Lionel Messi wrote:
What's sad is that we ALL know Bargs' help D is terrible, but now we're finding out that he is one of the worst man to man defenders as well?
The thing is, we're not just finding out.
It's been there to see all along.
The way the argument evolved was interesting to watch, but didn't actually mean anything. It went from his great potential to his Man D is better than his help D (true.) This was repeated so often it morphed into 'his Man D is average, his help D sucks/needs improvement'...which gradually became 'his man D is okay, his help D needs work'...then the halcyon days of 'his man D is among the best, his help D is just average'...and now it's sort of settled back at 'man D average/help D needs improvement'.
But the fact that these have been repeated so often by his/Raps fans does not and never has made them true.
Forget that it was discounted by what those of us less impressed with him saw...personal observations are unreliable in the extreme when unsupported/contradicted by objective data. What was consistent was the degree to which the less critical 'man d' take was refuted by whatever data there was. Always. Team was much worse with him on the floor than off, and it's not like he was being subbed by Deke. Opposing players always had big PER/etc. I remember creating a thread way back asking people to observe the trend that mediocre 5's would be go to guys against us to start games...guys like Perkins and Gasol (as he was at the time) etc. would e 4 of 5 in the first quarter, with fouls drawn, etc. until we'd adjust, open the middle, and it would start raining.
And after my thread it happened in the next 5 or 6 games, and many people either ignored it or chalked it up to bad support/fluke shots...'they just made tough shots', etc.
And it always comes back to the same arguments:
*the data is biased against Bargs
*those compiling the data are biased against Bargs
*those quoting the data are biased against Bargs
*Bargs teammates/coaches failed to support him properly, making him look worse defensively than he is.
*some sample of a few plays or games or weeks somehow was more representative of reality than the whole.
...or, my personal favorite, 'You're obsessed with stats. Try watching the game."
The latter, of course, assuming that people who support their opinions with data have no opinions outside data. Inverted logic. And ridiculous. Of course there are times when data fails as a complete argument. Often. But to suggest you can consistently contradict it by virtue of 'watching games' is silly, and incredibly open to bias. It's an empty argument.
"Mugsy Bogues is better post player than Shaq."
My statement. Any data you raise to disprove it will be met with rolled eyes and an appeal for you to watch more games and not rely on stats to tell you what's what. Any observation about accomplishments likewise, with caveats about how Bogues was misused by his coaches, and not fed the ball enough in the post by his jealous teammates.
See how easy it is?
It's a non-argument.
But I imagine this latest data about Bargs will follow the same pattern. Those who already knew will not be al that affected by confirmation, and those who have succeeded thus far in turning a blind eye will continue to do so by the same means.
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.
