Why I like Andrea Bargnani- An alternative perspective

[RedX]

Why are we giving this fool the time of day? lock this **** up.

[Too Late Crew]

Nice attempt by the OP at making his case but it seems that he does not realize that raw +/- is GARBAGE when it comes to ball. At least use adjusted +/- which isn't great but much better than raw +/-. And then there's a couple of other ones you can use as well.

Nice first attempt though.

So basically the OP wants us to solely use raw +/- to assess Bargnani's performance, and just throw every other major statistic that we use to evaluate other players out the window. TS%, Rb%, dortg, ortg, win shares, PER, even basic stats like FG%, rpg, bpg, ast/tov, all of this should be disregarded when it comes to Bargnani.

It seems like there is some misunderstanding about my post. I agree with you that +/- is not the one-and-done stat for evaluating a player. It doesn't tell you how well an individual's performance is on the floor (I mentioned that in my post), and PER, TS%, RB%, win shares, and those sort of stats are certainly very useful to determining a player's efficiency. My focus was not on Bargnani's individual stats, there's been enough analysis on it already, and no one is claiming that he's a superstar. Having a high(er) +/- per 48, however, by definition means that a player's team is better on the court when he's playing. In fact, +/- has a very high explanatory power for a team's wins (Berri, David J. “Measuring Performance in the National Basketball Association.” In The Handbook of Sports Economics, eds. Stephen Shmanske and Leo Kahane; Oxford University Press) It captures everything else that isn't quantified, such as opening up the floor to provide opportunities for other players, and Bargnani certainly does that, as demonstrated by the dramatically higher fg% of his teammates when he's playing.

He was -18 last night.
So by your theory he was essentially the biggest factor in making the team lose last night right?

[Alfred]

You know you're desperate when you're quoting a joke like David Berri to support your argument.

[Sn0wman]

Long read, but what I got from all of it is that... OP is Phagg*t
At this point, there's absolutely no way to protect Bargnani, after 6 years, he's still a fat lazy cu*t
He can GTFO, along with BC and Casey

Warned.
-Alfred

[JN]

You know you're desperate when you're quoting a joke like David Berri to support your argument.

I also find it amusing that is quoting David Berri to support his claim, yet I believe Berri's advanced statistic of choice (is it Wins Created -- something like that) totally shreds Bargnani.

[JN]

I still do think the OP took a reasoned approach to the argument -- it wasn't "nuthugger" in any way. Flawed yes, but in a way that can be critiqued.

I am somewhat confused by the title though. Even if you validate that Bargnani is not the biggest problem on the tour, you haven't proven why we should like the guy... just that he is more productive than he is given credit for. I would still have no respect for the way he loafs around the court.

[JN]

As a last comment, I’ll add a word of comfort for the Bargnani haters. If Bargnani continues to regress offensively, astute teams will notice this, and the advantage of Bargnani spreading the floor will eventually be lost, as defences focus on more skilled scorers. In this scenario, he will truly be useless (and virtually untradeable).

OP, in your opinion how far are we away from this. Where the "stretching" becomes less and less?

[I_Like_Dirt]

In conclusion to the OP, the +/- numbers combined with the performance of this team seem to indicate that the Raptors made a horrible mistake by surrounding Andrea with a large contingent of offensively inept players. Andrea can't really carry an offense and struggles even when he's got another more offensive-minded sidekick in DD. Yes, the offense is better with him on the floor, but look at the roster. Any halfway decent offensive player would have crazy splits because the rest of the players suck ass except Lowry and Jose, who happen to play the same position. As for the defense, the Raptors hardly have a great defense and Andrea is one of the worst.

Ulitmately, what this is showing is that building a team where Andrea is a key focal point of the offense, and crucial to its success, is a bad idea. It's also showing that he really isn't useful other than in very specific situations on defense. So if he can't be a leaned-on scorer because the offense will still suck, and he can't play defense, and he can't rebound, what can he be? Really, despite being way more skilled, his role in the NBA is a poor man's Matt Bonner since Bonner is a much better shooter from 3. All those additional skills Andrea has don't help him play any other roles particularly well in the NBA. In a 1-on-1 tournament, or a practice setting, they help him dominate. In the NBA, they make coaches play him thinking he'll be the same player they see in practice only to make the coaches look stupid. Andrea has a bunch of skills and is incredibly versatile. Unfortunately for him and the Raptors, he doesn't do any of those things at even an average level compared to other NBA players who are relied upon to perform that task.

[ItsDanger]

Big problem with Bargs is that he's a magnet for all the criticism on this team. It enables all the other garbage players on our team to avoid all responsibility for their indifferent play.

[AfricanSensation]

I am tired of people defending Bargs over the fact that we would be worse without his scoring. Of course we would, we have one of the worse team in the league, horrible death, no SF, we basically play 4 against 5 every night. Of course if you remove Bargs without adding anyone we would be worse. But how about removing Barg's no D, no rebounding corpse from our frontcourt, put Amir or Ed in there but add a scoring SF that can actually guard his fkin position? Something like like Lowry-Demar-Gallo-Ed-Val, do you see this team with a 4-14 record?

So yes, this team is not better without Bargs as of now, but it's 4/15 and 2nd worst in the league with him, we tried changing anyone else, how about trying to move him and see where we go from there? We saw team lose the like of Dwight or Melo and they are still winning more than we are, I think we can give it a shot too and try life without the great Bargnani.

[realball]

It seems like there is some misunderstanding about my post. I agree with you that +/- is not the one-and-done stat for evaluating a player. It doesn't tell you how well an individual's performance is on the floor (I mentioned that in my post), and PER, TS%, RB%, win shares, and those sort of stats are certainly very useful to determining a player's efficiency. My focus was not on Bargnani's individual stats, there's been enough analysis on it already, and no one is claiming that he's a superstar. Having a high(er) +/- per 48, however, by definition means that a player's team is better on the court when he's playing. In fact, +/- has a very high explanatory power for a team's wins (Berri, David J. “Measuring Performance in the National Basketball Association.” In The Handbook of Sports Economics, eds. Stephen Shmanske and Leo Kahane; Oxford University Press) It captures everything else that isn't quantified, such as opening up the floor to provide opportunities for other players, and Bargnani certainly does that, as demonstrated by the dramatically higher fg% of his teammates when he's playing.

I completely understood your point, and no one is claiming that you claimed that he was a superstar. What you are claiming is that he has a positive impact based on a small sample size of a raw, unadjusted stat that is affected by dozens of variables. Almost every other stat seems to show that he has a negative impact. His Ortg and Dortg is horrible, his efficiency is horrible, his rebound and block rates are horrible, he averages more tovs than assists. But your "alternative perspective" does not touch on these stats whatsoever. Simply put, using one questionable stat to argue your opinion doesn't cut it.

Not to mention, stats are less useful than the eye test. 95% of the hardcore basketball fans on this board have watched Bargnani for his entire career and have agreed that Bargnani is an awful basketball player who doesn't have a positive impact. So I'd say your perspective on Bargnani is most likely incorrect.

[carlosey]

I like Bargnani but he is also a victim of the fans tunnel vision. They concentrate on a single player and assume all the faults of the team fall on him. This has always been the case.

The current make up of the team including the coach, isnt a good fit for bargnani and bargnani isnt a good fit for us. We still have a lot of other problem areas. The only thing that seems to work with consistency is give the ball to lowry and gtfo the way. Not a huge fan of that method but it seems to work.

The bottom line is that were losing and changes need to be made. I think Bargnani and Calderon are both wanting to move on themselves so I think the time is right to try something different. Gasol is not going to be anything other than a trading piece or a money dump. Hes nto going to come here and do anything knowing that his career is over soon and that he is in one of the worst teams in the L that wont be ready by the time he retires.

[OAKLEY_2]

Big problem with Bargs is that he's a magnet for all the criticism on this team. It enables all the other garbage players on our team to avoid all responsibility for their indifferent play.

It is the coaches job to get the players to play as a team. I think that is the biggest fail right there and worthy of a sacking. That won't change the MLSE culture or the reality of smart lookin' Brian continuing to wing it with bizarre personnel decisions. So Bargs is a lightning rod for discontent but we have suked almost every year he has been here. Time to move him.

[ishoy123]

It seems like there is some misunderstanding about my post. I agree with you that +/- is not the one-and-done stat for evaluating a player. It doesn't tell you how well an individual's performance is on the floor (I mentioned that in my post), and PER, TS%, RB%, win shares, and those sort of stats are certainly very useful to determining a player's efficiency. My focus was not on Bargnani's individual stats, there's been enough analysis on it already, and no one is claiming that he's a superstar. Having a high(er) +/- per 48, however, by definition means that a player's team is better on the court when he's playing. In fact, +/- has a very high explanatory power for a team's wins (Berri, David J. “Measuring Performance in the National Basketball Association.” In The Handbook of Sports Economics, eds. Stephen Shmanske and Leo Kahane; Oxford University Press) It captures everything else that isn't quantified, such as opening up the floor to provide opportunities for other players, and Bargnani certainly does that, as demonstrated by the dramatically higher fg% of his teammates when he's playing.

I completely understood your point, and no one is claiming that you claimed that he was a superstar. What you are claiming is that he has a positive impact based on a small sample size of a raw, unadjusted stat that is affected by dozens of variables. Almost every other stat seems to show that he has a negative impact. His Ortg and Dortg is horrible, his efficiency is horrible, his rebound and block rates are horrible, he averages more tovs than assists. But your "alternative perspective" does not touch on these stats whatsoever. Simply put, using one questionable stat to argue your opinion doesn't cut it.

Not to mention, stats are less useful than the eye test. 95% of the hardcore basketball fans on this board have watched Bargnani for his entire career and have agreed that Bargnani is an awful basketball player who doesn't have a positive impact. So I'd say your perspective on Bargnani is most likely incorrect.

At the risk of repeating myself, statistics such as orpg, drpg, PER, ast/tov, ts% etc. only tells you about a player's individual efficiency (not to mention ast/tov is only useful for point guards). They are certainly useful in determining how good a player is, and their personal effectiveness on the court. It does not tell you about his relationship to the rest of the team on the court, which can be demonstrated by +/- per 48 and teammate fg%. I'll admit that the variance of +/- can be extremely high (which answers the people who've commented about Bargnani's -18 against the Kings), but so far the evidence shows that all his teammates play better and shoot more effectively when he's on the court. Additionally, it's true that the team's offensive rebounding % is lower when he plays, the overall team rebounds is higher when he's on the court. This doesn't mean at all that he's a good rebounder, but the stats show that the Raptors get more defensive boards when Bargnani plays for whatever reason. As for your eye-test point, I've also watched Bargnani play since his rookie season, and I haven't met any serious fan of the game (and I know many) who actually thinks that the Raptors are better when Bargnani is on the bench.

[ItsDanger]

Big problem with Bargs is that he's a magnet for all the criticism on this team. It enables all the other garbage players on our team to avoid all responsibility for their indifferent play.

It is the coaches job to get the players to play as a team. I think that is the biggest fail right there and worthy of a sacking. That won't change the MLSE culture or the reality of smart lookin' Brian continuing to wing it with bizarre personnel decisions. So Bargs is a lightning rod for discontent but we have suked almost every year he has been here. Time to move him.

More or less agree. But wheres the criticism for all the other stiffs here? You'd think Demar would try to improve his left hand sooner or later. All the opposing teams know what he's going to do everytime. This team has a massive leadership vacuum.

[ishoy123]

I still do think the OP took a reasoned approach to the argument -- it wasn't "nuthugger" in any way. Flawed yes, but in a way that can be critiqued.

I am somewhat confused by the title though. Even if you validate that Bargnani is not the biggest problem on the tour, you haven't proven why we should like the guy... just that he is more productive than he is given credit for. I would still have no respect for the way he loafs around the court.

Completely agree. The title should be something like: Why Bargnani is more effective than people give him credit for.

As a last comment, I’ll add a word of comfort for the Bargnani haters. If Bargnani continues to regress offensively, astute teams will notice this, and the advantage of Bargnani spreading the floor will eventually be lost, as defences focus on more skilled scorers. In this scenario, he will truly be useless (and virtually untradeable).

OP, in your opinion how far are we away from this. Where the "stretching" becomes less and less?

I think the key is his 3pt %. Any big that can shoot 3s will force an opposing big to move up and play on him, which opens up the floor for a lot of opportunities. His 3 pt % has never been great, to be fair, but still good enough to force someone to play up on him. The reason why a team would still play a big on him (pf), is because he can simply post up a smaller defender. However, his post fg% this year is not impressive either, we can see some teams play small against the Raptors to take advantage of this, and Bargnani has not been able to use his size advantage against players like Faried and Evan Turner.

[tracey_nice]

It seems like there is some misunderstanding about my post. I agree with you that +/- is not the one-and-done stat for evaluating a player. It doesn't tell you how well an individual's performance is on the floor (I mentioned that in my post), and PER, TS%, RB%, win shares, and those sort of stats are certainly very useful to determining a player's efficiency. My focus was not on Bargnani's individual stats, there's been enough analysis on it already, and no one is claiming that he's a superstar. Having a high(er) +/- per 48, however, by definition means that a player's team is better on the court when he's playing. In fact, +/- has a very high explanatory power for a team's wins (Berri, David J. “Measuring Performance in the National Basketball Association.” In The Handbook of Sports Economics, eds. Stephen Shmanske and Leo Kahane; Oxford University Press

yo broh, realgm isn't that strict on it's referencing policy.

[driveshaft]

It seems like there is some misunderstanding about my post. I agree with you that +/- is not the one-and-done stat for evaluating a player. It doesn't tell you how well an individual's performance is on the floor (I mentioned that in my post), and PER, TS%, RB%, win shares, and those sort of stats are certainly very useful to determining a player's efficiency. My focus was not on Bargnani's individual stats, there's been enough analysis on it already, and no one is claiming that he's a superstar. Having a high(er) +/- per 48, however, by definition means that a player's team is better on the court when he's playing. In fact, +/- has a very high explanatory power for a team's wins (Berri, David J. “Measuring Performance in the National Basketball Association.” In The Handbook of Sports Economics, eds. Stephen Shmanske and Leo Kahane; Oxford University Press

yo broh, realgm isn't that strict on it's referencing policy.

Ummm... only APA 6th edition formatting is acceptable on RealGM.

Man that is awesome that there are actually posters out there that will cite their sources like that. Where can I get a hold of that reading material, sounds interesting!

[Felixano]

Get out of here with this crap. How the hell does Bargnani still have any supporters? Wtf does BC put in that Kool-Aid?

[StatLine]

He needs to go