Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 106

Thread: The Amir Johnson Conundrum - Gold or Fallacy? Part 2 begins in post 90

  1. #61
    Raptors Republic Starter RapthoseLeafs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern Ontario
    Posts
    620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Success - and my take on a Jonas-Ed-Amir

    Of the top 4 teams in each conference (last season), here are the numbers (along with relevant Raptor numbers:

    • Team scoring average - 100 points
    • Front Court points - 58.5
    • >
    • Toronto scoring average - 99.1 points
    • Toronto - Front Court - 55.0


    If the main trio of Bigs for Toronto is Jonas, Ed and Amir - as some suggest - here is how it would have to play out (on a game by game basis):

    To make my point, I've made some assumptions:

    • Jonas + Ed + Amir = 86 minutes
    • Jonas & Ed - 60 minutes
    • Amir - 26 minutes
    • Amir's Scoring - 10 ppg (based on last year's number playing 25.7 min/game - 9.6 ppg)
    • Balance of Bigs court time - 10.4 minutes (counting 0.4 min/game of overtime)
    • Balance of Bigs scoring - 3.5 points (based on League type numbers)
    • SF Scoring - 17 points (Toronto was 16.5 last year - Lakers were 14.4)


    In this scenario, the Starting Bigs would need to put up 28 points per game, and provide the Defense that makes them the reason for being there (as opposed to having Andrea).

    • 11.5 ppg for Jonas would put him amongst the top 15 Centres (for scoring). Marc Gasol was 31.9 min & 11.7 ppg.
    • 16.5 ppg for Davis would put him amongst the top 15 Power Forwards (for scoring).

    To me, it doesn't sound reasonable - in fact, it's more like Maple Leaf fans jumping on a 8-3-1 record, and arranging the parade already.

    It's possible Ed Davis becomes a 20 ppg guy, but that implies he'll be a top 5 PF in the league. That's putting some lofty hopes on players that don't deserve to be put in such a position. This also is predicated on the Starting SF putting up 14 points per game (or thereabouts).

    Once these players start putting up bigger numbers, Opponent defenses will focus in better. That will impact efficiency, as well as energy left for the defensive end.
    .
    As such, I believe you need a Bargnani in the mix. His role may reflect what we hope is as a Contender in 4 - 5 years, where a new contract reflects the 6 man scenario. Or he may get it (in time), and become that PF we'd hope he could be.

    Either way, we're not about to be a Contender in the next 2 or 3 years. Possibly a good team, but not one that will have it all. That takes experience and Leadership - and this team is too young at this time. If you look at a championship team like Dallas, most of their key players were over 30 (with Chandler 28 - closer to 29)
    .

  2. #62
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,942
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Hugmenot wrote: View Post
    And me to counter you obviously don't think a lot of Marc Gasol and Andrew Bogut if it would not surprise you at all the 5th player taken in a weak draft can become as good as them.

    Propsects are just that prospects and you can't always be sure how they will turn out except in a very few exceptional cases. And there is no way JV is one of the latter as neither the mock draft expects nor the GM actually making the picks labelled him as a surefire can't miss prospect.

    Gasol and Bogut are of known quality and I would be very happy with either of them as the Raptors starting center.
    What on earth makes you say I don't think much of them? The reason I didn't bring them up is that neither of them score a lot of points, mostly due to the role they play on their team. And I happen to think a lot of Valanciunas. Yes, he's just a prospect, but after watching him play, I'm pretty confident that his abilities can be translated well to the NBA. A GM who doesn't gamble a little bit is never going to win anything.

    Quote Hugmenot wrote: View Post
    Except all the players you listed were recognized as unique can't miss talent, something Jonas is not.

    Name one center who averaged those numbers but was not labelled as a can't miss prospect.
    Well, neither Jermaine O'Neal or Pau Gasol were can't miss prospects, but averaged close to 20-10 while playing the center position. Of course, that doesn't really matter anyway. It doesn't matter whether Valanciunas was considered a can't miss prospect when he was drafted. One thing we do know is that many scouts feel he'd have gone first if the draft were held after the summer. And there are just as many scouts who feel he'll end up being the best player in the 2011 draft.
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

  3. #63
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    Fans on here are split on Bargnani, so there's no point getting into an argument about him. I happen to think he can improve his scoring efficiency and with a little bit of a fire lit under his ass, can add a rebound or two to his stats. I also think that if the team defense improves under a decent defensive coach, that his average man-D and poor help-D wouldn't be nearly as magnfied as last year. Bargnani, Calderon and DeRozan were all essentially pilons last season - the constant penetration put way too much pressure on the team D and Bargnani's poor help-D was exploited.

    I think he will still become an above average offensive player, especially at the C position. He creates mismatches and often draws out big defenders from the lane, which would be exploited if the Raps had half decent wings and a PG who wasn't playing on wonky legs. Putting Bargnani alongside Val/Ed, who should become above average defenders, playing in a more effective team defense, will take much pressure off Bargnani defensively. I would rather have a PF who can score consistently and efficiently, with average D, than Amir who is good at everything but great at nothing. This kind of thinking is what makes people *hope* that Bargnani and Val/Ed can become the Raptors' version of Dirk & Chandler. I just dont' think Amir will ever be any better than he is now, which is backup PF.

    I don't expect you to agree and am not trying to convince anybody. It's all just my opinion, based more on watching every game than worrying about stats in a vacuum.
    There is 0 reason to be split. He is one of the worst rebounders in the history of the NBA and a terrible defender. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is simply unwilling to accept it.

  4. #64
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    What on earth makes you say I don't think much of them?
    So it's OK for you to decide what I think of a player but get really offended when I return the favor?

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    And I happen to think a lot of Valanciunas.
    As you did on Kanter. And Bargnano. And Amir Johnson. You're the expert on any subject you decide you're an expert.

    I thank you for it because it is people who voiced their expertise loud and clear which allowed me to make a great living fixing problems companies encountered while following their highly respected opinions.

    Quote Tim W. wrote: View Post
    Well, neither Jermaine O'Neal or Pau Gasol were can't miss prospects, but averaged close to 20-10 while playing the center position.
    Neither were true centers as they spent considerable time playing power forward, Pau Gasol more so than Jermaine O'Neal.

  5. #65
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    There is 0 reason to be split. He is one of the worst rebounders in the history of the NBA and a terrible defender. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is simply unwilling to accept it.
    What you're essentially saying is despite some people listing reasons why they believe Bargmani will be a better fit for the Raptors than Ed Davis and/or Amir Johnson, that their opinions is not valid ("there is 0 reason to be split") and that only the things YOU consider important are in fact important.

    GarbageTime fits you like a glove in my opinion.

  6. #66
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Hugmenot wrote: View Post
    What you're essentially saying is despite some people listing reasons why they believe Bargmani will be a better fit for the Raptors than Ed Davis and/or Amir Johnson, that their opinions is not valid ("there is 0 reason to be split") and that only the things YOU consider important are in fact important.

    GarbageTime fits you like a glove in my opinion.
    Lets following the statements here shall we:

    Nilanka said:

    Should we really consider it a "pro" if Bargnani can't rebound and/or protect the rim (2 qualities that would be required from either the PF or C positions)? He doesn't play either position particularly well.
    you responded with:

    Fans on here are split on Bargnani, so there's no point getting into an argument about him
    There is nothing to be 'split on' with his defense and rebounding. They are terrible. They have been terrible. A 50% increase in his rebounding would still leave him at a terrible rate.

    But yeah what you said....

  7. #67
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I haven't posted in a long while, but it's funny how nothing has changed. You bring up Amir Johnson, eventually the conversation swings toward Bargnani. It can't be helped since they're both part of the bigs rotation, it's just kind of funny to see people getting worked up about the same thing over and over. Anyway, to me this isn't the time to be discussing this topic at all. In my opinion there's too much value and insight to be gained from Davis, Bargs and Johnson each playing at least one more season for the Raps before any trades are made.

    While I have very little doubt personally that Bargnani will never develop into the kind of frontcourt player that I'd personally want to see on the Raptors, that isn't to say his value won't increase with a season under Dwayne Casey. First off, remember that value in the NBA is by and large determined by scoring production. That view may be changing as advanced statistical analysis continues ascending to prominence but it certainly still holds true in terms of contracts and we can assume to some degree it's still true with NBA GMs. From that standpoint, Bargs' value is likely to increase since scoring is his greatest asset and it should increase (at least in efficiency if not volume) with another season of refinement. Secondly, even if Bargs himself doesn't show much improvement in terms of team defence and rebounding, his perceived value may benefit from the Raptors becoming a better team defensively overall. Obviously this is by no means a given, but it bears mentioning. Will any such gains outweigh the extra million in salary (or two if this season ends up lost)? We can't know, but I think that unless you can get a solid top-10 draft pick or similar prospect for him, it's worth waiting to see.

    More importantly, because none of these three bigs project to being (or are) the kind of two way player that deserves alpha or beta status on a contending team, which to keep may end up coming down to either fit alongside said alpha and beta, or simply which can be afforded alongside the contracts of alpha and beta. In other words, which player the Raps end up keeping might come down not to which is the better player, but which player they can AFFORD to keep alongside whoever ends up comprising their core. Purely as a hypothetical, let's say that this year the Raps draft Harrison Barnes, who ends up being an alpha at the 3, and DeRozan and Valanciunas end up being a solid beta and gamma. If Ed Davis turns into a kind of Joakim Noah type at the 4/5 and the Raps are already paying DeRozan big money due to an extension with contracts for Val and Barnes looming, the Raps may have to opt to trade both Davis and Bargnani, then re-sign Johnson to a cheaper deal.

    So as fun as it is to argue about which pieces will form a better fit on the court, the reality is that in a post-lockout NBA finances are very likely to dictate who among the Bargs / Davis / Johnson trio stays, and their respective values need to be further evaluated with regard to fit alongside at least one genuine franchise player. The good news is that the Raps have all three essentially locked up until 2015, so there will a lot more time to continue this debate until that franchise player arrives.

  8. #68
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,286
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Lark Benson wrote: View Post
    I haven't posted in a long while, but it's funny how nothing has changed. You bring up Amir Johnson, eventually the conversation swings toward Bargnani. It can't be helped since they're both part of the bigs rotation, it's just kind of funny to see people getting worked up about the same thing over and over. Anyway, to me this isn't the time to be discussing this topic at all. In my opinion there's too much value and insight to be gained from Davis, Bargs and Johnson each playing at least one more season for the Raps before any trades are made.

    While I have very little doubt personally that Bargnani will never develop into the kind of frontcourt player that I'd personally want to see on the Raptors, that isn't to say his value won't increase with a season under Dwayne Casey. First off, remember that value in the NBA is by and large determined by scoring production. That view may be changing as advanced statistical analysis continues ascending to prominence but it certainly still holds true in terms of contracts and we can assume to some degree it's still true with NBA GMs. From that standpoint, Bargs' value is likely to increase since scoring is his greatest asset and it should increase (at least in efficiency if not volume) with another season of refinement. Secondly, even if Bargs himself doesn't show much improvement in terms of team defence and rebounding, his perceived value may benefit from the Raptors becoming a better team defensively overall. Obviously this is by no means a given, but it bears mentioning. Will any such gains outweigh the extra million in salary (or two if this season ends up lost)? We can't know, but I think that unless you can get a solid top-10 draft pick or similar prospect for him, it's worth waiting to see.

    More importantly, because none of these three bigs project to being (or are) the kind of two way player that deserves alpha or beta status on a contending team, which to keep may end up coming down to either fit alongside said alpha and beta, or simply which can be afforded alongside the contracts of alpha and beta. In other words, which player the Raps end up keeping might come down not to which is the better player, but which player they can AFFORD to keep alongside whoever ends up comprising their core. Purely as a hypothetical, let's say that this year the Raps draft Harrison Barnes, who ends up being an alpha at the 3, and DeRozan and Valanciunas end up being a solid beta and gamma. If Ed Davis turns into a kind of Joakim Noah type at the 4/5 and the Raps are already paying DeRozan big money due to an extension with contracts for Val and Barnes looming, the Raps may have to opt to trade both Davis and Bargnani, then re-sign Johnson to a cheaper deal.

    So as fun as it is to argue about which pieces will form a better fit on the court, the reality is that in a post-lockout NBA finances are very likely to dictate who among the Bargs / Davis / Johnson trio stays, and their respective values need to be further evaluated with regard to fit alongside at least one genuine franchise player. The good news is that the Raps have all three essentially locked up until 2015, so there will a lot more time to continue this debate until that franchise player arrives.
    Your argument seems logical on the surface. However, I have one major issue with it.

    If there is no season this year and Val is on the roster when the league starts up again, then there is simply no way to provide 4 bigs (this doesn't even include Alabi) with enough minutes. Lack of sufficient minutes will inevitably lead to production below expectations, which would either hurt the value of all of them or kill the value of one of them (if one of them becomes solid #4 big). If this season was going on without the lockout, I would have been fully in favor of keeping Bargnani/Ed/Amir and seeing where the chips fell under Casey. However, the potential reality of a lost season puts a huge dent in the logic of keeping all of them for another season, let alone through 2015.

    I absolutely agree that the true 'value' of each of the bigs being discussed (or any player really) is dependant on whatever other roster moves are made. Development (positive or negative) of each player, the impact of a totally new system under Casey (offensively and defensively) and development of team/unit/multi-player chemistry from playing another season together, also all serve to impact the 'value' each big has with the Raptors and overall, going forward.

    I think the discussion going on is being had under 2 assumptions:
    1. no season this year, meaning Val is part of the Raps' roster
    2. pretending there are no other major changes to the Raps' roster

    Obviously the nature of any discussion is bound to change as the makeup of the team changes. However, this is a fluid process that is perpetually ongoing. If you tried to wait until there was calmness with the team to have a discussion, the discussion would never be had. You always have to discuss within the current environment, knowing full well that your point of view could be elevated or crushed, as a course of the natural dynamic of pro sports. When that happens, a new/revised discussion will begin anew!

  9. #69
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    Your argument seems logical on the surface. However, I have one major issue with it.

    If there is no season this year and Val is on the roster when the league starts up again, then there is simply no way to provide 4 bigs (this doesn't even include Alabi) with enough minutes. Lack of sufficient minutes will inevitably lead to production below expectations, which would either hurt the value of all of them or kill the value of one of them (if one of them becomes solid #4 big). If this season was going on without the lockout, I would have been fully in favor of keeping Bargnani/Ed/Amir and seeing where the chips fell under Casey. However, the potential reality of a lost season puts a huge dent in the logic of keeping all of them for another season, let alone through 2015.
    I think this is a case of me just not stating my case adequately. When I said at least another year, I was thinking this year plus potentially into next, which more than likely means a trade deadline deal rather than an offseason deal, since that's when you're most likely to get a prospect or a pick. But I didn't really express that, so I see where you're coming from. I still tend to assume the players will come to their senses, though with all this new decertification talk that seems less and less likely.

    From the Tim W. reply:
    The biggest problem I have with your argument is saying that Bargnani's trade value will continue to go up. To me, his value peaked in the summer of 2010, and will continue to go down. Players trade value are either based on potential or performance (or a mixture of the two). Bargnani's biggest trade value has always been his potential. His perceived ceiling is what has always been attractive about him. The reason is because his performance simply has never been very good, especially when now connected with his salary.
    I said that it COULD go up, and that you'd have to weight that against the increased salary. It's a gamble, but I think you've got your Raps fan hat on here and not your NBA GM hat. NBA GMs continue to see potential in players that NBA fans loooong ago gave up on, and I doubt that'll change any time soon. Fact is, he still hasn't ever been paired with a quality defensive big man and I refuse to believe there aren't NBA GMs intrigued with the possibility of giving it a shot, especially if they need to shake things up to keep their jobs (ie about 1/3 active GMs in the league). These people are risk takers on a level that you and I are not. Don't get me wrong, were I a GM I'd never roll the dice on the guy, but you can't tell me there aren't GMs in the league who wouldn't, especially if his scoring numbers increase or his efficiency tightens up and the Raps perform well defensively around him. There are simply too many bad GMs out there for me to agree with you, sadly.

    As for the salary issue, one of two things make it more palatable than you think: either percentage rollbacks across all salaries, or max contracts capped significantly lower (or both) mean that his contract could look more like something appropriate for a 3rd option on offence. Remember, NBA salaries are tied principally to scoring production, logical or not.

  10. #70
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2011

    unless I'm mistaken... last season was the Raps worst season for average attendance in the last decade (only goes back 10 years). So apparently no, 20ppg scorers that space the floor for others, but can't rebound and help lead to the worst team defense in the NBA for 2 consecutive years does not fill seats.

    And casual fans do greatly outnumber the diehards... and they want to watch something that is either exciting and/or leads to winning.
    Quoting attendance figures doesn't mean a whole lot. Cleveland was 3rd in the league in attendance last year, Raps were 19th, Washington 17th. Cleveland rallied around losing LeBron, Washington had John Wall to get excited about, and the Raps? How do you account for the third worst team in the league still filling the seats while competing with the Leafs? During a recession? Come on now, not every single person was there to watch DeMar. As much as you may not want to admit it, an entertaining product fills the seats when wins are slim, and the Raps could still put on a show offensively at times. In fact if you look at attendance numbers and offensive rating, there's a very strong correlation between bad offensive teams and low attendance.

  11. #71
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Lark Benson wrote: View Post
    Quoting attendance figures doesn't mean a whole lot. Cleveland was 3rd in the league in attendance last year, Raps were 19th, Washington 17th. Cleveland rallied around losing LeBron, Washington had John Wall to get excited about, and the Raps? How do you account for the third worst team in the league still filling the seats while competing with the Leafs? During a recession? Come on now, not every single person was there to watch DeMar. As much as you may not want to admit it, an entertaining product fills the seats when wins are slim, and the Raps could still put on a show offensively at times. In fact if you look at attendance numbers and offensive rating, there's a very strong correlation between bad offensive teams and low attendance.
    no? then how can you possibly make any statement regarding "filling seats"? Or would you rather just use unfalsifiable information to 'prove' your point?

    As for the figures... I related them only to previous Raps attendance not league wide so they are actually relative. Obviously different markets will have different abilities to sell tickets or put butts in the seats for a variety of reasons, thats why comparing Toronto's ticket sales to previous Toronto ticket sales (as opposed to Cleveland or Washington) makes sense. And remember YOU were the one who said fans came out to watch Bargani, and I said nothing about Demar. The actual information proves that what you said was untrue. In fact if it proves anything, its the exact opposite of what you stated. (oh and just off hand the 'recession' didn't technically exist last season (although I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the definition of a recession), it ended prior to that .... even if you don't agree with that statement, ticket sales were greater in the 2008/09 and 09/10 season when the 'recession' was worse.... so no that excuse doesn't fly either)

    Ofcourse these are statistics and as they never correspond with what Bargnani fans THINK is or should be happening, they must ofcourse be wrong.

  12. #72
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I didn't think I had to state it, but you honestly think that attendance being down relative to previous years was not an obvious consequence of losing Bosh and the expectations that the team was going to suck (which it did)?
    Ahh i see its Bosh's fault.... not only does he steal rebounds he steals fans to

    Relating the attendance figures to other teams was to show that despite an obvious letdown in the quality of the team and difficult economic choices to be made, fans continued to attend games, which I think does indeed prove my point. Fans paid to see the team during a recession because they loved to see them play; they made a choice with their money. Fewer of them continued to pay to watch the team play post-Bosh, but my point is that the drop is not as precipitous as it should have been given the awful quality of play, because it should have been an obvious choice to save the money and not attend games if the fans didn't care
    Yet, as you stated, Cleveland (who was an even worse team than Toronto, with a much larger drop in both record and ranking, with a worse economic climate) still maintained a 3rd overrall ranking in home attendance, while Toronto fell to 19th. Cleveland's average attendance fell approx. 400, while Toronto's fell 1300. You logic here is all over the place or atleast not in line with what the actual information states.

    As I said before, I was looking exclusively at Toronto's attendance to keep it relative. You premise is that Bargnani puts butts in the seats.... the best way to prove or disprove that is to look at Toronto's (not Cleveland's or LA's or any other teams) attendance.

    My point that attendance figures don't matter was in relation specifically to your point that attendance was down relative to previous years. They do matter, just not in the context you provided. My mistake for not stating that more clearly.
    Ok well if you feel like playing that game, then prove to me that Bargnani puts butts in seats?

    And as for the idea that the recession 'ended' at a certain time, you clearly don't understand economics if you think that the lingering effects on personal wealth and savings don't affect purchasing decisions over longer periods than individual years. You don't suddenly wake up one more morning, turn on the news, hear the the recession has 'ended' and go out to spend the money you lost over the last few years.
    How could it not take this twist... try to discredit my knowledge of economics because that somehow makes your point more accurate. Well considering GDP has been positive (albeit at different rates) since late 09, and unemployment has been heading down (albeit slightly) since late 09 (approx a year prior to the 2010/11 season) and consumer spending has stayed stable since approx feb 09, I'm finding it hard to believe that the 'recession' had any greater of an impact in 2010/11 than it did in 2009/10 or 2008/09. Unless you are telling me consumers actually spent more during the recession than after.... which then makes me question how the recession actually took place when it did...

    Now IF I had just compared this past season to before the 2008/09 season you'd have an argument... but I didn't. I covered all time periods over the last decade, which include both better and worse economic times.

    (I can link all those if you like... but that information is readily available with a quick search if you choose)

    Like I said using the 'recession' as an excuse doesn't fly.

    And lastly, don't lump me in with Bargnani supporters. I'm not one, which I've stated in my posts. Just because I'm defending his trade value doesn't mean I like him as a player.
    Well thats for you to decide I guess. But right now I'm trying to debate the argument that Bargnani puts fans in the seats. The information says otherwise. If you don't believe me then prove to me that what you said is true (which would be more effective than trying to simply disprove the information I provided) or don't make misleading or inaccurate statements in the first place.

  13. #73
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Alright fine, you baited me back in.

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Ahh i see its Bosh's fault.... not only does he steal rebounds he steals fans to
    What? You honestly think there's no correlation between losing your franchise player, losing 18 games more games than the previous season, and losing fans? Ok then, think what you will.

    Yet, as you stated, Cleveland (who was an even worse team than Toronto, with a much larger drop in both record and ranking, with a worse economic climate) still maintained a 3rd overrall ranking in home attendance, while Toronto fell to 19th. Cleveland's average attendance fell approx. 400, while Toronto's fell 1300. You logic here is all over the place or atleast not in line with what the actual information states.

    As I said before, I was looking exclusively at Toronto's attendance to keep it relative. You premise is that Bargnani puts butts in the seats.... the best way to prove or disprove that is to look at Toronto's (not Cleveland's or LA's or any other teams) attendance.
    Cleveland is a special case, which I mentioned. They rallied around Gilbert and losing LeBron, that was all over the web that season. They also lowered ticket prices to keep attendance high. I made my case that the Raps should have logically lost more than fans coming through the doors given the state of the franchise, and you disagreed.

    Ok well if you feel like playing that game, then prove to me that Bargnani puts butts in seats?
    That's what I've been trying to do with the idea that they should have lost more fans but didn't. Don't know how many ways I can say the same thing.

    How could it not take this twist... try to discredit my knowledge of economics because that somehow makes your point more accurate. Well considering GDP has been positive (albeit at different rates) since late 09, and unemployment has been heading down (albeit slightly) since late 09 (approx a year prior to the 2010/11 season) and consumer spending has stayed stable since approx feb 09, I'm finding it hard to believe that the 'recession' had any greater of an impact in 2010/11 than it did in 2009/10 or 2008/09. Unless you are telling me consumers actually spent more during the recession than after.... which then makes me question how the recession actually took place when it did...

    Now IF I had just compared this past season to before the 2008/09 season you'd have an argument... but I didn't. I covered all time periods over the last decade, which include both better and worse economic times.

    (I can link all those if you like... but that information is readily available with a quick search if you choose)

    Like I said using the 'recession' as an excuse doesn't fly.
    You're not really looking at nationwide economic statistics to tell me how individuals within a certain geographical area spent their money on a very specific item, are you?

    How about we look at average attendance figures for the league as a whole instead, where 09/10 and 10/11 saw numbers lower than in any of the previous 4 years (and that's as far back as I went). I didn't look at totals because I'm too lazy to add them up, but I think it's clear that fewer people were choosing to attend games over the past two years. Hell, 10/11 was one of the greatest seasons of recent memory, and yet average attendance was still lower than from 05/06 to 08/09. In fact it dropped off a cliff in 09/10, from 718k the year previous to 703k.

    Now look at Raptors attendance. I'm not saying that the recession had a greater effect in 10/11, I'm saying that the choice of whether or not to spend money to watch a team that won 18 games should have been a freaking no-brainer. I'm saying that suddenly the choice to spend money on a luxury good went from difficult to easy, but people still came to the games. Here are the numbers, with ranking league-wide in brackets:

    07/08: 796,835 (9th)
    08/09: 769,707 (10th)
    09/10: 733,784 (14th)
    10/11: 679,208 (19th)

    There's an obvious trend there: attendance has been falling for years, even when the team was fighting for a playoff spot in most years. Now all of a sudden people have a reason to stay away and continued to attend games at a decent clip, albeit obviously significantly lower than when the team was competitive. Look, even if you completely remove the recession from the equation, the Raps still maintained respectable attendance despite their franchise tanking in the standings, while competing with one of the biggest draws in North American sports in the same building. You can ignore that if you like, I choose not to.

    Well thats for you to decide I guess. But right now I'm trying to debate the argument that Bargnani puts fans in the seats. The information says otherwise. If you don't believe me then prove to me that what you said is true (which would be more effective than trying to simply disprove the information I provided) or don't make misleading or inaccurate statements in the first place.
    Look, is there any way to measure whether a single player puts people in the seats aside form the 10-15 superstars in the league? I don't have access to that kind of information, so I'm putting my best guess out there, just as you are. I'm looking at a franchise that was awful, competing with the Leafs for ticket money, and still outsold a lot of teams that were far more competitive. I'm interpreting what I see, and I can't do anything else. You can look at the same situation and see something different if you like, but to me Bargnani contributed to an exciting style of play that drew fans to the arena. Was he the sole reason that fans kept attending? Obviously I'd be an idiot to think that, there are way too many factors involved. But as I've said before, offence sells tickets, and Bargnani not only provides that himself but also spaces the floor to help create offensive opportunities. It's what the casual fan likes, seeing the ball go in. And as I mentioned before, there's a pretty strong correlation between teams at the bottom of the attendance list and teams that don't score easily. Maybe it's more correct to say that Bargnani helps to fill seats, but that's splitting hairs.

  14. #74
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Lark Benson wrote: View Post
    Alright fine, you baited me back in.



    What? You honestly think there's no correlation between losing your franchise player, losing 18 games more games than the previous season, and losing fans? Ok then, think what you will.



    Cleveland is a special case, which I mentioned. They rallied around Gilbert and losing LeBron, that was all over the web that season. They also lowered ticket prices to keep attendance high. I made my case that the Raps should have logically lost more than fans coming through the doors given the state of the franchise, and you disagreed.



    That's what I've been trying to do with the idea that they should have lost more fans but didn't. Don't know how many ways I can say the same thing.



    You're not really looking at nationwide economic statistics to tell me how individuals within a certain geographical area spent their money on a very specific item, are you?

    How about we look at average attendance figures for the league as a whole instead, where 09/10 and 10/11 saw numbers lower than in any of the previous 4 years (and that's as far back as I went). I didn't look at totals because I'm too lazy to add them up, but I think it's clear that fewer people were choosing to attend games over the past two years. Hell, 10/11 was one of the greatest seasons of recent memory, and yet average attendance was still lower than from 05/06 to 08/09. In fact it dropped off a cliff in 09/10, from 718k the year previous to 703k.

    Now look at Raptors attendance. I'm not saying that the recession had a greater effect in 10/11, I'm saying that the choice of whether or not to spend money to watch a team that won 18 games should have been a freaking no-brainer. I'm saying that suddenly the choice to spend money on a luxury good went from difficult to easy, but people still came to the games. Here are the numbers, with ranking league-wide in brackets:

    07/08: 796,835 (9th)
    08/09: 769,707 (10th)
    09/10: 733,784 (14th)
    10/11: 679,208 (19th)

    There's an obvious trend there: attendance has been falling for years, even when the team was fighting for a playoff spot in most years. Now all of a sudden people have a reason to stay away and continued to attend games at a decent clip, albeit obviously significantly lower than when the team was competitive. Look, even if you completely remove the recession from the equation, the Raps still maintained respectable attendance despite their franchise tanking in the standings, while competing with one of the biggest draws in North American sports in the same building. You can ignore that if you like, I choose not to.



    Look, is there any way to measure whether a single player puts people in the seats aside form the 10-15 superstars in the league? I don't have access to that kind of information, so I'm putting my best guess out there, just as you are. I'm looking at a franchise that was awful, competing with the Leafs for ticket money, and still outsold a lot of teams that were far more competitive. I'm interpreting what I see, and I can't do anything else. You can look at the same situation and see something different if you like, but to me Bargnani contributed to an exciting style of play that drew fans to the arena. Was he the sole reason that fans kept attending? Obviously I'd be an idiot to think that, there are way too many factors involved. But as I've said before, offence sells tickets, and Bargnani not only provides that himself but also spaces the floor to help create offensive opportunities. It's what the casual fan likes, seeing the ball go in. And as I mentioned before, there's a pretty strong correlation between teams at the bottom of the attendance list and teams that don't score easily. Maybe it's more correct to say that Bargnani helps to fill seats, but that's splitting hairs.
    Your entire premise was made on a random statement not based in anything other than a random guess. Even your idea that (paraphrasing) "given the economic conditions and how bad the team is, ticket sales would have been worse if Bargnani wasn't playing" is a complete guess (and, by the way, not proof of anything). There is no way to back that up... all you can give is excuses as to why the information that says otherwise is wrong (attendance record, cleveland example etc). You claimed "he has value because he brings in fans", which when the information is presented that would give some indiaction to the truth of that statement you turn it into, as I mentioned before, an unfalsifiable statement and a complete logical fallacy.

    Honestly its really the inevitable end to any argument regarding Bargnani that could include statistical information. As he seems to be beyond stats maybe its understandable.


    Maybe it's more correct to say that Bargnani helps to fill seats, but that's splitting hairs.
    Splitting hairs beyond belief. One could make that argument for every single player on the team. The more important question is how many fans can a player bring in? Or how many fans does a player cost a team by leading to losing?

    If fans come because a team is winning, and Bargnani has been incapable of leading the team to something resembling winning, how many fans can we honestly expect him to be responsible for? A significant number, a marginal number a negative number?

    is it unreasonable to assume that if Bargnani did in fact bring in fans that the team would, at the very least, NOT have the worst attendance record in the last decade? If the attendance record is only comparable to the trend in wins and/or the economy then in fact Bargnani himself has nothing to do with putting fans in the seat.



    Oh and just off hand:

    There's an obvious trend there: attendance has been falling for years

    there is also and obvious trend in Bargnani's playing time and role over that time period..... just saying.....

  15. #75
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Your entire premise was made on a random statement not based in anything other than a random guess. Even your idea that (paraphrasing) "given the economic conditions and how bad the team is, ticket sales would have been worse if Bargnani wasn't playing" is a complete guess (and, by the way, not proof of anything). There is no way to back that up... all you can give is excuses as to why the information that says otherwise is wrong (attendance record, cleveland example etc). You claimed "he has value because he brings in fans", which when the information is presented that would give some indiaction to the truth of that statement you turn it into, as I mentioned before, an unfalsifiable statement and a complete logical fallacy.

    Honestly its really the inevitable end to any argument regarding Bargnani that could include statistical information. As he seems to be beyond stats maybe its understandable.
    I don't know how many times I have to keep stating that this is only my opinion. I can't back it up any more than you can discredit it, but I'm obviously going to try to provide the reasoning behind it. I don't know why you're pointing this out as if it invalidates the opinion. I don't believe that a dip in attendance means that Bargs doesn't attract fans, not when the team dropped to 18 wins the same season. You clearly disagree, so let's leave it at that.

    As for the rest of your last post, you state way too many odd things to bother with it. That Bargs hasn't been able to lead the team to 'something resembling winning'? Or "is it unreasonable to assume that if Bargnani did in fact bring in fans that the team would, at the very least, NOT have the worst attendance record in the last decade?", when Bargs hasn't been with the team for a decade, nor had the team dipped to 18 wins during the tail end of a recession. Or that the trend in wins and the economy are the only things that correlate with attendance, which is not at all what I said. And worst of all, to insinuate that both league-wide average attendance AND Raptors attendance dips over the last 5-6 years have more to do with Bargs than with the economy tanking?

    For the last time, let's just leave just agree to disagree. This thread has gotten waaaaay off topic.
    Last edited by Lark Benson; Sat Nov 5th, 2011 at 10:48 PM.

  16. #76
    Raptors Republic Starter RapthoseLeafs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern Ontario
    Posts
    620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Ahh i see its Bosh's fault.... not only does he steal rebounds he steals fans to

    It is Bosh's fault - somewhat.
    In his case, he stole part of the fan's heart. Some enough to extinguish them. Whether he's responsible or not, is irrelevant.

    Quote GarbageTime wrote: View Post
    Yet, as you stated, Cleveland (who was an even worse team than Toronto, with a much larger drop in both record and ranking, with a worse economic climate) still maintained a 3rd overrall ranking in home attendance, while Toronto fell to 19th. Cleveland's average attendance fell approx. 400, while Toronto's fell 1300. You logic here is all over the place or atleast not in line with what the actual information states.

    As I said before, I was looking exclusively at Toronto's attendance to keep it relative. You premise is that Bargnani puts butts in the seats.... the best way to prove or disprove that is to look at Toronto's (not Cleveland's or LA's or any other teams) attendance.
    When attaching the importance of economic numbers, you can't dismiss the loss (including perceived loss) of your Star player, while still not memory free from the last Star (who - IMO - was the better of the two), along with a continued lack of success for play-offs, and it's easy to see more to this attendance movement.

    Besides, according to Forbes ... Raptors were the 10th most valuable franchise, as well as the 6th most profitable NBA team (for 2011). With such a lackluster NBA history, one has to wonder what really drives all this.


    Unless you're playing in Italy, I don't see a lot of fans clamouring to see a 7 foot jumpshooter. If that was the case, Dirk would have started at least once in the All-Star game, and he's miles better than Bargnani. How many other MVPs have never started in the All-Star game? [ Tim W]
    I'll deviate here, and say Amir could work well with a Jonas / Andrea combination, hence I see Ed moving. As for an Italian 7 footer not being popular in a heavy Italian city, that`s always trying to attach itself to heroes, I`ll have to disagree that popularity will be the problem.
    .

  17. #77
    Raptors Republic Superstar TheGloveinRapsUniform's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Markham, Ontario
    Posts
    2,830
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Mods, is it possible to move the lower half of this thread under "Everything Bargnani"? i want to post on the Bargnani comments, but i dont want to do it under this Amir thread.

  18. #78
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote tbihis wrote: View Post
    Mods, is it possible to move the lower half of this thread under "Everything Bargnani"? i want to post on the Bargnani comments, but i dont want to do it under this Amir thread.
    Back to Amir folks!

    I tried to move Bargnani discussion to Everything Bargs. If you wish to continue, do so there. I only glanced through my apologies if anyone feels their posts should not have been moved but tbihis is right.... this is an Amir area.

  19. #79
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Back to Amir folks!

    I tried to move Bargnani discussion to Everything Bargs. If you wish to continue, do so there. I only glanced through my apologies if anyone feels their posts should not have been moved but tbihis is right.... this is an Amir area.
    Sorry for derailing the thread there. Any time you try to choose which of the Raps bigs you'd keep or trade though, it always ends up coming back to how people see Bargs, and then the thread explodes.

  20. #80
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,270
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Lark Benson wrote: View Post
    Sorry for derailing the thread there. Any time you try to choose which of the Raps bigs you'd keep or trade though, it always ends up coming back to how people see Bargs, and then the thread explodes.
    And there is no issue with that - at least in Everything Bargnani! lol No worries, in all seriousness.

    I can't imagine the day when Bargnani gets it or is traded.... either way it certainly will make it difficult to find a topic that results in nearly 4000 replies and over 212,000 views among Raptors fans.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •