Bargnani discussion

[Snowcrash]

The Globe and Mail had an interesting article last week on childhood bipolar disorder. Seems like there's been an epidemic over the last 10 years, with 20,000 kids diagnosed in 1994 in the U.S. and the number skyrocketing to 800,000 in 2004. As an aside, I sometimes get the feeling that most of these newly diagnosed cases are currently posting on the Raptors board on RealGM.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The article got me thinking about Bargs. Now, I'm not saying in any form or fashion that Bargs is bipolar but his game certainy shows such a disconcerting tendency. Right now, it seems that every aspect of Bargs' game is relying on the simple fact of whether his shot is falling or not. If he hits a couple of early shots, all other parts of his game rise accordingly - rebounding effort, running the floor, setting picks, etc. Conversely, when the jumpers aren't falling, you can almost sense the air coming out of the balloon. Everything in his game goes south and he get's the early hook. This type of mindset is most problematic and I'm certain coaches have repeatedly told him there are other ways he can contribute on the floor when he's not scoring but it doesn't seem to be registering. Still, I'm willing to cut him some slack because his off-season development time so far has been a big zero. Hopefully, he'll spend the summer with John Lucas who has such a great reputation of developing both the skillset and mindset of young players.

[CreaM]

Maybe if he want drafted first overall and had the pressures of a whole Country resting on him, he wouldn't think he has to be a franchise scorer to succeed. It seems like whenever he gets on the court, the first thing on his mind is to shoot. That is not a good thing, especially for a Center.

[dagger]

My opinion of Bargs as stated earlier is that he has a chance to be a good big man but has very little chance of being "great" which is what BC/Maurizio and the braintrust were expecting.

Edit: What does the \ mean at the start of some of your posts?

I don't know what they were expecting in a thin draft. Great is a word that will probably not be associated with any player in that draft. I think borderline great might, might be applied to Roy, but I'd like to see how he holds up as teams respect him, and respect Portland. Beyond that, we went into that draft with a number of holes that we had to fill for the long term. The two biggest were point guard and centre. The 2006 draft had no true centre except Patrick O'Bryan, and he went 10th to GSW and has been a complete bust. And we traded Charlie for Ford, based on discussions initiated prior to the draft, and continued on draft night.

From the very get-go, it was BC's intention to make Bargnani into a C. He said as much in Chad Ford's Insider column from Europe in early June. BC probably had Rasho done for the short term, but looked on Bargnani as his eventual replacement.

At the time, Bargnani was playing outside, offensively and defensively. Bennetton had Marcus Goree, a very good rebounder, at C. Bargnani had had a little bit of post work, in practice, working with his head coach, David Blatt. But it was just dabbling in anticipation that he would go to the NBA. It was not intensive work.

The issue to me is not whether he can be "great". Each draft is unique in what it produces, and drafts aren't equal. Drafts are like vintages of wine. Some are better than others, and some vintages from the best vineyards don't turn out "great", though they often turn out "pretty good".

If the summer is cold and wet, you won't get "great" wine and saying that it should be "great" anyway is, frankly, the argument a moron would make.

I'm not measuring Bargnani by whether he will be "great" as a player but whether he can be a key part of a true contender by taking over the C spot. It doesn't bother me that he may not be a great rebounder. It would bother me if he was a poor one on one defender or a poor help defender, areas in which we have seen potential and improvement this year (along with some inconsistencies to be sure, it's his first year playing C.).

I remember the 99 Pacers going to the NBA finals with Rik Smits at C, the Davis Boys at PF and Jalen at SF. Smits was not a great rebounder, but ADavis and DDavis were, and Jalen was good for his position, so rebounding was not a big issue, but Smits' positives were extremely important, and Smits had less offensive game than Bargnani will at his peak. That's why I think that a front court of Bosh and Bargnani, with the right complementary wing players, is not only going to be very good to great, but it will be more than enough to make us contenders.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

Maybe if he want drafted first overall and had the pressures of a whole Country resting on him, he wouldn't think he has to be a franchise scorer to succeed. It seems like whenever he gets on the court, the first thing on his mind is to shoot. That is not a good thing, especially for a Center.

i get that impression too, that he feels he needs to be a high scorer to meet the expectations. But as much as Sam has said, he doesn't need to worry about, the actions tell another story. I don't recall bad d or bad rebounding against Orlando, but he only played 18 minutes. Most would point to poor offensive outing as the reason he got the hook, so I understand why he feels he needs to score. I think he should be a scorer, C or not.

[ImissJordan]

Antonio and Dale Davis were strong, bruising big men who liked to mix it up inside and play physical defense, which is why they worked so well beside Smits.

I'm not sure if Bosh can provide that kind of play to accommodate Bargnani.

[Duffman100]

Antonio and Dale Davis were strong, bruising big men who liked to mix it up inside and play physical defense, which is why they worked so well beside Smits.

I'm not sure if Bosh can provide that kind of play to accommodate Bargnani.

But that was during the age where you needed those guys. I'm not so sure we need a huge bruising guy in order to succeed. Just effort.

[Guy Smiley]

Has Bargnani put forth a consistent effort though?

The guy strikes me as a colossal underachieving pansy that needs to get a swift kick in the pants rather than a sensual massage by Maurizio.


Effort is one of the ingredients to winning but in the NBA talent trumps pretty much everything.

[ImissJordan]

But that was during the age where you needed those guys. I'm not so sure we need a huge bruising guy in order to succeed. Just effort.

You don't need good interior defenders to win anymore?

The Pacers lost in 2000 to the Lakers (who had Shaq), who went on to win two more times after that. Then the Spurs won (with Duncan), followed by the Pistons (with Ben/Rasheed Wallace), followed again by the Spurs, then Miami (with Shaq) and finally, the Spurs won their fourth chip last season.

It appears to me that teams which feature strong defensive bigs seem to win an awful lot of championships (even the Bulls had Dennis Rodman, one of the best rebounders/defenders the game has ever seen).

I'm going to work.

[Duffman100]

-= original quote snipped =-



You don't need good interior defenders to win anymore?

The Pacers lost in 2000 to the Lakers (who had Shaq), who went on to win two more times after that. Then the Spurs won (with Duncan), followed by the Pistons (with Ben/Rasheed Wallace), followed again by the Spurs, then Miami (with Shaq) and finally, the Spurs won their fourth chip last season.

It appears to me that teams which feature strong defensive bigs seem to win an awful lot of championships (even the Bulls had Dennis Rodman, one of the best rebounders/defenders the game has ever seen).

I'm going to work.

Ah, but you don't need strong bruising big to have good defensive big. I still think Bargnani has the ability to be a good defensive big.

[vulture]

[quote="dagger"][/quote]

Rik smith was never as bad a rebounder as Bargs, and he mostly scored in the post. His game was reliant on the 3.

Bargs shot 41% last year and he is shooting 39% this year.
Is there that big difference? no. He goes in hot streaks just like all inconsistent players. I'm just praying that he becomes a decent player who doesn't hurt when he's out there.

[dagger]

-= original quote snipped =-



Rik smith was never as bad a rebounder as Bargs, and he mostly scored in the post. His game was reliant on the 3.

Bargs shot 41% last year and he is shooting 39% this year.
Is there that big difference? no. He goes in hot streaks just like all inconsistent players. I'm just praying that he becomes a decent player who doesn't hurt when he's out there.

Nice try, but I don't compare Bargnani today with what Smits became in his prime.

I see growth occuring and I expect a lot more.

Smits was a career 15+6 guy who never got above 7.1 bpg and usually averaged 6-6.6 boards. He almost never shot 3's, so he never spread the court like Bargnani does. Can AB do at least as well as Smits, who played centre in college and thus came into the league knowing the position offensively and defensively? I'd say he can, and probably better.

[tsherkin]

Unbeliveable, honestly. Its like you guys haven't watch basketball before, and this 'divine' post by a moderator is absurd.

Sure, Bargnani struggled this year. Sure a lot of what he does is on the perimeter.

But wait? Isn't the NBA draft about potential? Sure it's a dangerous word, but isn't that the risk? You're drafting someone for what they could do years later.

If you're telling me, after watching Bargs for a year and a half, that he CAN'T develop into an impressive, multi tooled offensive player, then you're blind. Simple as that.

It is, of course, statistically possible that Bargs could develop into an impressive, multi-tooled offensive player.

But given his bald lack of progress and the regression in many of his skill areas, it strikes me as unlikely. He hasn't developed an appreciable handle, something Dirk was flashing when he was three years younger. As a result, he's got a long way to go before he YET REMAINS totally useless to us offensively because our entire team replicates the type of offense that he brings and the value of his mismatch on offense is outweighed by his poor rebounding and lack of help defense (I mean in terms of impact help defense from a real shot-blocker like a Camby or Smith or Duncan or someone).

He doesn't have post game; his footwork isn't there, his shot's too flat, he doesn't have great instincts on the block... blah blah. Post game is all about devotion and dedication to working on your game down there, developing instincts. He will NEVER be a dangerous low post scorer; it is almost unthinkable to believe that he will develop there as his primary zone. And that's fine, given his skillset, you wouldn't want to try, just develop one or two moves he can use now and again.

But we need a center who's not oriented towards the perimeter because all four other players on the floor with him will be, we need an interior-oriented player, so he's wrong for us.

And again, he still evidences almost no ability to create his own shot unless he sells the defender on a pump fake when he's rotating out to cover Bargs on a swing pass.

The NBA draft is certainly about potential but it's also about impact, fit and legitimate additions; Bargs is a player who's game is ENTIRELY based off of what others do for him and who's style is antithetical to what Toronto needs from the position he plays. He is a bad rebounder and we desperately need rebounding; he isn't a shot-blocker and we need a weakside help defender to intimidate slashers; he isn't an iso player and we need another reliable goto scorer (preferably a wing). Bargs was a PR move and a bad mistake.

What I Have to Say About "Needing Time:"

Let's talk first overall picks.

In the last 30 years or so, the NBA Draft has started with the following players:

Joe Barry Carroll, Mark Aguirre, James Worthy, Ralph Sampson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick, Ewing, Brad Daugherty, David Robinson, Danny Manning, Pervis Ellison, Derrick Coleman, Larry Johnson, Shaquille O'neal, Chris Webber, Glenn Robinson, Joe Smith, Allen Iverson, Tim Duncan, Michael Olowokandi, Elton Brand, Kenyon Martin, Kwame Brown, Yao Ming, Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Andrew Bogut, Andrea Bargnani and Greg Oden.

Of those guys, the WORST of those picks besides Bargs were: Joe Barry Carroll, Ralph Sampson, Danny Manning, Pervis Ellison, Joe Smith, Michael Olowokandi, Kenyon Martin, Kwame Brown and Andrew Bogut.

Now, the following players had promising careers derailed by injury: Ralph Sampson, Danny Manning and Pervis Ellison.

That leaves JBC, who even as "Joe Barely Cares" was vastly superior to Andrea Bargnani and a career 17 and 8 player with 4 seasons at or over 20 ppg; his rookie and sophmore seasons were 19/9 and 17/8.

Joe Smith? 15/9, 19/9, 15/6, 14/8, his production went down after his first couple of years but that was mainly situational rather than talent-related; Joe Smith was a fine pick. Not dominant but a lot more useful a lot faster than Bargs. Kandiman was 9/8 right out of the gate and while he couldn't score for beans and he was a lazy bum, he was way better as a rebounder and as a shot-blocker... and of course, he hadn't really played basketball before college. Kenyon Martin? Very productive player under Kidd's watch and very early in his career, at that. Decent rebounder, good transition weapon, good shot-blocker and defender... a lot better than Bargs right away.

Bogut? Miserable from the line but he's been a better rebounder than Bargs his entire career and at least as valuable on offense on account of his post scoring skills and his high post passing.

So really, in about 3 decades, there have been two huge busts not related to injury: Olowokandi and Kwame Brown...

The two of whom represent the only really slow-starting players in the group. Bargs is so far from the developmental path of even Joe Smith that it's difficult to conceive of him ever becoming anything like a really dangerous, multi-tool scorer...

And even if he DID, the STYLE in which he'd present that offense would not be of significant value to the Raptors... again, because we don't need his shooting, we need post scoring, rebounding and help defense, none of which he provides.

[Fizzy]

-= original quote snipped =-
It appears to me that teams which feature strong defensive bigs seem to win an awful lot of championships (even the Bulls had Dennis Rodman, one of the best rebounders/defenders the game has ever seen).

Exactly. You need a HOF-caliber defensive stopper to win championships.

So, we have two options:
Tank for the next few decades, holding on to the faint hope of winning the lottery in a year where the next Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem happens to declare for the draft.

or

Try to slowly build up a 'non-traditional' contending team through trades, signings, and smart drafting, while enjoying many years of competitive basketball. Realize that although dominant defensive bigs are the easiest way to win championships, the reality is that Bargnani will probably never be one, 95% of the league will never have one, and a team that does have one won't trade him for anything that we would offer.

I dunno about you guys, but I vote for option 2.

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



Nice try, but I don't compare Bargnani today with what Smits became in his prime.

I see growth occuring and I expect a lot more.

Smits was a career 15+6 guy who never got above 7.1 bpg and usually averaged 6-6.6 boards. He almost never shot 3's, so he never spread the court like Bargnani does. Can AB do at least as well as Smits, who played centre in college and thus came into the league knowing the position offensively and defensively? I'd say he can, and probably better.

You've ignored the key point though; Smits did a lot more of his work from the post than Bargs does at all and he had 3, 4 inches on Bargs that made him more capable of simply using a turnaround or face-up J on the block, ala Yao. Bargs is so awkward in the post it is painful to watch, like a fish gasping for air and flopping around on the deck of a ship.

Mind too that while you're attacking Smits' career-best rebounding average of 7.7 rpg (94-95), don't forget that he did that in 30.5 mpg.

Smits' per-36 rebounding average was 8.2 on his career, his problem was that, like Bargs, he was extremely foul-prone... But he was still a considerably better rebounder, on the order of an extra 3 rebounds per 36 minutes.

[Duffman100]

[quote="tsherkin"][/quote]

So you're basing it entirely on #1 picks? And you don't see the fault in that logic? There are a lot of players, from 1 to 30, that struggled early in their careers and eventually became great players.

I just honestly can't believe you watch Bargnani, when you say he's regressed in every other ability. Thats just not true. He drives better than he did last year. Hes playing better defence. He passing better. And yes, he can create his own shot, and has shown multiple times that he doesn't just rely on his pump fake. And like I said, which you didn't address, he never has plays run for him. So, of course, he relies a lot on the flow of the offense getting him looks. How many Bargnani isos do you see during the game? Not many.

You're right, he doesn't have any low post game, but like I said, its all about strength. He's never had to play there before, and he doesn't have the strength to establish position. Does that mean he can't do it ever? No. And that's where the entire fault of your posts lie. You're talking in definites. 'He'll never...' etc... You don't know...neither do I. He could become a low post scorer too, its all about development.

He has the potential, he has the ability. His skillset allows him to become a great player. I'm not saying he will, but I'm saying the potential is there. And the fact that people are already giving up on him, is ridiculous and depressing.

[El Presidente]

I don't know what they were expecting in a thin draft. Great is a word that will probably not be associated with any player in that draft. I think borderline great might, might be applied to Roy, but I'd like to see how he holds up as teams respect him, and respect Portland. Beyond that, we went into that draft with a number of holes that we had to fill for the long term. The two biggest were point guard and centre. The 2006 draft had no true centre except Patrick O'Bryan, and he went 10th to GSW and has been a complete bust. And we traded Charlie for Ford, based on discussions initiated prior to the draft, and continued on draft night.

From the very get-go, it was BC's intention to make Bargnani into a C. He said as much in Chad Ford's Insider column from Europe in early June. BC probably had Rasho done for the short term, but looked on Bargnani as his eventual replacement.

At the time, Bargnani was playing outside, offensively and defensively. Bennetton had Marcus Goree, a very good rebounder, at C. Bargnani had had a little bit of post work, in practice, working with his head coach, David Blatt. But it was just dabbling in anticipation that he would go to the NBA. It was not intensive work.

The issue to me is not whether he can be "great". Each draft is unique in what it produces, and drafts aren't equal. Drafts are like vintages of wine. Some are better than others, and some vintages from the best vineyards don't turn out "great", though they often turn out "pretty good".

If the summer is cold and wet, you won't get "great" wine and saying that it should be "great" anyway is, frankly, the argument a moron would make.

I'm not measuring Bargnani by whether he will be "great" as a player but whether he can be a key part of a true contender by taking over the C spot. It doesn't bother me that he may not be a great rebounder. It would bother me if he was a poor one on one defender or a poor help defender, areas in which we have seen potential and improvement this year (along with some inconsistencies to be sure, it's his first year playing C.).

I remember the 99 Pacers going to the NBA finals with Rik Smits at C, the Davis Boys at PF and Jalen at SF. Smits was not a great rebounder, but ADavis and DDavis were, and Jalen was good for his position, so rebounding was not a big issue, but Smits' positives were extremely important, and Smits had less offensive game than Bargnani will at his peak. That's why I think that a front court of Bosh and Bargnani, with the right complementary wing players, is not only going to be very good to great, but it will be more than enough to make us contenders.

Luc Longley was "a key part of a true contender" and "took over the C spot" for the Bulls. Francisco Elson did the same with the Spurs last year. If we wanted a serviceable player to take over the C while playing third fiddle to Bosh and whoever, we didn't need to pick him at the summit of the draft, those types of players are available through other means.

I think you're advocating we need to get another guy who can rebound and do the real dirty work while Bargnani flirts around and "plays outside, offensively and defensively". Kinda like the Davis brothers and that Marcus Goree character, if that's the case why are we playing him at C at all. I mean, if he's not going to do anything that a C is supposed to do, why are we even calling him a C, because he's 7-ft?

You'd be concerned if "he was a poor one on one defender or a poor help defender" but you're not concerned that he's a poor rebounder because that task has been delegated to Chris Bosh who practically carries this team every night? I feel that Bargnani needs to do at least 75% of the things that a C does and any excuses for him would only work if he made up for what he lacks in playing the C by doing some other things like passing, ball handling or creating. I don't see that happening either but as I said earlier, the jury's out on that.

I think we should see what he can give us at the 3 spot, there wouldn't be as much pressure to rebound and the general consensus on this board is that he's an OK man-defender, so let's see how he fares against some of the smaller but quicker 3s.

I like your analogies but I'm not buying the wine and the hot summer stuff. There was no gun to our head to take a C in the '06 draft, I'm not sure why people think that. If you've got the #1 pick in the draft, you take the best player available, not focus on your needs. If you want to address your needs, you accordingly trade down and select where your man will be available.

I think we've all adjusted our expectations of Bargnani, the difference is that some of us admit that and some still believe that his current play is exactly what they were expecting when we drafted him.

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



He'll never be a great rebounder. But he has shown that he can grab 5-7 a game, when he stays in the game. When he's not missing his shot and not picking up early fouls.

Those are significant refrains when you're talking about a guy who has regressed in terms of how foul-prone he is, gotten worse. He's entirely reliant on his jump shot and his foul-prone. He will not be able to consistently provide 5-7 rebounds per game unless Sam Mitchell leaves him in through foul trouble and scoring droughts and there is little incentive to do so, even less now that we have Brezec (not that I think Brezec is better but Sam Mitchell has a deeper frontcourt rotation with which to experiment now).

Post scoring? You do understand that he's physically weak right now, right? That he doesn't know how to get, and hold, position in the paint, cause he's never had to. And that he's going up against guy bigger and strong that him.

And all of those are great reasons not to put him in the post; he's not ready, he's never played there consistently, he doesn't know WTF he's doing in the post and you're totally wasting his three-point shooting if you get him down there. Bargs is not a stylistic fit at center, he's a PF ala KVH and that means he's a wasted roster spot on Toronto.

"Give him time" is your refrain but the Raptors don't want to give him the time he needs because if they move him, they could get a lot better a lot faster... assuming a half-way competent replacement can be found and that is a large assumption, of course. The Raptors need a center, they need to have a REAL center the way they had in Marcus Camby's era because we need THAT kind of player with THIS kind of team.

It is the same principle behind what lead the Philadelphia Sixers to run Theo Ratliff and then Dikembe Mutombo at the 5 for Allen Iverson on the team that went to the '01 Finals... if your team is primarily shooters, then you need someone who can get inside, mix it up defensively and dominate the glass. We need Tyson Chandler or Andris Biedrins or someone of that type. Tall, athletic, blocks some shots and is good on the boards. We do NOT need a stand-still jump shooter who can't rebound effectively, especially if he's going to be as foul-prone as a shot-blocker without the effect of blocked shots.

[JN]

-= original quote snipped =-



Nice try, but I don't compare Bargnani today with what Smits became in his prime.

I see growth occuring and I expect a lot more.

Smits was a career 15+6 guy who never got above 7.1 bpg and usually averaged 6-6.6 boards. He almost never shot 3's, so he never spread the court like Bargnani does. Can AB do at least as well as Smits, who played centre in college and thus came into the league knowing the position offensively and defensively? I'd say he can, and probably better.

In his three year prime, Rik Smits averaged 18ots, 7,1 rpg, 51% shooter, in about 30 minutes per game, on good Indiana teams.''

You reallly expect a lot more then this?? You expect more then 18 ppg in 30 minutes of playing time... efficient scoring.

He also played at "Marist" against shorter competition or tall stiffs.

[Duffman100]

[quote="tsherkin"][/quote]

Sure, ok, move him for what exactly? Who realistically can we trade our second year struggling player for that is going to make us magically better? I honestly can't think of anyone that we can get. I'd love Horford, but Atlanta won't give him up. Oden? Sure...

So what do we do? I personally want to see if we can develop him. We aren't going to win the championship anyways. We might as well wait to see if he develops and becomes a good player. He can provide so many different looks. When Bargs plays well, our team is unbelievabley hard to stop...I'd like to keep him and see if that can become a regular thingg

[vulture]

-= original quote snipped =-



Nice try, but I don't compare Bargnani today with what Smits became in his prime.

I see growth occuring and I expect a lot more.

Smits was a career 15+6 guy who never got above 7.1 bpg and usually averaged 6-6.6 boards. He almost never shot 3's, so he never spread the court like Bargnani does. Can AB do at least as well as Smits, who played centre in college and thus came into the league knowing the position offensively and defensively? I'd say he can, and probably better.

I meant to say that his game was not reliant on the 3. Bargs will never reach Smits rebounding averages. Smits was bad rebounder for a center, bargs is just plain awful. Smits was much more efficient and he blocked shots. Bargs does neither.