Game Thread: Spurs @ Raptors - Nov. 25, 2012 @ 12 PM CST

[ChumpDumper]

So your argument is that there are players in the NBA like Glen Davis who have no responsibilities other than scoring, it's just that Glen Davis isn't one of those players.

OK.

[DPG21920]

So your argument is that there are players in the NBA like Glen Davis who have no responsibilities other than scoring, it's just that Glen Davis isn't one of those players.

OK.

I honestly don't know what you are saying. I'm not being obtuse, I just think you are so confused you don't even know what you are saying since you were so wrong about me saying the no responsibility thing when it was Timvp. Messed you all sorts of up.

I didn't say Glen Davis had no responsibilities by myself. I said in response to Timvp saying Bargs has no responsibilities, so he can score 20 PPG just like any other NBA player in the same situation - that Big Baby can't do it. I can't dumb this down any more for you.

Last try - I am not losing patience I am just tired of speaking about it, so if you continue to be confused, I will try again tomorrow to dumb it down more so you can get it: Boiled down, I just tried to name a guy who is a number one offensive option for a bad team that can't score 20 PPG with ample opportunity like Bargs does.

[ChumpDumper]

I honestly don't know what you are saying.You don't seem to know what you are saying at times like this tbh.

[DPG21920]

Damn, I really was hopeful you would first admit you were wrong about me being the one saying the "no responsibilities" thing when it was Timvp & then after admitting you were wrong, you would really get it. I'll try again later if you can't figure it out.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, the one thing we can all agree on is you never, ever get trolled.

[DPG21920]

Who said det? Congrats - you trolled me.

See you at P.Terry's at the usual time this week?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't go there weekly.

[99 Problems]

2/19. He only missed 17, stop the focus on 19, it's blinding you people.

[will_spurs]

I think we can all agree that Manu generally sucks so far this season, even though he has his moments.

This being said Manu shoots 38.1% (FG) and 25.5% (3P) with a TS% of 50.6 and an eFG% of 43.8 for .085 win shares.
Bustnani numbers so far are 38.6% (FG) and 33.8% (3P) with a TS% of 47.7 and an eFG% of 43.2 for .028 win shares.

I guess we've just stumbled on a "top 20 scorer" who sucks more than Manu this year.

And to put his 33.8% 3-point shooting (about his only "strength" this season) in perspective, both Parker and Duncan shoot better than that from beyond the arc this season.

Bustnani is a joke and there's no two ways about it.

[Mel_13]

130 players 7' or taller have played at least 100 games in NBA history.

Andrea ranks 128th out of 130 in total rebounding percentage. His career rebounding percentage is 9.5 compared to 10.9 for Bonner. #1 pick in the draft, 7' feet tall, and doesn't rebound as well as Matt Bonner.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=84&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=g&c1comp=gt&c1val=100&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct&order_by_asc=&offset=100

[DPG21920]

^ These are things we know and no one has argued he is a good rebounder. In fact, we have all agreed he sucks at everything but scoring.

[DPG21920]

I think we can all agree that Manu generally sucks so far this season, even though he has his moments.

This being said Manu shoots 38.1% (FG) and 25.5% (3P) with a TS% of 50.6 and an eFG% of 43.8 for .085 win shares.
Bustnani numbers so far are 38.6% (FG) and 33.8% (3P) with a TS% of 47.7 and an eFG% of 43.2 for .028 win shares.

I guess we've just stumbled on a "top 20 scorer" who sucks more than Manu this year.

And to put his 33.8% 3-point shooting (about his only "strength" this season) in perspective, both Parker and Duncan shoot better than that from beyond the arc this season.

Bustnani is a joke and there's no two ways about it.

I think you are confused. People are saying Manu is struggling because he's off to a rough start this year shooting. They aren't saying he is an inefficient chucker for his career because of his rough start to this year.

Bargnani is struggling as well as those numbers are below his normal numbers shooting-wise to start this year. You are coming in on a debate later on without understanding what is actually being debated (vs what has already had been discussed a long time ago). Just because you know where to look up some stats doesn't mean you get what's going on :lol

No one is arguing Bargs is a good player. What was argued from the beginning were only these topics:

1) Was he a draft bust
2) Is he a really inefficient scorer
3) Is his contract terrible


That's it. Posting his shooting numbers this year, vs Manu's to start the year means nothing, nor does randomly posting his win share stats.

[Mel_13]

1) Was he a draft bust
2) Is he a really inefficient scorer
3) Is his contract terrible

Yes, yes, and yes.

[DPG21920]

Well, there you go then. There is your take. I just disagree that a guy who is top 20 in the league in scoring, a top 6 player from his draft and a guy who is paid like the average 20 PPG scorer is yes to all those questions. If you want to debate whether not the norm in the NBA is a good thing :lol, that is something else entirely.

[Mel_13]

Well, there you go then. There is your take. I just disagree that a guy who is top 20 in the league in scoring, a top 6 player from his draft and a guy who is paid like the average 20 PPG scorer is yes to all those questions. If you want to debate whether not the norm in the NBA is a good thing :lol, that is something else entirely.

I wouldn't debate points 1 and 3 with you because I don't agree with the standards that you've set on either of those points, (i.e., I don't accept the notion that even if Bargnani was a top 6 player in the 2006 draft, he can't still be a bust nor do I accept the notion that the existence of NBA contracts even more putrid than Bargnani's means that his contract is not terrible). However, those are your opinions based on your standards and there is no useful purpose in debating those points any further.

As to point 2, however, how do you defend the notion that Bargnani is an efficient scorer?

[DPG21920]

Fair enough on points 1 & 3. On point two, I am not trying to say he is a really efficient scorer, just that he is not a really inefficient one as stated by some. If you look at FG% alone, you may come to that conclusion. I however do not just look at that stat when I make a determination. I look at a combo of FG%, FT%, 3PT%, eFG & TS%. When you start to examine those for Bargnani's career it points to a guy who is a solid, but not spectacular scorer from an efficiency perspective. His issue (again a different debate) is that he shoots a decent amount of 3 pointers (even though for his career he shoots at a very respectable clip - especially for a big man) vs constantly operating in the low block. However, for a guy who shoots so many 3's, he gets the line a fair amount and converts at an extermely solid clip.


And while I agree with you in theory about the contract argument, we know that is not reality. Hence me laughing at the "thank God DPG is not the GM of the Spurs" when in fact the actual GM of the Spurs has handed out similar putrid contracts.

[Mel_13]

On point two, I am not trying to say he is a really efficient scorer, just that he is not a really inefficient one as stated by some.

I'll just accept this at face value. You've already agreed that he sucks at everything but scoring and the best you can say about his scoring is that he's not really inefficient.

So where does that leave us.

1. The player is terrible rebounder, not just below average, but historically bad.

2. By the most generous estimations, the player is a below average defender.

3. The player's scoring efficiency, at best, is somewhere around that of an average NBA player.

These are things are all things that you've agreed to in this thread. These are also things that combine to describe a below average NBA player. No need to make a case that he's a scrub or the worst player in the NBA, but there is clear and compelling evidence that he is definitely a below average player.

And that is my standard for answering yes to points 1 and 3. IMO, when the #1 overall pick in the draft is used on a below average NBA player, that pick is a bust. Further, when you sign a below average NBA player to a 50 million dollar contract, that is a terrible contract.

[DPG21920]

I generally agree - my only point ever was that his one useful skill just so happened to be decently valuable, especially for his size. It was also that with perhaps a different circumstance, things might have been different (better team, complimentary pieces, put in his proper role...), but that is all speculation on my part.

His issue is he has not developed a mid-range game. He actually finishes at the rim pretty well, hit's FT's and shoots the 3 ball well. Only thing dragging him down from being a really elite scorer is that 15-20 foot shot. Back when this argument was going on a year or two ago, he had shown some pretty nice all around flashes (with the exception of rebounding) that led me to believe he was a pretty legit scorer (although never really elite).

The contract issue again boils down to what happens in reality vs theory.

[Mel_13]

The contract issue again boils down to what happens in reality vs theory.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find nothing theoretical about my position. A 50 million contract for a below average NBA player is a terrible contract. That there exist other contracts that are as bad, or even worse, does not change the reality that his contract is terrible.

[DPG21920]

I am not disagreeing entirely - again, it's just that even though it's a terrible contract, it's pretty standard for a top 20 scorer (efficient or not) and a quasi-alive big man as well.

[Mel_13]

I am not disagreeing entirely - again, it's just that even though it's a terrible contract, it's pretty standard for a top 20 scorer (efficient or not) and a quasi-alive big man as well.

I agree.

[TampaDude]

Helluva game...TP was $$$ as usual.

GO SPURS GO!!!!!

[therealtruth]

Bargnani is an extremely poor man's Dirk. He's got all the skills to be better than Dirk but isn't. He's more athletic and can probably shoot as well.

[will_spurs]

He's got all the skills to be better than Dirk but isn't.

:lmao

[Obstructed_View]

Your argument is he doesn't.

Pick a lane.

You're getting confused. Time for you to stop trying to help LJ. He can manage without you.

[Obstructed_View]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find nothing theoretical about my position. A 50 million contract for a below average NBA player is a terrible contract. That there exist other contracts that are as bad, or even worse, does not change the reality that his contract is terrible.

A one million dollar contract to a guy who shoots a basketball is terrible. A guaranteed contract to a person who can be injured at any point is terrible. If you aren't going to bother comparing your definition of insanity to what's actually happening in the league, then they're all terrible contracts.


IMO, when the #1 overall pick in the draft is used on a below average NBA player, that pick is a bust.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :)

[Mel_13]

A one million dollar contract to a guy who shoots a basketball is terrible. A guaranteed contract to a person who can be injured at any point is terrible. If you aren't going to bother comparing your definition of insanity to what's actually happening in the league, then they're all terrible contracts.



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :)

I did and I do.