Reasons to Keep Bargnani

[Basketball_Jones]

I don't see the point of this thread anymore. It's one guy (contender) versus everyone else. He's obviously at the far end of the spectrum on this one, there's no point in debating anymore. There won't be any middle ground here.

[Cake Walk]

We're a disaster with his scoring so I think you're putting way too much emphasis on that point. And "moves" mean absolutely nothing. TS% captures the goods. There's no convolution in that, just the facts.

Not quite. We're headed towards something like 23-24 Ws, despite big injuries to Reggie, Barbosa, Kleiza and Weems (and Bargnani for 8 Gs). It looks like we'd be a 27 W+ team with Reggie all year. We're also 20th in ORTG which is bad but it could be worse

It's a bad team but without Bargnani I think it'd look more like the Cavs seasons

Bargs has 2.6 win shares this year... while Love has 11.5.

Minny would have a losing season for the ages if Love wasn't there, but without Bargs, we'd have about the same record as we have right now.

So they have two players (beasley and love) who are better than Bargnani but yet they are more awful than us, and we have had crazy injuries. Funny how that works out.

[Yeezus_]

The anti-Bargs stuff is hilarious.

I love how so many are quick to say that he has no trade value.

You guys say this, and other stuff to each other so often you forget where you first heard it.

Sadly it seems there are a group of posters who must have their anti-Bargnani circle jerk on this board every day.

I'm with you one this one, its really sad when so many posters don't know what they are talking about.

[dacrusha]

Not quite. We're headed towards something like 23-24 Ws, despite big injuries to Reggie, Barbosa, Kleiza and Weems (and Bargnani for 8 Gs). It looks like we'd be a 27 W+ team with Reggie all year. We're also 20th in ORTG which is bad but it could be worse

It's a bad team but without Bargnani I think it'd look more like the Cavs seasons

Bargs has 2.6 win shares this year... while Love has 11.5.

Minny would have a losing season for the ages if Love wasn't there, but without Bargs, we'd have about the same record as we have right now.

So they have two players (beasley and love) who are better than Bargnani but yet they are more awful than us, and we have had crazy injuries. Funny how that works out.

Considering the Wolves have no better players than Love/Beasley, yet we have 6-7 players better than Bargs, it's not surprising that we have the better record.

[Dr Positivity]

Minnesota also has more size (Darko, Pek) and a TON of shooting (Webster, Johnson on the wing + Ridnour, Tolliver, Love, Beasley)

So they have Love who is 3x better than any of our starters by WS and an All-NBA calibery guy by WS + Beasley who is as good as Bargnani + more big guys and shooters

And we're better than them

um...

Damn, it must be Amir Johnson and Ed Davis' combined 17 points and 12 rebounds that got us all 20 of our wins. Not our 22ppg scoring center or 9apg PG or 17ppg SG. They don't have the TS% and WS that our 10 and 6 garbage buckets big men do...

[Local_NG_Idiot]

There are 48 minutes to go around in the PF position and another 48 minutes at the C position, in Miami they would only need to play Bargnani and Bosh together 10 minutes a game for Bosh to get 32 and Bargs to get 28 minutes a game.

- So what's his role there? Do they need him to stretch the floor? Nope, Bosh, Haslem and Z can already do that. Do they need him to shoot 3s? Nope, they have much better options in Miller, Jones, Bibby, and House. Do they need him for his defense and rebounding? Nope, they already have much better options in their front court in Haslem, Damp and Anthony. So what does he offer that team for 9 mill a season that could possibly have Riley saying "Yea, Bargs makes so much sense for us that he should displace these other players in the rotation that are better than him at what he has to offer, SO MUCH SO that he can get 28-30 mpg."

Van Gundy plays small ball because he never had a PF to put next to dwight, he had the 125 million dollar man so dont give me the "he likes" to play small ball. No he deals with what he has.

He had Gortat for a few years who saw little more than garbage time. He had Bass last season with Hedo gone (which means that 125 million dollar man could have went back to the SF) and Bass couldn't find regular minutes in the rotation. He likes his small ball for a reason and plays it for a reason and the primary reason is because he feels with Howard's impact on the defensive side of the ball, he can play smaller lineups and exploit matchups.

And I dont find it ludacris that Bargnani would get minutes on a team featuring a PF he outplayed 2 years ago and a 40 year old shaq.

I think it should be fairly obvious to most what type of front court players the Celtics play in their rotation, and when you state that Bargs would be playing more than what guys like Murphy, Rasheed Wallace, Kendrick Perkins, and Glen Davis have been lucky to break 25mpg in any given season they've played for the Celts is quite the stretch statement on your part.

SAS would probably play Bargnani 25-28 minutes maybe more depending on matchups because both blair and bonner are too small to play centre so you are forced to play duncan at centre and hes too old for that ****.

Unless he can figure out how to play Pop's way, he wouldn't even be stepping on the court, and the body of work speaks for itself when it comes to playing how SAS wants their players to play and how Bargnani plays. He wouldn't displace any of those guys in the rotation and you know it. SAS dumped Rasho because of him playing to soft for what they wanted out of their C, what makes you think that they'd be happy with Bargs let alone Bargs playing 28mpg?

[LodzBaluty]

No need to worry, Andrea loves Toronto.

[jimmie]

Considering the Wolves have no better players than Love/Beasley, yet we have 6-7 players better than Bargs, it's not surprising that we have the better record.

Whuh?? Who might those players be?

[Nothingface]

Considering the Wolves have no better players than Love/Beasley, yet we have 6-7 players better than Bargs, it's not surprising that we have the better record.

Whuh?? Who might those players be?

The players he traded for in his NBA video game of choice...

[roundhead0]

There's a lot of arguments against Bargnani, but scoring 22ppg at average efficiency shouldn't be one of them. He's by far the best offensive player on our team and attracts a lot of attention. Our best chance at winning games is when he drops a 25-30 pointer. Without Bargnani our team defenses would have the easiest time ever rotating to the nearest ballhandler and crushing us. We have ZERO shooting.

Bargnani is a better offensive player than Kevin Love, I don't care about TS%. Bargnani has more skill and moves. Love is scoring like David Lee scored last year. Ultimate garbage man points. Bargnani legitimately has to be defended in the halfcourt or he's going off on you and that has an impact on everyone else's games. The difference between Bargnani and Love's offense is the biggest reason we're better than the Twolves this year, IMO.

He's a crap defender and rebounder, but offensively he is very good and we would be a disaster without his scoring

We're a disaster with his scoring so I think you're putting way too much emphasis on that point. And "moves" mean absolutely nothing. TS% captures the goods. There's no convolution in that, just the facts.

Welll...TS% doesn't really indicate what kind of defenses you're facing, or when you have to make the tough shot because you're the go-to guy and expected to take that shot. Featured offensive players are going to get more defensive attention and more gameplanning around them to neutralize them. This is why guys with high volumes who maintain a reasonable efficiency are considered to be so good.

[Schad]

Welll...TS% doesn't really indicate what kind of defenses you're facing, or when you have to make the tough shot because you're the go-to guy and expected to take that shot. Featured offensive players are going to get more defensive attention and more gameplanning around them to neutralize them. This is why guys with high volumes who maintain a reasonable efficiency are considered to be so good.

...and why guys who can't maintain a reasonable efficiency while doing so are generally thought to be better off being smaller parts of the offense.

That's the issue, though: if Bargs isn't shooting that much, he offers nothing else. And if he is shooting that much, he's not particularly efficient.

[Dr Positivity]

Bargnani's efficiency at that volume IS reasonable. It's exactly "reasonable".

[derrickrozay]

His primo pasta endorsement is great for the team. Too bad it doesn't fuel his performance like he says....

[Schad]

Bargnani's efficiency at that volume IS reasonable. It's exactly "reasonable".

Not if reasonable = productive and useful over the long haul. You don't build a team around a guy who takes over 20% of the team's shots while being 20 points below the league average in TS%. Any team worth anything is going to have better scorers than that, and thus put Bargs out of a role.

[Death Knight]

Somewhere around here Eric Smith and Paul Jones have graced us with their presence. They are as big of a Bargnani apologist as anyone on this board. I'm so sick of hearing, stop looking at what a guy CAN'T do and start looking at what a guy CAN do. Sorry, but I'm not interested in what Bargnani can do. Whatever he can do doesn't cover up for what he can't do. Bargnani is a negative with all things considered and hurts the team more than he helps.

With Bargnani
Offense: pts per 100 possessions = 107.7
Defense: pts per 100 possessions = 115.6
Net = -7.9

Without Bargnani
Offense: pts per 100 possessions = 104.2
Defense: pts per 100 possessions = 109.5
Net = -5.3

Many other factors involved, and since Bargnani has played major minutes all season long it's going to be a small sample. With that said, it's still an indicator that Bargnani hurts the team more than he helps. When assembling a good team, players should be brought in to compliment each other, not compensate for one another. With Bargnani, the Raptors will forever be trying to bring in players to compensate for his deficiencies, rather than compliment him. Quite frankly that is a task associated with the word treadmill.

[Wo1verine]

Somewhere around here Eric Smith and Paul Jones have graced us with their presence. They are as big of a Bargnani apologist as anyone on this board. I'm so sick of hearing, stop looking at what a guy CAN'T do and start looking at what a guy CAN do. Sorry, but I'm not interested in what Bargnani can do. Whatever he can do doesn't cover up for what he can't do. Bargnani is a negative with all things considered and hurts the team more than he helps.

With Bargnani
Offense: pts per 100 possessions = 107.7
Defense: pts per 100 possessions = 115.6
Net = -7.9

Without Bargnani
Offense: pts per 100 possessions = 104.2
Defense: pts per 100 possessions = 109.5
Net = -5.3

Many other factors involved, and since Bargnani has played major minutes all season long it's going to be a small sample. With that said, it's still an indicator that Bargnani hurts the team more than he helps. When assembling a good team, players should be brought in to compliment each other, not compensate for one another. With Bargnani, the Raptors will forever be trying to bring in players to compensate for his deficiencies, rather than compliment him. Quite frankly that is a task associated with the word treadmill.

Totally agree with everything here.. fantastic post|!

[Double Helix]

Bargnani's efficiency at that volume IS reasonable. It's exactly "reasonable".

Not if reasonable = productive and useful over the long haul. You don't build a team around a guy who takes over 20% of the team's shots while being 20 points below the league average in TS%. Any team worth anything is going to have better scorers than that, and thus put Bargs out of a role.

All this league average talk about TS% is irrelevant though, Schad. It's been discussed in this thread a lot but are you really going to compare guys who are asked to take 15+ FGAs per game with scrubs shooting .600+% on 4 FGAs per game?

The league average is massively inflated due to low volume scorers. The following list seems reasonable. It's players playing 25 minutes per game who take at least 10 FGAs per game.

http://bkref.com/tiny/dTsEt

That's reasonable for a third banana type, no?

Even when he's compared to some of the highest volume scorers in the NBA (players who average more that 16 FGAs per game) he's not looking awful and these are the best scorers in all of the NBA we're talking about here.

http://bkref.com/tiny/tSDGf

He's .03 off from being the 13th best TS% player of the 21 players currently averaging more than 16 FGAs per game and also the 11th youngest. It's certainly nothing to write home about and it doesn't excuse his flaws and allow us to be excited about the idea of him as a team's best player but I think it's reasonable to expect that percentage to climb if he was to play with a star SG, PG or SF due to all the open looks he'd get. His PER, his TS%, the way he'll be able to bail out dribble penetration on kick outs all scream 3rd banana to me.

[dacrusha]

Considering the Wolves have no better players than Love/Beasley, yet we have 6-7 players better than Bargs, it's not surprising that we have the better record.

Whuh?? Who might those players be?

Amir, DD, ED, Jose, Barbosa, and Evans... hell, even Kleiza rings more to the table than Bargs. Add each of their contract details, and the value that Bargs brings to the team is quite low, ESPECIALLY given the position he plays.

Don't let a player's shooting volume and usage fool you about their actual worth on a roster.

[strangespot]

Considering the Wolves have no better players than Love/Beasley, yet we have 6-7 players better than Bargs, it's not surprising that we have the better record.

[Schad]

All this league average talk about TS% is irrelevant though, Schad. It's been discussed in this thread a lot but are you really going to compare guys who are asked to take 15+ FGAs per game with scrubs shooting .600+% on 4 FGAs per game?

The league average is massively inflated due to low volume scorers.

Uh, not really...I didn't take the average TS% on a player-by-player basis, I plugged the league-wide numbers in, so saying that they're inflated by low-volume scorers is silly.

http://bkref.com/tiny/dTsEt

That's reasonable for a third banana type, no?

His defense and rebounding aren't good enough to justify playing him as a third banana.

Even when he's compared to some of the highest volume scorers in the NBA (players who average more that 16 FGAs per game) he's not looking awful and these are the best scorers in all of the NBA we're talking about here.

http://bkref.com/tiny/tSDGf

He's .03 off from being the 13th best TS% player of the 21 players currently averaging more than 16 FGAs per game and also the 11th youngest. It's certainly nothing to write home about but I think it's reasonable to expect that percentage to climb if he was to play with a star SG, PG or SF due to all the open looks he'd get.

Heh, he's also .03 off from being 17th out of 21, and being 11th-youngest out of 21 means that he's mid-pack and thus one can't exactly make the "he's still young!" argument. Fact of the matter is that being 15th out of 21 is not at all good, and this is his best attribute.

As for getting more open looks, his shooting percentages might rise. They were better under Bosh, after all. But then he wouldn't get as many shots, and thus the reason for keeping him on the floor diminishes. Remember when all of this increased volume without Bosh was going to show his value as a lead scorer? Now we're pining for the good ol' days when he was a secondary piece...except that we've apparently forgotten that he was a terrible secondary piece because of his utter lack of tangible skill beyond shooting.