callmened wrote:1. just because you use stats doesnt make your argument concrete. For the confounding factors, i mentioned, id argue they make things less concrete

2. I think we both agree that its all about HOW bargnani is used. last yr he was used poorly i agree. i cant defend woody or the lineups he used

3. i think bargnani can help a team, hes too skilled offensively however i also have to acknowledge that hes awful defensively. Now maybe a lineup can work where he comes off the bench. i think hed be better used defending lesser offensive talent than defensive ones

4. I refuse to blame bargnani for why the team lost. hes not significant enough to blame for any team's fate on him. the team lost for several reasons but hes far down the list. so please dont put me in that category of blaming bargnani for the bad season. all i can say was that it was a stupid trade giving up those picks. thats not his fault though. bargnani can be used...and at $11 million he probably should be. my point is that - i think he could be best used off the bench.

5. i also think STAT should be off the bench for the same reason. all offense & NO defense! but i agree, just dont pair him with bargnani some how

6. You gave a perfect example of Udrih. was/is he a bad player? NOPE. he was just used incorrectly. What was his +/-? i dont know?!!? all i know is when he was on memphis he helped them alot

Overall = i value defensive players over offensive players (especially when our best offensive player is so lazy on defense). Shumpert is a horrible offensive player but i value his defense, therefore he should start. Hardaway is going to be a great offensive player but until he learns defense (challenging shots), he shouldnt start. good teams set the tone DEFENSIVELY FIRST, then they can bring offensive sparkplugs off the bench.

now thats my opinion...is it fact? right? wrong? nope. just an opinion

3	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | R. Felton | K. Martin | I. Shumpert	  145:51    +7.0
6	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | R. Felton | I. Shumpert | J. Smith	  126:11    +10.8

The success of these lineups proves my point. It was in fact possible to play PLUS basketball with Bargnani on the floor. Woody simply didn't see what the ingredients to that success was.

So yes defense is very important, but it's half the game. You can also win with efficient and dominant offense as has been the case with many champions. We're basically moving to an offense that is closer to what the Spurs do. Constant ball and player movement, leading to prime scoring opportunities. If you do that and play decent D you can win. IMO with good coaching Bargnani won't be a detriment to winning.

PS what was landry fields +/-? i remember one yr it was mad high and people were annointing him the savior. what if he was just in the right place at the right time? who knows?

PSS any line up with ray and bargnani on the floor meant disaster. teams knew the knicks would switch and would pick on bargnani with their PGs or ray with their big men. if the +/- was high for ray and bargnani, it just tells me that the other team missed their shots/opportunities. i like stats (i have a masters in epidemiology. lol) but they tell some of the story. i can shred theories based on stats to pieces but thats not my original point. my point was that im concerned about bargnani and his bad defense (as well as JR and STAT). they should be hidden on the bench

callmened wrote:good coaching, the triangle and jose calderon will help bargnani on offense. Like i said, ill never be concerned about his offense..at 7ft hes a gifted offensive player. its the defense im concerned about. and its not just with him, its with most of the team. Im tired of these one way players like melo, stat, JR, shump, tyson and now bargs. i think this team has more offensive minded players than defensive players. Id rather replace them with defensive players because: 1) the triangle will create offense its self 2) we really suck on defense. Thats why i like the signing of smith, dalembert and hopefully jones. this team needs more defense! the triangle will take care of the offense

PS what was landry fields +/-? i remember one yr it was mad high and people were annointing him the savior. what if he was just in the right place at the right time? who knows?

PSS any line up with ray and bargnani on the floor meant disaster. teams knew the knicks would switch and would pick on bargnani with their PGs or ray with their big men. if the +/- was high for ray and bargnani, it just tells me that the other team missed their shots/opportunities. i like stats (i have a masters in epidemiology. lol) but they tell some of the story. i can shred theories based on stats to pieces but thats not my original point. my point was that im concerned about bargnani and his bad defense (as well as JR and STAT). they should be hidden on the bench

Except that the notion that Bargs is a gifted scorer is also a myth! He's a gifted scorer from one place, midrange/PnP. Everywhere else he is subpar. Take a look at his career TS% and eFG%. Both are not good. He chucks from 3 and he had exactly one season with decent numbers from 3. His overall numbers are not good for someone who is supposedly an offensive talent. The fact is he is inefficient shooter. Aka, a chucker.

Sure, maybe the triangle is the thing that's gonna save his career. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:isaster. teams knew the knicks would switch and would pick on bargnani with their PGs or ray with their big men. if the +/- was high for ray and bargnani, it just tells me that the other team missed their shots/opportunities. i like stats (i have a masters in epidemiology. lol) but they tell some of the story. i can shred theories based on stats to pieces but thats not my original point. my point was that im concerned about bargnani and his bad defense (as well as JR and STAT). they should be hidden on the bench

I don't know WTF you're talking about. Over the course of an entire season it's not possible that the other team's just "missed their shots/opportunities". That's the reason you don't just do a small sample size. The lineups I listed were 2 of the top lineups that also played a substantial number of minutes. The problem was that Woody forced some really PUTRID lineups on the floor even tho they were clearly not working and anyone with a brain could figure that they would be bad together.

For one thing Bargs was successful at C for the Knicks. That reason I posted the strong Plus the team had with him at Center and the right guys around him is that clearly your concerns about his defense were mitigated when he was in the right lineup. Defense is about Team. He's not getting beat by his man, which was clear by his great man defensive numbers. It was really about who else was out there defending who made the difference. When he was on the floor with KMart and Shump it worked. Shump and JR, it worked. The defense was good and they had plus numbers. That's what i'm trying to get you to see. You don't have to be a lover of stats. This is just a clear indication of which lineups worked and which ones didn't. Over the course of the entire season those lineups worked. Those are clear facts and not fancy numbers. These players on the floor together for X number of minutes. Were they Plus or Minus in points? It's that simple.

But you're looking at many different lineups, which capitalizes on chance. Even players who are deep in the negative territory will have a few lineups with good +/- #s. The lineups you're citing are based on just 100 or so minutes, which is like an opponent having two bad games. That definitely can happen without it meaning that you played well.

At Center Bargs had very good production. He didn't play enough minutes there IMO. The thing is that because of the lack of production from our guards it was very easy to be in a lineup in which the team was in the Minus. Also playing with Chandler just didn't work cuz Tyson and Bargs are a horrible combination and both players need PnP/R. We don't need a special stat to imagine why STAT and Bargs is a mistake to play together.
2 of the worst lineups were with Tyson and Bargs together. Even worse was one without Melo but with THJ and Udrih. It doesn't need much explanation as to why that wouldn't work.

3	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | R. Felton | K. Martin | I. Shumpert	  145:51    +7.0
6	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | R. Felton | I. Shumpert | J. Smith	  126:11    +10.8
7	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | T. Chandler | R. Felton | I. Shumpert   90:52    -23.7
10	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | K. Martin | I. Shumpert | B. Udrih	   66:33    -2.5
16	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | A. Stoudemire | P. Prigioni | J. Smith  42:54    -45.8
19	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | P. Prigioni | I. Shumpert | J. Smith	   38:41    -4.5
20	A. Bargnani | T. Chandler | T. Hardaway | J. Smith | B. Udrih	   37:27    -33.3

It's not about chance or too few minutes to make a judgment. It's easy to just blame it on Bargs, but really there are many other factors involved with each lineup. What skews Bargnani's numbers are the absolutely atrocious minus numbers of just 3 lineups that should never have been put on the floor. It's up to the coach to pay attention to how lineups work during Training Camp and Pre Season and the early regular season. There's no excuse for continuing to put bad lineups out with proper preparation.

IMO with better decision making from the coach things could be different. I'm very interested to see how things go in this system and with this coach. Hopefully this will be a better result.

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:isaster. teams knew the knicks would switch and would pick on bargnani with their PGs or ray with their big men. if the +/- was high for ray and bargnani, it just tells me that the other team missed their shots/opportunities. i like stats (i have a masters in epidemiology. lol) but they tell some of the story. i can shred theories based on stats to pieces but thats not my original point. my point was that im concerned about bargnani and his bad defense (as well as JR and STAT). they should be hidden on the bench

I don't know WTF you're talking about. Over the course of an entire season it's not possible that the other team's just "missed their shots/opportunities". That's the reason you don't just do a small sample size. The lineups I listed were 2 of the top lineups that also played a substantial number of minutes. The problem was that Woody forced some really PUTRID lineups on the floor even tho they were clearly not working and anyone with a brain could figure that they would be bad together.

For one thing Bargs was successful at C for the Knicks. That reason I posted the strong Plus the team had with him at Center and the right guys around him is that clearly your concerns about his defense were mitigated when he was in the right lineup. Defense is about Team. He's not getting beat by his man, which was clear by his great man defensive numbers. It was really about who else was out there defending who made the difference. When he was on the floor with KMart and Shump it worked. Shump and JR, it worked. The defense was good and they had plus numbers. That's what i'm trying to get you to see. You don't have to be a lover of stats. This is just a clear indication of which lineups worked and which ones didn't. Over the course of the entire season those lineups worked. Those are clear facts and not fancy numbers. These players on the floor together for X number of minutes. Were they Plus or Minus in points? It's that simple.

But you're looking at many different lineups, which capitalizes on chance. Even players who are deep in the negative territory will have a few lineups with good +/- #s. The lineups you're citing are based on just 100 or so minutes, which is like an opponent having two bad games. That definitely can happen without it meaning that you played well.

At Center Bargs had very good production. He didn't play enough minutes there IMO. The thing is that because of the lack of production from our guards it was very easy to be in a lineup in which the team was in the Minus. Also playing with Chandler just didn't work cuz Tyson and Bargs are a horrible combination and both players need PnP/R. We don't need a special stat to imagine why STAT and Bargs is a mistake to play together.
2 of the worst lineups were with Tyson and Bargs together. Even worse was one without Melo but with THJ and Udrih. It doesn't need much explanation as to why that wouldn't work.

3	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | R. Felton | K. Martin | I. Shumpert	  145:51    +7.0
6	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | R. Felton | I. Shumpert | J. Smith	  126:11    +10.8
7	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | T. Chandler | R. Felton | I. Shumpert   90:52    -23.7
10	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | K. Martin | I. Shumpert | B. Udrih	   66:33    -2.5
16	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | A. Stoudemire | P. Prigioni | J. Smith  42:54    -45.8
19	C. Anthony | A. Bargnani | P. Prigioni | I. Shumpert | J. Smith	   38:41    -4.5
20	A. Bargnani | T. Chandler | T. Hardaway | J. Smith | B. Udrih	   37:27    -33.3

It's not about chance or too few minutes to make a judgment. It's easy to just blame it on Bargs, but really there are many other factors involved with each lineup. What skews Bargnani's numbers are the absolutely atrocious minus numbers of just 3 lineups that should never have been put on the floor. It's up to the coach to pay attention to how lineups work during Training Camp and Pre Season and the early regular season. There's no excuse for continuing to put bad lineups out with proper preparation.

IMO with better decision making from the coach things could be different. I'm very interested to see how things go in this system and with this coach. Hopefully this will be a better result.

But it's probably just random fluctuation that won't repeat itself. It would be a bad idea to go into the next season making Tyson, Landry, and Douglas 3 of your 5 starters, even though they played so well together.

In your example of Bargnani, he's had plenty of years where his numbers were really bad as a C, which tells me that last year's positive plus/minus was just the kind of rare random brief visit into positive territory that a bad player will make.

2012-13:
+12, 0, -7, +6
2011-12:
-2, +15, +8, -9
2010-11:
-21, +9, -24, -13
2009-2010:
+20, -16, +12, +7
2008-2009:
NA: Did not play center
2007-2008:
-19, +16, -10, no 4th lineup available
2006-2007:
NA: Did not play center
Total: -15
It's nothing to get excited about but maybe he's better at C. Or maybe this is all random fluctuation. There's no way to know. We're stuck with him. I don't mind trying him at C. I'll meet Nixluva half-way. Bargs might end up being an acceptable option at C.

nixluva wrote:The diff at C is that he happens to be a very good man defender and a poor help defender, but if you put him with a guy like KMart or other active wing defenders you can cover up for that. It's about finding a way to minimize his weaknesses. The worst thing is to do what Woody did, which is to put him out there with poor defenders cuz then you expose his weakness even more. This team needed Tyson just to cover up for the poor defenders we had. Bargs isn't that kind of player and thus in some lineups you're going to see him looking HORRID as teams just destroy us driving past our poor perimeter defense and then Bargs isn't there to shut them down or at least deter them.

Once again my point isn't to prove that Bargs is a great player. My point is that a coach has to find a way to get the best out of him. I said this before last season. It's not about having Bargs out at the 3pt line. It's about having him in his sweet spots nearer to the basket where he's proven to be one of the best midrange shooters on PnP/R. He would also then be more in position to get rebounds. It's just going to be better having him in the Triangle which keeps him in the right place on the floor by design. It's gonna be interesting to see how Phil and Fish plan to use him. IMO Phil sounded like he had a plan or else why be so positive about what he thought they could get out of him? IMO talking him up wouldn't raise his trade value. Only getting Bargs to play well can do that.

Bargs played more games at center than anything other position last year.

Woodson never changed, yet the teams record with him changed drmatically trying to fit a square peg in. Bargs should never had started, everyone else suffered trying to get him going and it clearly did not work.

All Phil said is that folks will be surprised with Bargs, no different than them stating they expect JR Smith to be more focused.

he's a backup at best.

callmened wrote:ill never worry about bargs in any offense. hes a gifted offensive player.

As I said before, he actually isn't a great offensive player. He's a volume scorer who needs a ton of shots to get his points. His TS% and eFG% over his career and especially over the past 5 years, reflect that. Mostly, its because he shoots too many threes yet has never been a great 3 point shooter. He shoots well from one part of the floor so perhaps Nixluva is right and it's just that a coach has never used him correctly but Im skeptical he'll ever be more than a bust.

When you're only good from 1-2 spots on the floor and provide little of anything else, that makes you at best a role player.