Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Bargnani

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

  • I voted no because it won't last. How do I know? If we saw a glimpse like this in his 2nd year, then maybe. But I've seen 5 years of the OTHER guy.

    This poll is like asking if I wanted to keep the hare if he ran fast all the time instead of taking a break and allowing the turtle to win the race. The answer is obviously yes, but the reality is that it's not gonna happen.
    your pal,
    ebrian

    Comment


    • Soft Euro wrote: View Post
      It will be very interesting to see what happens during or after a game where Bargnani has only a couple of rebounds and rebounds attempted. How will Casey react and what will be Bargnani's reaction in the game after.
      Absolutely. If he doesn't hold Bargnani accountable then he has lost all credibility with the rest of his players and the fans.

      Comment


      • CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
        Chauncey Billups comes to mind, as a player that two teams passed along (including the Raps) as nothing more than a backup PG, who took a couple more seasons at Detroit, before becoming an all-world PG who is considered one of the best floor-generals of the past decade.
        Billups is the one that torments me, because he's the perfect example of a guy everyone wrote off who became a world class player, and because he did I hold out hope way too way long on a lot of flops.

        Comment


        • oldmanweldon wrote: View Post
          Billups is the one that torments me, because he's the perfect example of a guy everyone wrote off who became a world class player, and because he did I hold out hope way too way long on a lot of flops.
          The question is, would Billups have turned into the player he did, had he stayed with the Raptors? My guess would be no.

          I think it's the combination of Larry Brown, the Wallace twins, Hamilton and Prince that turned Billups into a great player.

          Comment


          • Nilanka wrote: View Post
            The question is, would Billups have turned into the player he did, had he stayed with the Raptors? My guess would be no.

            I think it's the combination of Larry Brown, the Wallace twins, Hamilton and Prince that turned Billups into a great player.
            So if you surround Bargnani with great players, he can be great too?

            Comment


            • oldmanweldon wrote: View Post
              Billups is the one that torments me, because he's the perfect example of a guy everyone wrote off who became a world class player, and because he did I hold out hope way too way long on a lot of flops.
              Billups is an exception, and he struggled because he had to make the transition from shoot first PG to pass first PG. And for every Billups, who does it successfully, there are dozens of Rodney Stuckeys who never learn to actually run a team. Bargnani isn't trying to make a transition to any position. He's attempting to become a type of player which he previously never was.
              Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
              Follow me on Twitter.

              Comment


              • Hello wrote: View Post
                Even if he improves, another important question that we need to ask, is: Does he fit in, and play well with the team?
                I did not see the game, so Im not sure how well he actually played with the other players.
                If he improves, I would be thrilled, and not saying that he wont, but he would still need to work well with other players in his new form.
                IF he plays like that every single game for the whole season, i mean with effort and aggressiveness, then I think the Raptors should keep him, just because thats what they asked of him, and he complied. Eventhough its a business, i think words still mean something. If he continues to show improvement and becomes a credible contributor both offensively and defensively, and still gets traded, thats just disrespect to the him and im pretty sure it wont sit well with the other players either.

                Comment


                • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                  Yes. The type of frozen dessert was the only thing wrong with that statement - lol.
                  I was kidding Matt, didn't really want to cause a mini argument out of such a small thing.

                  Comment


                  • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                    Joe I'm not exactly sure what you expect. An advanced stat is a bunch of data put into a model and has a value thrown out. That model is tested, reviewed, challenged and critiqued. The reason you are giving me that it 'doesn't work' is because your opinion won't allow you to believe that Allen Iverson wasn't the best player on the 76ers.... I am not trying to change that opinion... I'm trying to roughly explain why Iverson got the ranking he did.

                    Iverson's greatest basketball ability is scoring. Which is one of the most common 'talent's in the NBA. He did it with quantity over quality.... but every shot he took is a shot some else could have taken aswell. Statistically speaking, if someone else (or combination of others) took the shots Iverson did the team had a better chance of scoring as his FG% was very low. Thats why his WP number is low. You can tell me he was a better scorer than his teammates but he still shot 42%on 25.5 sots. You can tell me he was quick and talented and hit amazing shots, but he still shot 42% on 25.5 shots. You can tell me he scored 30 pts a game, won an mvp and made it to the finals, but he still shot 42% of 25.5 shots.
                    I think we should conclude this discussion here, as it's clearly going nowhere. We have very different opinions on the topic matter, which I might remind you was "Allen Iverson in 2001 as an example for the successful usage of the WS statistic was a bad choice". From what you've responded you clearly believe that Allen Iverson wasn't the best player on his team, and I believe he was. Let's leave it at that.

                    Comment


                    • JoePanini wrote: View Post
                      I was kidding Matt, didn't really want to cause a mini argument out of such a small thing.
                      My reply was a joke. Sorry it didn't come across that way. For what it is worth, people rarely find my jokes funny in person either

                      Comment


                      • JoePanini wrote: View Post
                        I think we should conclude this discussion here, as it's clearly going nowhere. We have very different opinions on the topic matter, which I might remind you was "Allen Iverson in 2001 as an example for the successful usage of the WS statistic was a bad choice". From what you've responded you clearly believe that Allen Iverson wasn't the best player on his team, and I believe he was. Let's leave it at that.
                        actually Joe I want to point you to my initial statement on the subject in response to Soft Euro:

                        have you ever done any reading on WP and why and how its modelled? Its not a 'player ranking' per se, but rather a measure of production.

                        The irony in your statement is that the book was written (if I'm not mistaken), pretty much based on the statement you just made. Everyone applauded Allen Iverson for what he did and called him an MVP, yet his team went very much overlooked. The idea behind WP is looking beyond, and within, scoring.... which history shows us is the most common value people use (and get paid for) to base the 'worth' of a player, while ignoring the multiple other areas players help, or hurt, to 'produce wins' for a team.
                        I already said I believe that Iverson was the 'best' player on the team. But I also don't think he was the most 'productive'. I think there was a lot he did wrong (namely inefficient offense) that the rest of his team compensated for through their excellent defense (which Iverson did have a part in to). Had Iverson not had that great defense team, the team would not have been as successful (and from which the way the league MVP is handed out, Iverson would also not have won the MVP either).

                        Here is Iverson's team's record over the years:

                        1996/97 22-60
                        1997/98 31-51
                        1998/99 28-22 (shortened season)
                        1999/00 49-33
                        2000/01 56-26* (season this discussion is based on)
                        2001/02 43-39
                        2002/03 48-34
                        2003/04 33-49
                        2004/05 43-39
                        2005/06 38-44
                        2006/07 5 -10 (with Philly)
                        2006/07 26-24 (with Denver)
                        2007/08 50-32
                        2008/09 39-43 (Detroit)


                        Can you tell me that the 2000/01 season doesn't stand out compared to the others?

                        Comment


                        • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                          actually Joe I want to point you to my initial statement on the subject in response to Soft Euro:



                          I already said I believe that Iverson was the 'best' player on the team. But I also don't think he was the most 'productive'. I think there was a lot he did wrong (namely inefficient offense) that the rest of his team compensated for through their excellent defense (which Iverson did have a part in to). Had Iverson not had that great defense team, the team would not have been as successful (and from which the way the league MVP is handed out, Iverson would also not have won the MVP either).

                          Here is Iverson's team's record over the years:

                          1996/97 22-60
                          1997/98 31-51
                          1998/99 28-22 (shortened season)
                          1999/00 49-33
                          2000/01 56-26* (season this discussion is based on)
                          2001/02 43-39
                          2002/03 48-34
                          2003/04 33-49
                          2004/05 43-39
                          2005/06 38-44
                          2006/07 5 -10 (with Philly)
                          2006/07 26-24 (with Denver)
                          2007/08 50-32
                          2008/09 39-43 (Detroit)


                          Can you tell me that the 2000/01 season doesn't stand out compared to the others?
                          Then you've got this whole discussion wrong. I brought up how I felt that Allen Iverson was a bad example if you wanted to "advertise" WS. That was what I was discussing about, if you look at my first post that's what I said.

                          Comment


                          • JoePanini wrote: View Post
                            Then you've got this whole discussion wrong. I brought up how I felt that Allen Iverson was a bad example if you wanted to "advertise" WS. That was what I was discussing about, if you look at my first post that's what I said.
                            and I've said twice now that I didn't bring up Iverson. Soft Euro did.

                            Comment


                            • Comment


                              • RaptorsFan4Life wrote: View Post
                                Bargnani's the new Karl Malone...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X