Moderators: 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, DG88, HiJiNX
10DeRozan10 wrote:MEDIC wrote:Not surprising. I've always said Bargnani was our best 1 on 1 post defender. Ed & Amir are just too small.
Like others have said.....it's the help defense that is the problem.
I presume you mean physically?
Height and length wise Davis isn't small at all.
Double Helix wrote:Yes, DK, but as was revealed in that thread... The vast majority of the 'off' includes our Raptors bench going up against another team's bench. The Raptors the past few years, save CB, had benches that nearly rivaled the starting lineup. BC has always been one to build strong benches but our starters have only been marginally better so they all get lit up against other team's starters. Even Bosh's best season on record was only a + 6. On other teams with 4 other starters much better than his bench he'd have been in the double digits. This aspect complicates on/off and you really should have explained as much before posting the data. Alas, this is a synergy situational discussion, not an on/off discussion.
Nothingface wrote:Death Knight wrote:
Well I pointed this out in the other Bargnani thread. On/off court stats pts per 100 possessions.
With Bargnani
Offense: 107.7
Defense: 115.6
Net: -7.9
Without Bargnani
Offense: 104.2
Defense: 109.5
Net: -5.3
Raptors close that spread much better without Bargnani. A little less scoring, but much better defense, which still isn't good being negative either way.
All that means to me is that in the less than 12 minutes a game Bargs is not on the floor, our scrubs to a bit better than their scrubs.
Another stat
Winning percentage this year in games Bargnani does not play: .125
Double Helix wrote:ISO = Isolation plays. How well does the player defend isolations? Lower the number the better.
Post-Up = How well does the player defend the post when being posted-up? Lower the number the better.
Spot-Up = How well does the player defend PFs or Cs shooting the ball. Do they challenge the shot? Do they sit back? How often do they allow opponents to score in this way? Lower the number the better.
Pick and Roll Man: I didn't record these at first due to an error and then I didn't have the time to go back and add them in. This one is probably the closest thing you'll see to anything help related on Synergy.
Obviously, help defence is an extremely important part of the defensive puzzle when you're trying to guage what players do on the defensive end but shot blockers gamble a lot and that, too, can overrate defenders.
I completely agree that the results are shocking but it's been like this all year long with Synergy. Everybody was shocked to see that Batum wasn't an amazing defender either but Synergy has no bias, no emotional attachment to any player and no agenda.
Anybody who isn't even remotely rattled by some of these results needs to look at themselves in the mirror because this company betters anything we think we know about defenders in the NBA. How often are some of you going to hold onto this idea that Bargnani is easily the worst defender in the NBA when he clearly is not? We can argue till we're blue in the face about the importance of help defence and how hard that is to quantify statistically but if you don't see any value in seeing results this well-recorded across multiple teams and all situations then I guess you only like statistics that show the players you like in a favorable light.
See, that's the difference between me and some of you on here. Time and time again I've been willing to admit and show that Bargnani is below average in many ways but the minute you start seeing other names in the same range as him (when it was Lopez's rebounding average this year or some of the defensive statistics now) it's always... "Well, that's 'cause of _________. It doesn't matter." These stats still show Bargnani as a poor defender. I didn't post them because I thought he looked great; he doesn't. But, for months people have been saying that he's far and away the worst starter in the NBA and he clearly isn't.
Too Late Crew wrote:Yippee he's not the worst at something! I knew there was something I liked about that guy.
BorisDK1 wrote:Synergy is completely out to lunch. I hate to sound so dogmatic and arrogant by saying that, but they're doing a poor job of tracking because what they look at is so narrow.
Bargnani has been brutal this year. He's not even putting the effort forward in guarding his own position, let alone anything else. I have him with a stop% of .452 this year, down from .552 last year: he's getting his ass beaten on a regular basis, he guards the opponents' worst big man and still can't be bothered to play anything looking like effective one-on-one defense. Our ball screens with him involved are the easiest things in the world to score against, and if people want to believe tracking only direct post-ups negates any of that, they're on really, really thin ice.
Scott Carefoot wrote: Get back to me when Bargnani plays 30 minutes per game on an above-average defensive team (Hint: It will never happen) and then we can talk.
BorisDK1 wrote:Synergy is completely out to lunch. I hate to sound so dogmatic and arrogant by saying that, but they're doing a poor job of tracking because what they look at is so narrow.
Bargnani has been brutal this year. He's not even putting the effort forward in guarding his own position, let alone anything else. I have him with a stop% of .452 this year, down from .552 last year: he's getting his ass beaten on a regular basis, he guards the opponents' worst big man and still can't be bothered to play anything looking like effective one-on-one defense. Our ball screens with him involved are the easiest things in the world to score against, and if people want to believe tracking only direct post-ups negates any of that, they're on really, really thin ice.
il7mago wrote:BorisDK1 wrote:Synergy is completely out to lunch. I hate to sound so dogmatic and arrogant by saying that, but they're doing a poor job of tracking because what they look at is so narrow.
Bargnani has been brutal this year. He's not even putting the effort forward in guarding his own position, let alone anything else. I have him with a stop% of .452 this year, down from .552 last year: he's getting his ass beaten on a regular basis, he guards the opponents' worst big man and still can't be bothered to play anything looking like effective one-on-one defense. Our ball screens with him involved are the easiest things in the world to score against, and if people want to believe tracking only direct post-ups negates any of that, they're on really, really thin ice.
No matter how you look at it, stats never tell the whole story.
Maybe your stats are deeper than Synergy's, but there will always be a part of the story that you won't be able to tell.
On the other hand, I like new stats.
Classic stats have been around so long, now, that some players play the game with a virtual statsheet in their mind. Adding one in the rebounding column everytime they grab a rebound, checking the double-double box when they get their 10'th assist. Don't tell me some players don't use stats to their advantage, by disregarding aspects of the game that don't appear on statsheets.
These new stats will change how we rate players, especially the ones we don't get to watch often.
But like any new stats, players will get used to it and learn how to skew them in their favour.
Can you blame them? Their salary is decided by their stats because of guys like Cuban. The whole thing is up for debate, in my opinion.
LodzBaluty wrote:According to these numbers, Chicago bulls fans are out to lunch benching Boozer in the last few minutes.
He is a stopper, even better than Andrea.
il7mago wrote:No matter how you look at it, stats never tell the whole story.
Maybe your stats are deeper than Synergy's, but there will always be a part of the story that you won't be able to tell.
On the other hand, I like new stats.
Classic stats have been around so long, now, that some players play the game with a virtual statsheet in their mind. Adding one in the rebounding column everytime they grab a rebound, checking the double-double box when they get their 10'th assist. Don't tell me some players don't use stats to their advantage, by disregarding aspects of the game that don't appear on statsheets.
These new stats will change how we rate players, especially the ones we don't get to watch often.
But like any new stats, players will get used to it and learn how to skew them in their favour.
Can you blame them? Their salary is decided by their stats because of guys like Cuban. The whole thing is up for debate, in my opinion.
