FluLikeSymptoms wrote:
- I get this game, I see who does what and which groups do what, so save the condescending tone. I'd put my comprehension and posting record next anyone's and feel good about it. Go ahead and critique my grammar, you can have that. Your tone is not justified, accidental, or a positive. Never seen you post anything positive- didn't even see any schadenfreude when Bargnani got hurt!
- I definitely believe that there is a checklist of sorts when you're constructing a roster, particularly when it comes to players # 4-12. Of course there is, but you're in the vast majority who does not believe that. Judging individuals is far easier than judging groups. Dynamics, synergy, adjustments, matchups- more of the same good thing is not neccesarily better, duplication is often worse unless you're duplicating complete players.
- Most teams do not have stretch bigs, not because they don't want or need them, but because they are rare and they usually do nothing thing else at all- this thread is about Bargnani dong something else. But most good teams do have one in the rotation, as have most champions going back to the bad boys. Many had pivots, some had drivers, some had both. KL's driving is his best mode, Rudy's posting is his, Demar's posting is his, JV/Amir on the PnR is theirs- a stretch big absolutely helps this particular roster. Why do you think we're a low% iso pull-up team? No space, and our top players can't do what they do best. Demar is shining because he's mooching off Rudy's attention, and we're losing because it's bad basketball.
But keeping a player around whose net contribution is bad simply because they kinda sorta fit a possible need doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if you believe that a stretch four is valuable, that stretch four then has to be able to actually fulfill the duties of that role...it should be a player who does their best work off the ball, and knocks down threes at a high rate. Instead, Bargnani is a player who posts high usage rates, and shoots threes at some of the lowest percentages of any high-volume shooter.
- AB played well in his first couple games off the bench. Then, he sucked. Was he started for sulking at coming off the bench? Did BC want to see him play with Rudy? Did DC want spacing? I would say sulking was the least likely reason he started.
His effort off the bench (3.9 points and 1.4 rebounds in 20 minutes in the eight games preceding the move, with some of the most disinterested defense of his career) was appalling, and Casey himself said that they were starting him to get him going.
- Your PF is absolutely not always a defensive anchor. Look at the championship Mavs, Dirk is a worse defender than AB. Teams go 4-around-1 all the time, SF/PF are becoming as close as SG/SF used to be. Bargnani is not just a good post defender, he's a good 1v1 defender everywhere- that's what half this study, and the half thread is about: his defence when 5ft from the ball, not the hoop. Better when in shape, obviously. Yes, you can put him on a scoring big. When we do, it works when AB's help is exposed, it's because they've gone away from his man.
But the vast majority of plays are going to be away from his man these days. This isn't a league where teams run a post-up to a 280lb sack o' muscle twenty times per game, whether the guy underneath the basket is Bargnani or Aaron Gray.
And if a player has an easily exploited flaw that teams are consistently taking advantage of off penetration, it's not a victory to have steered them to use more possessions in that manner. Guards getting by guards is a reality in this league, and the help defense from the interior is determined in part by the side of the floor on which the play is run.
No one would ever confuse Dirk with an all-world defender, but he was always competent at reading the play and getting into a decent defensive position. The utility of simply doing that, of simply forcing a guard to shoot a six-foot pull-up rather than laying it off the glass, is really underrated.
- Novak's D? Like Novak, Bargnani doesn't leave his man at all, that's the problem, and Novak can't stay with anyone fast or strong. Bargnani is the king of the look-how-tall-I-am defence, better than Bosh ever was on the ball and in that regard. Novak is an elite shooter who knows his role, but, again, if Bargnani's role changed he could help in more ways and hopefully hit as well previously did in that role, while Bosh was here. Bosh was the reason he camped out, and AB helped Bosh put up his monster numbers. But you again ignored the role change and brought up his latest 3pt shooting numbers. He's still guarded out there, and when you're drawing out a big (nobody puts 3s on him anymore) I think you don't have to hit as high of a rate anyway, drawing the big helps the offence so much. 35%+ is fine, I think he can get back there with more legs, a healed arm and that focus. I might be wrong.
It really does not help that much, because the big will start to sag off if he isn't hitting the shots with regularity...and will sag off even more as the book on us becomes 'their wings do not pass'.
As for Bosh v. Bargs, the difference is that Bosh was able to get in front of the ball-handler with his hands up whether it was his man or a midget dribbling into the lane. Bargs does just one of those two things.
-I know what this thread is about. You initially dismissed the topic. As I said, it's fair to question the study, context is the goal. I did, and do. Heck, sportVU is only employed in half of the arenas. But there's nothing about on/off in the paper, maybe someone tweeted something? On/off is still loaded with variables, and I don't think it's a valid statistical response to AB's opposing FG% when he's 5 feet from his man. Your counter was more of a lash.
No, my counter was pointing out how granular accounting of specific situations like this can sometimes give you a less than full picture of a player's net contribution. Bargs' on/off splits are so markedly bad, and for so long, and in so many roles, and on teams both good and bad defensively, that the only conclusion which can be drawn is that there's something about his presence that negatively affects a team's ability to stop their opponents from scoring. Something that I, and god knows how many others before, have expounded on with a combination of other statistical measures and simple observation.
-I think every player in the 1st part of the study, the part which applies to D 5ft from the hoop, has been playing most of their minutes at C for the past 2 years which were covered, whether they started there or didn't. AB has barely played C at all in the past two years under Casey, not until he returned from his last injury, and for good reason. So he's not among the 52. I don't know why the distinction was not mentioned. Maybe I missed it.
Actually, he plays as much center as power forward defensively, if your primary determinant there is the player assigned to guard the opposing team's center. The PF/C distinction is often matchup-dependent, which is why it doesn't have that much utility in deeming one player a primary help option and another a tolerable hole.
-In the 2nd portion of the study (which seems to include PFs), yes, AB ranks 90 of 93 in % of shots faced within 5ft of his man, or 21.9% of the time (Bynum was 88, Howard 83, Horford 84). But number 1 was Harrellson at 35.9%. They're saying that the big who got 5ft and closer to his opposing shooter most did so just more than a 3rd of the time. Larry Sanders (love him), who they suggest is the #1 defender studied, did so 32.5% of the time. 2/3rds of the time, he was more than 5ft away from his responsibility? What?
-Harrellson was tops in 3ft defensive presence at 22.3%. Amir was #2 in % shots he faced while 1ft from his man, at 2.9%? Dwight was at 1.2%? I don't know about that collection. Is every 4/5 daring every other to shoot wide open Js and allowing open dunks? Garnett is 5ft away only 29% of the time, as was last year's DPOY? Howard is at 23.9? I know post-ups are down, it seems like they're not accounting for switches or help D or anything. I would pretty much throw this part away and only concentrate on when defenders were within 5ft of their man, seems more applicable to 1v1 D. If he was there, he was there and you can measure it. I don't think the not-there part is represented well at all.
You're misreading the stats. Those are the percentage of shots taken by the shooter, whoever that shooter might be, that occurred within X distance of the player. Not specifically their man. So one-third of the time, Sanders was in close proximity to whoever had the ball when they took the shot. It's a measure of activity.
-I think that all we conclude from this study re: Bargnani is that his man doesn't shoot well at all when he's within 5 feet of him, these guys have him at .3 % off the best big in the study. He looks good to the eye. The greater than 5ft numbers seem way off for everyone, we do know that AB doesn't leave his man, that's the problem. We know he's out to lunch when it comes to help, I've never seen anything like his lowlights (which I feel some count doubly for ugliness), though he stepped it up in his last couple games.
Our disagreement seems to stem from the usage of Bargnani going forward, which remains the most important thing for me. I want the guy to play about 25 minutes or so in a role which suits his strengths, like any role player should, in the role he played as a rook with more 1v1 responsibility. I think he can help more than an attainable target could. I think he can guard somebody and space, that the other jobs could be covered as he covers the ones currently open, and that his 3pt shooting could/should come back if that's all he's asked to do. His shot looked great the other day from 3, with the higher arc/more legs we discussed, and his defensive awareness showed a pulse. I'm not saying he be a top option or play 35+ locked in as a starter. Maybe he's gone, maybe not- I would say that his chances of remaining a Raptor would be much higher if BC/DC (blunderstruck?) are replaced. I'm sure anyone else coming in would think they could get more out of him than for him.
I just don't think that a player whose primary attributes are preventing roughly 1-2 baskets per game by his man, while being a no-show on help, and spacing the floor while missing more than two-thirds of his threes contributes significant strengths.
What role is it that you envision for him that plays to his strengths, and doesn't leave him as a liability when seeing the court for 25 minutes per game?
