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

[007nites]

That Bargnani dude is pretty wack.

..

[timvp]

I don't agree he would be amnestied if Colangelo ever left, but that argument is silly since it's purely hypothetical at this point.

Life is a series of hypotheticals.

I don't think it's a completely awful contract either. It's not a good one, but not terrible

You know it's not good. That's enough for me. I'm not going to argue with you regarding subjective labels such as "awful" and "terrible". I'll let you eat that soup with a fork, tbh.

I don't have a problem with you saying he has negative value

Not good and negative value? That's fine if you want to withhold subjective adjectives. They are subjective for a reason.

wildly overpaid

"Wildly" is also subjective.

some terrible chucker

Subjective.

super inefficient

Subjective.

Bargnani had also shown a lot more high of a ceiling when playing well than a lot of guys in his pay range.

Players who are 27 and in their seventh year shouldn't get bonus points for having a high ceiling. Bustnani is who he is. He's had ~13,000 minutes to prove he's something more than a scorer who puts up empty stats.

The key point is he's paid like a third option on a good team and I do believe with the right guys around him he could be worth that.

Impressive moving of the goal posts while simultaneously disagreeing with everything else you've said

There are lots of guys on bad teams that have nothing else to do but put up shots and get stats and don't sniff 20 PPG.

Again, name names.

Yes, there are a lot of talented guys in the NBA, but if scoring 20 PPG was so easy (not saying there aren't more guys that can do it) then there would be a lot more guys doing it vs just a fraction of the league able to do so.

There can only be a finite number of 20 PPG scorers in the league at one time. Again, scoring a lot of points in the NBA is a combination of skill and opportunity. The opportunity isn't there for the vast majority of players, for various reasons, who have necessary the skill.

One reason Spurs fans witness is the simple fact that one player scoring a lot is simple not needed. Parker and Ginobili could have both been 20 PPG career scorers if they were on teams that needed scoring and didn't care about anything else. , RJ was a damn good scorer the year before he came to the Spurs because he was able to try to score without any any other responsibilities.

You're seriously underestimating the skill of players in the NBA.

[DPG21920]

jester - I don't think anyone is arguing MultiBargs is really good. What's being argued is how good is he compared to those he in his draft class, his contract based on his stats & how inefficient is he really.

[DPG21920]

You are the one saying things subjectively, not me. I listed where he was (a fact) on the all time list for his eFG and TS%'s and 3PT %'s. I also compared him to his draft class counterparts and to his contract counter parts. Those are not subjective. Subjective/hyperbole is saying he's the worst player in the NBA.

Also, you are saying there is only opportunity for about 18 guys in the entire NBA to put up 20 PPG?

How was it moving the goal posts? You said he has a massive contract - I said he's paid like a third option even though he's Canadian Greece's first option for context - is that not true and not a valid statement?

[timvp]

I don't get how anyone thinks Bargnani is good.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...bargnan01.html

He's a big who's career high in Total rebound % is 10.4. That's Terrible for a big, and one of the reasons he's so bad. People complain about Bonners rebounding being bad, but in their career, Bonner is far superior.

He's been above average in terms of win shares once in his career(A brilliant .104), compared to Bonner, who has a career win score minimum of .110. They're similar players as floor spacing bigs, but Bonner dominates him.

If Win Shares isn't your thing, look at Wins produced.

http://www.thenbageek.com/players/co...r=1&player_ids[]=314&player_ids[]=301&utf8=%E2%9C%93

Hey look, Bonner is better, and Bargnani is worse than a replacement level player.

OK, how about plus minus data.

By RAPM(http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/)
Bonner has been better every year since Bargnani's Rookie year, where Bargnani was slightly better. Bargnani has been negative every year.

He's not worth his contract, and is barely worth it if you took a 0 off the end of it. ( I would say he isn't). He has (somewhat) unique skills, but they don't help win games on a consistent basis.

Truth bombs.

Bustnani, by every advanced stat in existence, is a below replacement level player. Meaning if you plucked a random scrub off the street and put him on your team, he'd help your team win more than Bustnani does.

Honestly, I've been nice to Bustnani in this thread. Speaking just from the viewpoint of advanced stats, he's so bad that if he never existed, he'd have put together a finer NBA career.

I'll give him some token credit for having a unique skillset and being able to put together one empty dimension to his game, but he really is damn bad unless you want to judge him on skillset or his hypothetical ceiling.

[DPG21920]

Again, that has never been my argument. The argument has always been:

1) Terrible draft class and he's a top 5-7 player in that draft class.
2) Not a good player, but not as inefficient as you've made him out to be, can score as evidenced by his PPG ranking.
3) Contract is bad - meaning we as fans say "why pay player "x" like that" yet all teams do it including the Spurs. In that context a big man who can crack 20 PPG is not really overpaid considering how the NBA works.

That is it. No one, including myself is arguing he is awesome. He sucks at everything but scoring, but he is talented at that and has shown flashes of being really good at scoring. That's pretty much the extent of it.

[timvp]

1) Terrible draft class and he's a top 5-7 player in that draft class.

True or False: The Raptors would have been better off drafting nobody rather than Bustnani.

You know that's true.

And if that isn't the definition of a bust, I don't know what is. If you have the No. 1 pick in the draft and don't draft a player with a value higher than zero, that player you've drafted is a bust. Fact, tbh.

2) Not a good player, but not as inefficient as you've made him out to be, can score as evidenced by his PPG ranking.

PPG ranking again

Bro this isn't 1997; there are better ways to judge a player other than opening up the newspaper and looking over the PPG leaderboard.

Going by your antiquated way of judging players, Manu has never been good and Duncan and Bargnani are playing at the same level this season.

3) Contract is bad - meaning we as fans say "why pay player "x" like that" yet all teams do it including the Spurs. In that context a big man who can crack 20 PPG is not really overpaid considering how the NBA works.

More "his contract is bad but there are a lot of overpaid players so it's not that bad" bads.

[TD 21]

They did get a top 6 player in the draft.

Not if you count Roy, who before his knees went was the best player in the class. Even if you eliminate him though, they still didn't draft a top five player (Rondo, Aldridge, Millsap, Lowry, Gay). Clear cut number one or not, that's inexplicable.

[DPG21920]

True or False: The Raptors would have been better off drafting nobody rather than Bustnani.

You know that's true.

And if that isn't the definition of a bust, I don't know what is. If you have the No. 1 pick in the draft and don't draft a player with a value higher than zero, that player you've drafted is a bust. Fact, tbh.



PPG ranking again

Bro this isn't 1997; there are better ways to judge a player other than opening up the newspaper and looking over the PPG leaderboard.

Going by your antiquated way of judging players, Manu has never been good and Duncan and Bargnani are playing at the same level this season.

More "his contract is bad but there are a lot of overpaid players so it's not that bad" bads.

You keep going to the PPG well and ignoring all the advanced stats I've posted about his %'s . You also keep using weird logic like "Duncan isn't good because of...". I've already told you my argument about Bargnani and that I don't think he is a very good all around player. I am not looking at his PPG only - I am arguing that you keep saying he is only at that PPG because he is a really inefficient player. His eFG, TS%, career 3PT % and FT% all suggest that simply is not true.

PPG comes into play because he's in the top 20 and you keep saying errrrrrone can do that. I said are you trying to say that only about 18 players in the league have the opp to score 20 PPG? The PPG also comes into play with regards to his efficiency - he's not as inefficient as you have said he is by just looking at his FG% this year.

Also, the context of the league is very important to every argument. Without the basis for what people get of a similar nature, we have no grounds for comparison. The fact is big men get over paid by all franchises. Guys who are top 20 scorers get overpaid. Guys who are both definitely do. Plus, it's not like hes making superstar money. To us, 10M is a lot, but in the league that is 3rd best player on your team money and theres a wide range of how good those players actually are.

[Richie]

DPG, how can you say with a #1 pick a team should be happy to get a top 5-7 player out of that draft, that is disgraceful. If you don't get a top 3 player with the #1, you've failed.

There may be some exceptions, for example you could argue Parker is the #1 player from the 2001 draft but that was as much luck as it was good scouting. If Spurs had a higher pick, they wouldn't have taken him. However, it is flat out awful for a team to draft badly at #1 when there is All-NBA talent taken at #2 like with Bargnani and Aldridge. It's even worse when they are comparable players, i.e. both bigs or both guards.

The same goes for 2001 coincidently, when the Wizards could have taken big men like Chandler or Gasol over Kwame.

It's actually funny to see the quality that the Raptors passed on between 2003-2006. If they had taken the player drafted directly after their selection, they could have had Wade, Iguodala and Aldridge. All were passed on by the Raptors and taken with the next pick.

[timvp]

You keep going to the PPG well

I'm the one trying to lead you away from that well. You just keep going back to it as a reason why it's okay that Bustnani is overpaid or as evidence that Bustnani doesn't completely suck.

You also keep using weird logic like "Duncan isn't good because of...".

What you call weird logic in this instance is the same logic you use to say Bustnani is valuable. I agree it's weird but you don't see it (or refuse to see it) when you use it.

I said are you trying to say that only about 18 players in the league have the opp to score 20 PPG?

That sounds about right. If LeBron James was cloned and every player on every team was LeBron James, there'd still only be about ~20 players in the league averaging 20 PPG.

Think about that for a while, tbh, and start piecing together why that would be the case.

I'm also waiting for you to name names in addition to your answer to my True/False query.

Thanks in advance.

[DPG21920]

I'm the one trying to lead you away from that well. You just keep going back to it as a reason why it's okay that Bustnani is overpaid or as evidence that Bustnani doesn't completely suck.

Wrong. I brought up PPG as in there are not many guys averaging that much and he's in the top 20 but really it's about you saying he's really inefficient when his 3PT%, FT%, eFG and TS% say that is not the case. Am I not correct in saying that he doesn't completely suck because he can at least score in a variety of ways? That does not make him good or impactful, but I don't think he completely sucks because he can score. I think he completely sucks as a number one option, probably as a number two option, but I think he's useful as a mis-match scorer.

I think if he didn't have his offensive talents he would be the worst player in the league, but he does have them so there is some use. I also don't get how you fail to acknowledge the state of the league with regards to his contract/stats. I am glad RC Buford isn't the GM of the Spurs knowing that he would think it's ok to pay a bust like RJ 10M a year.

What you call weird logic in this instance is the same logic you use to say Bustnani is valuable. I agree it's weird but you don't see it (or refuse to see it) when you use it.

Where did I say he was valuable? I simply said he there wasn't many players in that crappy draft that you would kick yourself over for grabbing MultiBargs instead of them. I also said that he's a decent scorer who has some unique offensive talents and is not as inefficient as you make him out to be. I said it's empty stats, but I also said trying to make him your number one option is stupid. I think in a difference situation (a third option with pieces to offset his array of deficiencies, it could have been different).

That sounds about right. If LeBron James was cloned and every player on every team was LeBron James, there'd still only be about ~20 players in the league averaging 20 PPG.

Think about that for a while, tbh, and start piecing together why that would be the case.

I'm also waiting for you to name names in addition to your answer to my True/False query.

Thanks in advance.

No, by your logic, with so many guys (Gary Neal types) able to put up 20 PPG, there should be at a minimum 25-30 guys doing it on a consistent basis. There are a lot of bad teams, a lot of opportunities, a lot of face paced systems...I understand how good these guys are, but I disagree you could basically just plug anyone in and they are 20 PPG scorers. Maybe if you get them unlimited shot attempts, but it's not like Bargnani is shooting an inordinate amount for a number one option on a team. He gets plenty of shots, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Guys like Big Baby who are on terrible teams, with decent offensive ability and no other responsibilities don't put up 20 PPG despite putting up plenty of shots and being on a team devoid of scorers.

[ChumpDumper]

Glen Davis has no other responsibilities?

[timvp]

Glen Davis averages almost two and a half times more rebounds. Try again, tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

Glen Davis averages almost two and a half times more rebounds. Try again, tbh.

But rebounding is not his responsibility.

[DPG21920]

Glen Davis has no other responsibilities?

Bargnani has no other responsibilities?

[DPG21920]

Glen Davis averages almost two and a half times more rebounds. Try again, tbh.

So your question really is which guy that rebounds at the same rate or worse than Bargnani has a chance to score 20 PPG and doesn't? I'm not jumping through hoops for you - the fact you say that everyone can basically average 20 PPG in the NBA is something silly to me since you cannot back that up and only 15 or guys out of everyone does it every year. If it were that easy, at least 30 people or so would do it (1 person per team) because there is plenty of opportunity and players to do so.

How about this - you name everyone who you think if you built an offense around them and gave them 15-18 shots a game, could score 20 PPG if their main role on the team was to score and they wouldn't get yanked for poor defense or rebounding.

Take into consideration the other teams defenders game planning for them and their ability to get their own looks, handle the ball and the way they score.

Oh and the answer is false. They would not be better off not drafting Bargs vs no one. Their mistake was their compounding mistakes and/or after failing to get complimentary players to put Bargs in his proper role to go away from him.

[ChumpDumper]

Bargnani has no other responsibilities?

Your argument is he doesn't.

Pick a lane.

[DPG21920]

Your argument is he doesn't.

Pick a lane.

You're confused. That is Timvp saying Bargnani has no other responsibilities, not me.

Read the thread.

[SpursRock20]

Why is Bargnani getting so much attention? So he scores points on a mediocre team. Bottom line.

And how this relates to the Spurs, I don't know. Maybe DPG is insinuating that he'd be a good fit in San Antonio. That's not the case. The experiment where S.A. brings a capable score who doesn't do much else failed miserably last time with RJ. That wouldn't change with Bargnani.

[ChumpDumper]

You're confused. That is Timvp saying Bargnani has no other responsibilities, not me.

Read the thread.

OK, so your argument is that he has responsibilities in addition to scoring, but Big Baby's only responsibility is to score?

Is that it?

[DPG21920]

OK, so your argument is that he has responsibilities in addition to scoring, but Big Baby's only responsibility is to score?

Is that it?

No, Timvp stated he thought bascially anyone given the opportunity similar to Bargnani (whom he stated only had responsibility to score) could put up 20 PPG. He then asked me to name a name on someone who counters that. I said Big Baby is a guy who is the number one option, on a bad team who can shoot plenty of times and is sub par at defending in a similar role (on a really bad team) who could not do so. He then also said BB rebounds more than Bargnani. Then you chimed in for some reason with something that was not even correct.

Get it?

[ChumpDumper]

No, Timvp stated he thought bascially anyone given the opportunity similar to Bargnani (whom he stated only had responsibility to score) could put up 20 PPG. He then asked me to name a name on someone who counters that. I said Big Baby is a guy who is the number one option, on a bad team who can shoot plenty of times and is sub par at defending in a similar role (on a really bad team) who could not do so. He then also said BB rebounds more than Bargnani. Then you chimed in for some reason with something that was not even correct.

Get it?

I'm not sure this guy does.

Guys like Big Baby who are on terrible teams, with decent offensive ability and no other responsibilities don't put up 20 PPG despite putting up plenty of shots and being on a team devoid of scorers.

Explain it to him.

[DPG21920]

So you still don't get it . I am more patient than you are, so I will explain.

That again, was in response to Timvp saying "Bargnani has no other responsibilities". I said BB is in a similar role/expectations on a bad team as a number one option and doesn't put up the 20 PPG that everyone can do. Just because he happens to be a better rebounder doesn't mean he has any more responsibilities. He certainly is not counted on to anchor a defense or do anything else other than be the first offensive option - much like Bargs. The fact he happens to be a better rebounder doesn't change anything.

Understand yet? Do you realize that Timvp is the one that brought up the no responsibilities issue? Please acknoweldege this?

[DPG21920]

So to dumb it down further for you: If your argument is that anyone with no responsibilities like Bargnani can score 20 PPG (Timvp's argument, not mine since you are confused) and I counter with Big Baby does not do it, that implies BB and Bargnani are in similar roles: Bad teams, number one off option, shoot plenty of times, not good defenders....