Bargnani in the lineup is still better than the one I posted without him in the lineup. The idea still hold true. They've done better with him playing than when he hasn't been playing.

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.

It's something tangible that one could use in an debate and again, that was more than you brought to the table. Stats aren't perfect, no doubt about it. I just think if you're going to imply they're better without him and suggest he has only one skill you better be able to back it up with lots of firepower because the guy is a top twenty scorer for crying out loud.

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.

So you're stating on record that the Raptors are a better team when Bargnani suits up? Deal. I thought this was going no where for a second there...

[Tim W.]

Ok, so he's being guarded by those whom aren't good at it and obviously aren't good at defending it and...He's good enough at it to the point where it's valuable to his particular style. It's enough to keep defenders honest. If it wasn't you wouldn't see defenders struggling to keep him in check without fouling him or giving him an easier look.

Yes. I never denied that he didn't use it fairly well, but it's not nearly as good as many of his fans seem to think. That was my point.

Actually if you look at the stats leaders he has fairly common FTA compared to many people who score around what he does in the top 20. If you want to get specific, for those in the top 20 who take more than 3.5 3PTA/game his FG% is very comparable theirs...

For the amount of field goal attempts Bargnani takes, he takes fewer free throws than those who score at the same rate. Bargnani takes the 9th most shots in the league, yet takes the 24th most free throws. He's made big improvements in the area, but I still don't think it's strength.

Where did those stats come from? Link?

82games.com

Wrong. He's averaging less per game than the two years prior. If you want to get really detailed, his ratio of 3PTA to FG has dropped almost every year. The percentage of his shots coming from beyond the arc has dropped tremendously since his rookie year to now. I have a post somewhere on this board showing this. It may even be in this massive thread...

Sorry. I meant to say long 2s.

The stats suggest the team really struggles without that jump shooting center in the game. When he's playing and he doesn't produce on offense the team goes in the tank... This was presented in an article last month I think. Very interesting stuff.

Again, I have rarely complained about his offense, and in fact defended it, on occasion. I don't really care WHERE he scores. And if he rebounded and defended, I'd be all for keeping him. I've never felt a center needs to score inside, as long as he rebounds and defends. The fact that the team rarely wins when Bargnani doesn't score well is an indication of how valuable his scoring is on the Raptors, partly because they don't have many good scorers, but also how much of a detriment Bargnani can be when he's not scoring. I've said it on many occasions that if Bargnani doesn't score at least 26 points, he usually hurts the team.

I can PROVE that they did choose him to be a piece to build around because the GM, head coach and player himself said it point blank when they gave him the massive contract that dwarfs Bargnani's five year deal.

Maybe I'm getting hung up on the word "prove", but you can't prove anything except what people felt they should say. But we both agree that Chicago felt Deng was an important piece. Anything more is guesswork. And remember that it was a different economic climate in the NBA when Deng got his contract.

I don't want to come off as a smart ass here but the reason is because you never used those stats in the past post. For all I know you could have pulled it out of thin air. Either way, that record you posted with Bargnani in the lineup is still better than the one I posted without him in the lineup. The idea still hold true. They've done better with him playing than when he hasn't been playing.

I have missed watching two games this year. They lost both games. Does that mean that me watching has a positive effect on the team's record?

Seriously, though, you're pulling a Multipaul by completely ignoring evidence that discounts your argument by repeating the same flawed facts. Yes, the record is better with Bargnani than without him. But should you take that record at face value? No, because there are other things that affect that record. Which had a more negative effect on the record without Bargnani? Him not playing or them playing +.500 teams 7 out of 8 times? And were there other players who were injured at the same time (Evans, Barbosa, Calderon) that might also have had a negative effect on the team? Yes.

It's something tangible that one could use in an debate and again, that was more than you brought to the table. Stats aren't perfect, no doubt about it. I just think if you're going to imply they're better without him and suggest he has only one skill you better be able to back it up with lots of firepower because the guy is a top twenty scorer for crying out loud.

See my response above.

So you're stating on record that the Raptors are a better team when Bargnani suits up? Deal. I thought this was going no where for a second there...

No, I'm not saying anything either way. I am saying that a team with little talent losing some of that talent will often have a negative effect. In games Bargnani is out I've seen better defense, although inconsistently, but worse offense. I have no idea whether the positive effect on defense outweighs the negative effect on offense. I do know that it's a lot easier to find another scorer who will have a positive effect offensively and not a negative effect defensively, than it is to try and make up for Bargnani's defensive flaws.

[Apollo]

For the amount of field goal attempts Bargnani takes, he takes fewer free throws than those who score at the same rate. Bargnani takes the 9th most shots in the league, yet takes the 24th most free throws. He's made big improvements in the area, but I still don't think it's strength.

Ok and so 24th still isn't bad. It's actually a good thing in my opinion for a guy who takes a lot of jump shots. It wouldn't take much to shoot him up that list a lot either.

Again, I have rarely complained about his offense, and in fact defended it, on occasion. I don't really care WHERE he scores. And if he rebounded and defended, I'd be all for keeping him. I've never felt a center needs to score inside, as long as he rebounds and defends. The fact that the team rarely wins when Bargnani doesn't score well is an indication of how valuable his scoring is on the Raptors, partly because they don't have many good scorers, but also how much of a detriment Bargnani can be when he's not scoring. I've said it on many occasions that if Bargnani doesn't score at least 26 points, he usually hurts the team.

I don't know about anybody else but when I hear somebody say that such and such only has one skill I take that as a criticism about that player. Not to mention it's not true.

Maybe I'm getting hung up on the word "prove", but you can't prove anything except what people felt they should say. But we both agree that Chicago felt Deng was an important piece. Anything more is guesswork. And remember that it was a different economic climate in the NBA when Deng got his contract.

They gave him $71M and called him a cornerstone. What do you want? A written letter from Paxton delivered to your home?

I have missed watching two games this year. They lost both games. Does that mean that me watching has a positive effect on the team's record?

Seriously, though, you're pulling a Multipaul by completely ignoring evidence that discounts your argument by repeating the same flawed facts. Yes, the record is better with Bargnani than without him. But should you take that record at face value? No, because there are other things that affect that record. Which had a more negative effect on the record without Bargnani? Him not playing or them playing +.500 teams 7 out of 8 times? And were there other players who were injured at the same time (Evans, Barbosa, Calderon) that might also have had a negative effect on the team? Yes.

Ok, now you're getting silly. I know they're a better team with him on the floor than without him. He provides a lot of offensive fire power. If he weren't in the game, in my opinion, they beating the Cavs for worst team of the year. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm telling you they're better when he plays. They give up defense but add more on offense. Does that mean with him on the team they're going to be able to accomplish anything significant? No. Does that mean I think they should build around him or even keep him on the team? No. what it means is that this Toronto Raptors squad does better when bargnani plays than when he does not play. It's that simple. I would love for them to move the guy for a good SF or PG, for them to bring in a solid center and move on. That would be awesome. They would be much better. That's not the question though. What's being questioned is whether this particular team plays better while he's in or when he's a scratch. i think the answer is blatantly obvious, you feel the opposite. We're not bridging that gap. Sorry.

[Joey]

I tried to read that whole debate ... stopped after you guys went around in your first circle. hahaha
That right there is more or less THE main debate surrounding the Raptors right now: Is Bargs a Super Star in the making. An MVP-to-be. Super Stars are cornerstones. MVP candidates are corner stones. Deng, in his early years, was absolutely talked about as a possible Chicago Franchise Player. Anyone that averages 19 and 7 at the 3, in his third year is going to garner that talk. And he deserved it. He was playing out of his mind. Thing is ... those were pretty much his best numbers. He plateaued. Bargnani showed equal promise as a young player, but is still young enough to not say he has 'plateaud', or 'peaked'.

Apollo's comparison was absolutely justified in my opinion.

Tim, you jumped onto the small, tidbit of discrepency to say that Chicago wasn't trying to build around Deng. But if only for the same reason Toronto tried to build around Bosh, Chicago absolutely did try to build around Deng.

They had too. At the time, they didn't have a choice. He was their best player. He was their go to guy.
Bargnani is ours, and in asking whether he IS or IS NOT going to remain that go to guy, is completely valid. In my opinion.

I guess nobody asked my opinion, but it sounded to me like you two needed a third opinion. haha

[Mack North]

I wish I could see who the 4 people are that gave his career an A up to this point. I know 1, but the other 3 may you please stand up?

[JoePanini]

Enjoyed that 'discussion' very much.

[Tim W.]

Apollo,

With Bargnani, my contention this year has been that when he's scores at least 26 points, he usually has a positive effect on the floor. When he scores less than that, his defensive deficiencies usually hurts the team enough that he has a negative impact.

As for Deng, I think we're arguing semantics.

[Apollo]

I tried to read that whole debate ... stopped after you guys went around in your first circle. hahaha
That right there is more or less THE main debate surrounding the Raptors right now: Is Bargs a Super Star in the making. An MVP-to-be. Super Stars are cornerstones. MVP candidates are corner stones. Deng, in his early years, was absolutely talked about as a possible Chicago Franchise Player. Anyone that averages 19 and 7 at the 3, in his third year is going to garner that talk. And he deserved it. He was playing out of his mind. Thing is ... those were pretty much his best numbers. He plateaued. Bargnani showed equal promise as a young player, but is still young enough to not say he has 'plateaud', or 'peaked'.

Apollo's comparison was absolutely justified in my opinion.

Tim, you jumped onto the small, tidbit of discrepency to say that Chicago wasn't trying to build around Deng. But if only for the same reason Toronto tried to build around Bosh, Chicago absolutely did try to build around Deng.

They had too. At the time, they didn't have a choice. He was their best player. He was their go to guy.
Bargnani is ours, and in asking whether he IS or IS NOT going to remain that go to guy, is completely valid. In my opinion.

I guess nobody asked my opinion, but it sounded to me like you two needed a third opinion. haha

Come on now, it goes without saying that your opinion is welcomed around here.

I wish I could see who the 4 people are that gave his career an A up to this point. I know 1, but the other 3 may you please stand up?

I decided to make the poll hidden to cut down on government witness protection costs. Multipaul doesn't need witness protection because he's a sophisticated robot sent back in time to relentlessly promote the one known as "Mago".

[Multipaul]

I decided to make the poll hidden to cut down on government witness protection costs. Multipaul doesn't need witness protection because he's a sophisticated robot sent back in time to relentlessly promote the one known as "Mago".

Don't blame me, blame John Connor.

[bloodyhandedgod]

Wondered something last night versus the Pistons. There seems to be a signature Barny play. He sits under the basket and sees someone lining up a 3. And realizes that it is his man. So he moves towards the player. Barney, being 7 feet tall, could block a lot of shots. As he gets 3-5 feet away he leans in and does the "Calling For A Cab D." Where he leans toward the player shooting, extends his arms in an upwardsish manner and makes sure his feet do not leave the floor.

What exactly is this kind of play? Is he in such a shape that he needs to save energy for the offensive end? Cause it really seems so. He did this a few minute apart last night and I thought Triano might consider benching him for awhile, but apparently this is acceptable. Some kind of "aw look, he's trying to try and play D."

[Joey]

Wondered something last night versus the Pistons. There seems to be a signature Barny play. He sits under the basket and sees someone lining up a 3. And realizes that it is his man. So he moves towards the player. Barney, being 7 feet tall, could block a lot of shots. As he gets 3-5 feet away he leans in and does the "Calling For A Cab D." Where he leans toward the player shooting, extends his arms in an upwardsish manner and makes sure his feet do not leave the floor.

What exactly is this kind of play? Is he in such a shape that he needs to save energy for the offensive end? Cause it really seems so. He did this a few minute apart last night and I thought Triano might consider benching him for awhile, but apparently this is acceptable. Some kind of "aw look, he's trying to try and play D."

One of most important rules on Defense when guarding a guy on the perimeter is never leave your feet. Very rarely are those shots blocked. It's too risky for the other guy just to lean into you and draw the foul. He's playing it smart. Now mind you, his defense is attrocious and doesn't really deserve me sticking up for it, but in this instance, I'm fine with his reaction on the play. Cuz if he jumps, he's either commiting the foul, and getting blown past for the dunk.
In my opinion.

Now under the basket? He should be ALOT more effective. But he doesn't like contact. You'll see diggin elbows into him and forearms to the throat, but he DOESN'T ever retaliate, and push back really. So even smaller guys just muscle through him cuz they know he won't push back.

[bloodyhandedgod]

One of most important rules on Defense when guarding a guy on the perimeter is never leave your feet. Very rarely are those shots blocked. It's too risky for the other guy just to lean into you and draw the foul. He's playing it smart. Now mind you, his defense is attrocious and doesn't really deserve me sticking up for it, but in this instance, I'm fine with his reaction on the play. Cuz if he jumps, he's either commiting the foul, and getting blown past for the dunk.
In my opinion.

Now under the basket? He should be ALOT more effective. But he doesn't like contact. You'll see diggin elbows into him and forearms to the throat, but he DOESN'T ever retaliate, and push back really. So even smaller guys just muscle through him cuz they know he won't push back.

You might be right. But is it the same with 7 footers trying to block guys that are often 3-6 inches shorter? Even a near vertical jump would have some effect. Maybe I would be more accepting if it was not Barney doing it.

[Joey]

You might be right. But is it the same with 7 footers trying to block guys that are often 3-6 inches shorter? Even a near vertical jump would have some effect. Maybe I would be more accepting if it was not Barney doing it.

Well with shorter guys theres even less of a need to jump out at them. But I hear what you're saying. His effort level is more often than not, annoying. In my opinion the best thing you can do to guard a perimeter guy is just put your hand in his face. Literally. You can't do it while guarding, but on a shot at least, its clean play. And alot of times that is what you will see. But if you get too close, you've got guys like Paul Peirce who will just shoot 'through' the defender arms, and draw the foul, regardless of what the defender does really. Hate those plays.

I think effort is what it comes down too with Andrea. And far too often I've seen him give up on plays, way to early.
I think once/if we start winning, and he/we have something to play for, their might be a bit more inspired defense, like in the past, when he was giving us 1.5+blks. Perhaps thats wishful thinking at this point.

[bloodyhandedgod]

Well with shorter guys theres even less of a need to jump out at them. But I hear what you're saying. His effort level is more often than not, annoying. In my opinion the best thing you can do to guard a perimeter guy is just put your hand in his face. Literally. You can't do it while guarding, but on a shot at least, its clean play. And alot of times that is what you will see. But if you get too close, you've got guys like Paul Peirce who will just shoot 'through' the defender arms, and draw the foul, regardless of what the defender does really. Hate those plays.

I think effort is what it comes down too with Andrea. And far too often I've seen him give up on plays, way to early.
I think once/if we start winning, and he/we have something to play for, their might be a bit more inspired defense, like in the past, when he was giving us 1.5+blks. Perhaps thats wishful thinking at this point.

I've only been watching a lot the last couple of years. Sporadically before. But I remember early in AB's career, when the talent was apparent. He could score. A lot of promise. But one thing struck me that stood out. He had a temper. Showed a mean streak that belied how soft he often played. I thought that this was a quality that could push him to be great.

YOU will not score on me.
YOU cannot guard me.
YOU cannot push me around.

And it seems to have completely disappeared. Sometimes he shows up for the 2nd one, but not nearly enough. He showed a lot of jump against the Heat. A lot of wanting the ball. Willing to be the man. But the anger has dissipated into (allow me the leeway) some sort of entitled douchieness. He does not want to play D? Sit down on the bench. He does not want to help out on D? Sit down. He does not want to block out? Sit down. Rebounds are an alien idea?

Sit. The. Heck. Down.

There is no respect for this game anymore. I honestly do not believe he is in game shape. They keep telling me he is getting tired at the end of long times on the floor or late in games. He's tired? Half the time he is not even trying. Watch Reggie Evans for one trip up the floor and back. That is like 4 trips up and back for AB. He has settled into doing what he believes he has to do. And it insults all of us. Even the worst defensive players are usually trying to play it. Just not fast enough or able enough to pull it off. ie. Steve Nash. But they are at least trying.

We are being laughed at. Who goes into a war with this kind of a teammate? I finally give up. There is no spot for him here. Do you want him @ Centre or PF? Really? No. The example he sets is horrid. He is not a leader or someone to depend on. He will play when he wants to. Send him away. He has been weighed. He has been measured. And he has been found wanting.