smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:The idea that some players don't need to rebound is beyond stupid (to use your language). If you're giving up 4 more rebounds than the average PF, that's gonna give the opponent 4 to 5 more PPG. Then when you take into account him being below average in steals and blocks, we're already at around -6. That would be a tough amount of ground to make up for on offense unless you're one of the top 5 or so players in the game.

While of course you would want rebounding. Rebounding basically leads to possessions which is the goal. Heat were the worst rebounding team in the NBA last yr, Spurs were the 20th. The average PF doesn't average 10rebs a game and Tyson is one of 8-9 centers in the NBA to average 10rebs or more. Then Bargs moves Carmelo back to SF and if Melo puts up his average 6 he would be a top 6 rebounding SF. Knicks were also 12th in defensive rebounding last season but were last in offensive rebounding. It really comes down to limiting turn overs and causing turnovers which seems more impactful which the Knicks did very well last season.

And Bargnani doesn't average 6 rpg. He averaged 3.7 rpg in just under 30 minutes a game last year. Career-wise, he's average 4.8.

I don't expect him to average 3.7 next season. He will probably average 5-6. I like the fit skill wise it has potential sine he is an inside outside threat. 2 inside/outside threats such as Carmelo and Bargs is intriguing. You can run the PNR for Tyson or put the ball in the post for Melo or Bargs. With Melo posting SFs not PFs.

Tyson, Melo, Brewer, Kidd, Felton was the starting lineup for the Knicks in the beginning of the season. Tyson, Bargs, Melo, Shump, Felton is actually a better rebounding lineup then that. Probably a better lineup overall as well.

Well I don't think anyone expected him to average 3.7 last year either, but it happened!

See, this is an example of what I mean when I think you can be slightly misleading with your stats- you sometimes completely ignore context to exaggerate your point. Bargs was injured and gave up last season- you can't seriously use his stats from last year. He's a bad rebounder- just give the stats from a previous year (they're still bad!).

Context is crucial- put Cope in Bargs role the past few seasons and he'd look worse than Bargs and post worse stats. You can post past stats all day, but if a player is being used in an ill fitting role for them, it doesn't mean they won't be better in a better fitting role.

Actually the point is that a player can easily be +/- 1 rebound from his career average in any given year. So it's just as likely that he'll be in the 3 to 4 rebound range as it is that he'll be in the 5 to 6 range NYNY identified. In this case the deviation from his career average was critical to the point.

My issue is that some are throwing around individual peformance statistics to substantiate just how much of a liability that Bargs is to a team. There are several problems with this theory.

1). Basketball is a kinetic, team game. What that means in terms of individual stats is that if your teammates performance can greatly sway the individual performance statistics. A pass that does not come timely or get you in the correct shooting position will effect your ability to make a shot. A pass inside for an open dunk or layup, will give you a freebee. On offense, stats can be greatly effected by who is running the offense. A true pass first PG with great vision will allow his teammates more open (and easier) shots. A lead guard who is more shot first may forego an open look to a teammate. Defensive stats can be effected by rotation or assignment. A slower, plodding big man might be instructed to stay at home to fight every rebound, a swifter athletic tall man, might be given the opportunity to release.

2). Individual stats do not (often) take into account non-compete type play such as garbage time. Think rebounds off a missed free throw, half court shots at the end of each quarter, desperation shots with the clock running down, end of game garbage time etc.

3). Basketball Sabremetrics are still relatively in their infancy. Some statistics are just flawed at this point. For instance, a stat that some like to throw around is TS% or true shooting percentage. The calculation is total points divided by factors of field goals and free throws attempted. The metric is supposedly a function of point efficiency........however it does not differentiate between two and three point shots, has a curious coefficient of .44 to assign to free throws based on number of possessions that free throws account for, but does not have a similar coefficient to account for successful 3 point shot possessions.

4). There are very few statistical "normalizers" in basketball. Essentially this means how would "x" player be expected to perform with a change of team or in the circumstances of "y" player......given "y" players team. Consider for instance that when Lebron James "took his talents" to Miami, in that year his Assist% , win share and offensive win shares all dropped somewhat dramatically with the change from Cleveland to Miami. Does this mean LBJ was not as good? Hardly. It means he was surrounded by better players and did not have to control the offense as much in Miami.

5). Individual stats do not always account for player roles. A bench "role player" might be very efficient for what he is called upon to do. For instance, Novak is a very good spot up three point shooter who at the end of games might be kept on the floor during offensive possessions and pulled during defensive possessions......Jared Jeffries is the opposite type player....good D....pulled during O.

6). Most of us are not statisticians. We are casually pulling and using statistics developed by others and taking it as gospel that these stats tell the entire picture. A mathmetician or statistician would tell you that when using statistics to predict an outome, the more kinetic the environment......meaning the more outside factors at a higher degree of movement, the less probability of a predicted outcome success rate.

Does this all mean AB will be successful in NY? We won't know until we see him on the floor. But those predicting performance will be the same as in Toronto do not know either. In team sports I value team wins over everything else. If the unit is working well and produces wins, it is more valuable to me than if "x" player is a volume shooter or has a lower than average TS%. We won't know if the unit works well until they play together. To predict a player will fail prior to understanding his role and the team on the floor with him is folly.

nyk4ever wrote:all these stats are worthless to me sometimes. use your eyes and watch a player play. does bargs look like 'one of the worst players' in the league when he plays? i mean, really. c'mon.

foosballnick wrote:AB is not a perfect player. I suspect that if he was a very good two way player, he would not be on the Knicks right now. But is he worthless?

My issue is that some are throwing around individual peformance statistics to substantiate just how much of a liability that Bargs is to a team. There are several problems with this theory.

1). Basketball is a kinetic, team game. What that means in terms of individual stats is that if your teammates performance can greatly sway the individual performance statistics. A pass that does not come timely or get you in the correct shooting position will effect your ability to make a shot. A pass inside for an open dunk or layup, will give you a freebee. On offense, stats can be greatly effected by who is running the offense. A true pass first PG with great vision will allow his teammates more open (and easier) shots. A lead guard who is more shot first may forego an open look to a teammate. Defensive stats can be effected by rotation or assignment. A slower, plodding big man might be instructed to stay at home to fight every rebound, a swifter athletic tall man, might be given the opportunity to release.

2). Individual stats do not (often) take into account non-compete type play such as garbage time. Think rebounds off a missed free throw, half court shots at the end of each quarter, desperation shots with the clock running down, end of game garbage time etc.

3). Basketball Sabremetrics are still relatively in their infancy. Some statistics are just flawed at this point. For instance, a stat that some like to throw around is TS% or true shooting percentage. The calculation is total points divided by factors of field goals and free throws attempted. The metric is supposedly a function of point efficiency........however it does not differentiate between two and three point shots, has a curious coefficient of .44 to assign to free throws based on number of possessions that free throws account for, but does not have a similar coefficient to account for successful 3 point shot possessions.

4). There are very few statistical "normalizers" in basketball. Essentially this means how would "x" player be expected to perform with a change of team or in the circumstances of "y" player......given "y" players team. Consider for instance that when Lebron James "took his talents" to Miami, in that year his Assist% , win share and offensive win shares all dropped somewhat dramatically with the change from Cleveland to Miami. Does this mean LBJ was not as good? Hardly. It means he was surrounded by better players and did not have to control the offense as much in Miami.

5). Individual stats do not always account for player roles. A bench "role player" might be very efficient for what he is called upon to do. For instance, Novak is a very good spot up three point shooter who at the end of games might be kept on the floor during offensive possessions and pulled during defensive possessions......Jared Jeffries is the opposite type player....good D....pulled during O.

6). Most of us are not statisticians. We are casually pulling and using statistics developed by others and taking it as gospel that these stats tell the entire picture. A mathmetician or statistician would tell you that when using statistics to predict an outome, the more kinetic the environment......meaning the more outside factors at a higher degree of movement, the less probability of a predicted outcome success rate.

Does this all mean AB will be successful in NY? We won't know until we see him on the floor. But those predicting performance will be the same as in Toronto do not know either. In team sports I value team wins over everything else. If the unit is working well and produces wins, it is more valuable to me than if "x" player is a volume shooter or has a lower than average TS%. We won't know if the unit works well until they play together. To predict a player will fail prior to understanding his role and the team on the floor with him is folly.

very good post and you make a lot of good points.. but when it comes down to it... some things hold true no matter watch, and you can use the most basic statistic and eye test to see this.. Bargnani doesn't rebound.. he plays soft, and he doesn't defend..... That hasn't changed..

misterearl wrote:Brilliant writing on Basketball

Does this all mean AB will be successful in NY? We won't know until we see him on the floor. But those predicting performance will be the same as in Toronto do not know either. In team sports I value team wins over everything else. If the unit is working well and produces wins, it is more valuable to me than if "x" player is a volume shooter or has a lower than average TS%. We won't know if the unit works well until they play together. To predict a player will fail prior to understanding his role and the team on the floor with him is folly

The potential acquisition of Udrih changes the Knicks playing personality significantly. The intellectual ability of Jason Kidd is replaced by a taller veteran who can shoot from outside, get into the lane and create a shot and make the pass mid-step.

Our second shift is a rare blend of experience, length and yoots.

Thank you foosballnick

absolutely none of what you wrote is true.. Udrih changes nothing. This team is coached by woodson and he enables carmelo and JR to do what they do.. that won't change..

Jason kidd was on his last legs but he was one of if not the knicks best player for a good portion of the first half of the season.. saying you are replacing his intellectual ability with a taller veteran who can shoot makes no sense.. Kidd not only hit the 3 early, but a ball mover and a leader..All of this Bargnani is a shooter who can get into the lane, create a shot, make the pass mid-step, is just a complete overstatement of his abilities.. I mean heck, it sounds like you are talking about lebron... I really wish you inject some reality into your post, I understand the enthusiasm, but there is a fine line between that and delusion.. you tend to cross it.. You did so with ronnie Brewer and countless others...

Our second shift is a rare blend of experience, length and yoots.

I know you can't be serious with this, are you? I mean seriously dude.. you can't be serious at all about this statement... what team are you looking at... I mean even the biggest fan and homer can't take this seriously... I often wonder if you are being serious or this is just your schtick..... no offense, and i am not trying to take a dig at you, but at least I know where you are coming from...

yellowboy90 wrote:bottom line: Bargnarni was a bad trade and will not be an efficient shooter or increase his rebounding. Also, his defense eill be exposed. Game over

nyk4ever wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:that's great proof bonn, it's now settled.

It's not proof per se. It's an example of a problem that there is unambiguous evidence of: his butter finger rebounding hurts his teams. Do you know the difference between an example and proof? The proof is in the data. The video footage gives illustrations of the problems identified in the data.

one youtube clip doesn't mean anything. you could find a youtube clip of kobe doing the same thing and manipulate it to "prove" the same point you're attempting to "prove" now. how many times have you watched him play? just against the knicks? once a week, once a month? never? do you just watch stats play or do you watch players play? or do you just go back and watch ****ty youtube clips so you can attempt to make a point?

you can have all the stats you want in the world, thats your prerogative, but it's silly. especially when you call andrea bargnani one of the worst players in the nba. no, that's not silly, it's stupidity.

ChuckBuck wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:that's great proof bonn, it's now settled.

It's not proof per se. It's an example of a problem that there is unambiguous evidence of: his butter finger rebounding hurts his teams. Do you know the difference between an example and proof? The proof is in the data. The video footage gives illustrations of the problems identified in the data.

one youtube clip doesn't mean anything. you could find a youtube clip of kobe doing the same thing and manipulate it to "prove" the same point you're attempting to "prove" now because it "illustrates data." how many times have you watched him play? just against the knicks? once a week, once a month? never? do you just watch stats play or do you watch players play? or do you just go back and watch ****ty youtube clips so you can attempt to make a point?

you can have all the stats you want in the world, thats your prerogative, but it's silly. especially when you call andrea bargnani one of the worst players in the nba. no, that's not silly, it's stupidity.

+1

You support the failed eyeball test as the sole evaluation of players. Why don't you just put a default +1 to every criticism of stats in your sig? It would save time!