nixluva wrote:
This is a great article. Yes it does back up pretty much what I and others have been saying about Bargnani.

http://angryknickblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/turns-out-chris-copeland-isnt-a-cheaper-andrea-bargnani/

I did some research. It turns out that even in Bargnani’s worst year as a pro, he’s more versatile of an offensive player that can help open the floor for Carmelo while still being able to score himself than Copeland was.

This past year was by far Andrea Bargnani’s worst year in the NBA. He was riddled by injury, he was booed out of the building, he shot poorly… he was about to be amnestied for God’s sake (source: none)! Meanwhile, Chris Copeland finally made an NBA roster, he became a fan-favorite, and wouldn’t you know it, he actually HELPED his team win some [regular season] games. To compare the two, we’ll start out with their shot charts, separated by zone:

Here’s what we can draw from this:

* For a guy who was labeled a three point specialist by experts and bloggers all over the interwebs, Bargnani sure does take a lot of mid-range jumpers. Actually, he took almost 70 more mid-range jumpers than he did three-pointers. And he only took 13 more three-pointers than he did shots in the paint.
* Chris Copeland is almost as bad from mid-range as Bargnani is from three-point range. He only took 69 mid-range shots last year actually, as opposed to 135 three-pointers. But if you’re going by the theory that all that matters are three-pointers, this is irrelevant.
* Copeland is obviously better down low. He’s a better offensive rebounder and, according to Synergy, most of his points came in the paint off offensive rebounds. Let’s get real, no one is feeding either Cope or Bargs in the post.

So right off the bat, it seems like calling Bargnani one-dimensional or labeling him a three-point shooter is inaccurate. Well at least we tried. But where it really becomes apparent that Bargnani is way more of a versatile player that can really help the offense is when you break down those zones, like so:

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

For starters, Andrea Bargnani can hit from a lot more places on the floor than Copeland can.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:
This is a great article. Yes it does back up pretty much what I and others have been saying about Bargnani.

http://angryknickblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/turns-out-chris-copeland-isnt-a-cheaper-andrea-bargnani/

I did some research. It turns out that even in Bargnani’s worst year as a pro, he’s more versatile of an offensive player that can help open the floor for Carmelo while still being able to score himself than Copeland was.

This past year was by far Andrea Bargnani’s worst year in the NBA. He was riddled by injury, he was booed out of the building, he shot poorly… he was about to be amnestied for God’s sake (source: none)! Meanwhile, Chris Copeland finally made an NBA roster, he became a fan-favorite, and wouldn’t you know it, he actually HELPED his team win some [regular season] games. To compare the two, we’ll start out with their shot charts, separated by zone:

Here’s what we can draw from this:

* For a guy who was labeled a three point specialist by experts and bloggers all over the interwebs, Bargnani sure does take a lot of mid-range jumpers. Actually, he took almost 70 more mid-range jumpers than he did three-pointers. And he only took 13 more three-pointers than he did shots in the paint.
* Chris Copeland is almost as bad from mid-range as Bargnani is from three-point range. He only took 69 mid-range shots last year actually, as opposed to 135 three-pointers. But if you’re going by the theory that all that matters are three-pointers, this is irrelevant.
* Copeland is obviously better down low. He’s a better offensive rebounder and, according to Synergy, most of his points came in the paint off offensive rebounds. Let’s get real, no one is feeding either Cope or Bargs in the post.

So right off the bat, it seems like calling Bargnani one-dimensional or labeling him a three-point shooter is inaccurate. Well at least we tried. But where it really becomes apparent that Bargnani is way more of a versatile player that can really help the offense is when you break down those zones, like so:

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

For starters, Andrea Bargnani can hit from a lot more places on the floor than Copeland can.

They're evaluating players based on # of shots taken? WTF?
I could take a lot of shots too. That doesn't make me better than Chris Copeland.

Did you read the article or just the post?

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:
This is a great article. Yes it does back up pretty much what I and others have been saying about Bargnani.

http://angryknickblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/turns-out-chris-copeland-isnt-a-cheaper-andrea-bargnani/

I did some research. It turns out that even in Bargnani’s worst year as a pro, he’s more versatile of an offensive player that can help open the floor for Carmelo while still being able to score himself than Copeland was.

This past year was by far Andrea Bargnani’s worst year in the NBA. He was riddled by injury, he was booed out of the building, he shot poorly… he was about to be amnestied for God’s sake (source: none)! Meanwhile, Chris Copeland finally made an NBA roster, he became a fan-favorite, and wouldn’t you know it, he actually HELPED his team win some [regular season] games. To compare the two, we’ll start out with their shot charts, separated by zone:

Here’s what we can draw from this:

* For a guy who was labeled a three point specialist by experts and bloggers all over the interwebs, Bargnani sure does take a lot of mid-range jumpers. Actually, he took almost 70 more mid-range jumpers than he did three-pointers. And he only took 13 more three-pointers than he did shots in the paint.
* Chris Copeland is almost as bad from mid-range as Bargnani is from three-point range. He only took 69 mid-range shots last year actually, as opposed to 135 three-pointers. But if you’re going by the theory that all that matters are three-pointers, this is irrelevant.
* Copeland is obviously better down low. He’s a better offensive rebounder and, according to Synergy, most of his points came in the paint off offensive rebounds. Let’s get real, no one is feeding either Cope or Bargs in the post.

So right off the bat, it seems like calling Bargnani one-dimensional or labeling him a three-point shooter is inaccurate. Well at least we tried. But where it really becomes apparent that Bargnani is way more of a versatile player that can really help the offense is when you break down those zones, like so:

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

For starters, Andrea Bargnani can hit from a lot more places on the floor than Copeland can.

They're evaluating players based on # of shots taken? WTF?
I could take a lot of shots too. That doesn't make me better than Chris Copeland.

Did you read the article or just the post?

When the argument half way through was that bad, I decided the article wasn't worth my time. Maybe I'll look at it more closely tomorrow

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:
This is a great article. Yes it does back up pretty much what I and others have been saying about Bargnani.

http://angryknickblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/turns-out-chris-copeland-isnt-a-cheaper-andrea-bargnani/

I did some research. It turns out that even in Bargnani’s worst year as a pro, he’s more versatile of an offensive player that can help open the floor for Carmelo while still being able to score himself than Copeland was.

This past year was by far Andrea Bargnani’s worst year in the NBA. He was riddled by injury, he was booed out of the building, he shot poorly… he was about to be amnestied for God’s sake (source: none)! Meanwhile, Chris Copeland finally made an NBA roster, he became a fan-favorite, and wouldn’t you know it, he actually HELPED his team win some [regular season] games. To compare the two, we’ll start out with their shot charts, separated by zone:

Here’s what we can draw from this:

* For a guy who was labeled a three point specialist by experts and bloggers all over the interwebs, Bargnani sure does take a lot of mid-range jumpers. Actually, he took almost 70 more mid-range jumpers than he did three-pointers. And he only took 13 more three-pointers than he did shots in the paint.
* Chris Copeland is almost as bad from mid-range as Bargnani is from three-point range. He only took 69 mid-range shots last year actually, as opposed to 135 three-pointers. But if you’re going by the theory that all that matters are three-pointers, this is irrelevant.
* Copeland is obviously better down low. He’s a better offensive rebounder and, according to Synergy, most of his points came in the paint off offensive rebounds. Let’s get real, no one is feeding either Cope or Bargs in the post.

So right off the bat, it seems like calling Bargnani one-dimensional or labeling him a three-point shooter is inaccurate. Well at least we tried. But where it really becomes apparent that Bargnani is way more of a versatile player that can really help the offense is when you break down those zones, like so:

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

For starters, Andrea Bargnani can hit from a lot more places on the floor than Copeland can.

They're evaluating players based on # of shots taken? WTF?
I could take a lot of shots too. That doesn't make me better than Chris Copeland.

Bonn did you actually read the entire article? It's about the way Bargnani scores the ball. The versatility of his skills and his effectiveness compared to other top players in the mid range game, which is what I and others have been pointing to.

So we added a player who can play along with Melo and thrive. Adding in Beno who is also a very good PnP player it all makes sense. It's not about how he played on the Raptors, but how his strengths enhance the Knicks.

Also, those numbers are not a one year phenomenon over the last few years he has ranked in the top 5 for bigs as I posted before. Also, his top of key three point shooting usually is pretty high. I do think he will see more corner 3 attempts in this offense so he needs to work on that.

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:
This is a great article. Yes it does back up pretty much what I and others have been saying about Bargnani.

http://angryknickblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/turns-out-chris-copeland-isnt-a-cheaper-andrea-bargnani/

I did some research. It turns out that even in Bargnani’s worst year as a pro, he’s more versatile of an offensive player that can help open the floor for Carmelo while still being able to score himself than Copeland was.

This past year was by far Andrea Bargnani’s worst year in the NBA. He was riddled by injury, he was booed out of the building, he shot poorly… he was about to be amnestied for God’s sake (source: none)! Meanwhile, Chris Copeland finally made an NBA roster, he became a fan-favorite, and wouldn’t you know it, he actually HELPED his team win some [regular season] games. To compare the two, we’ll start out with their shot charts, separated by zone:

Here’s what we can draw from this:

* For a guy who was labeled a three point specialist by experts and bloggers all over the interwebs, Bargnani sure does take a lot of mid-range jumpers. Actually, he took almost 70 more mid-range jumpers than he did three-pointers. And he only took 13 more three-pointers than he did shots in the paint.
* Chris Copeland is almost as bad from mid-range as Bargnani is from three-point range. He only took 69 mid-range shots last year actually, as opposed to 135 three-pointers. But if you’re going by the theory that all that matters are three-pointers, this is irrelevant.
* Copeland is obviously better down low. He’s a better offensive rebounder and, according to Synergy, most of his points came in the paint off offensive rebounds. Let’s get real, no one is feeding either Cope or Bargs in the post.

So right off the bat, it seems like calling Bargnani one-dimensional or labeling him a three-point shooter is inaccurate. Well at least we tried. But where it really becomes apparent that Bargnani is way more of a versatile player that can really help the offense is when you break down those zones, like so:

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

For starters, Andrea Bargnani can hit from a lot more places on the floor than Copeland can.

They're evaluating players based on # of shots taken? WTF?
I could take a lot of shots too. That doesn't make me better than Chris Copeland.

Bonn did you actually read the entire article? It's about the way Bargnani scores the ball. The versatility of his skills and his effectiveness compared to other top players in the mid range game, which is what I and others have been pointing to.

So we added a player who can play along with Melo and thrive. Adding in Beno who is also a very good PnP player it all makes sense. It's not about how he played on the Raptors, but how his strengths enhance the Knicks.

it is amazing how you talk about the future as if it has happened already..... am I missing something or did carmelo and bargnani play together somewhere?

tkf wrote:it is amazing how you talk about the future as if it has happened already..... am I missing something or did carmelo and bargnani play together somewhere?

NO! I'm using my common sense. If you add a 7' player who can score from everywhre on the floor, is a top of the league PnP/PnR player, can post, pump fake n drive and hit the 3, then this is a player who can play well next to Melo because no matter what Melo wants to do he can fit in. If Melo is in the high post, AB can go low. They can switch places with ease because AB can shoot from anywhere. What don't you get about that? Explain to us how that doesn't work in your infinite wisdom? GTFO with your bitching!!!

nixluva wrote:

tkf wrote:it is amazing how you talk about the future as if it has happened already..... am I missing something or did carmelo and bargnani play together somewhere?

NO! I'm using my common sense. If you add a 7' player who can score from everywhre on the floor, is a top of the league PnP/PnR player, can post, pump fake n drive and hit the 3, then this is a player who can play well next to Melo because no matter what Melo wants to do he can fit in. If Melo is in the high post, AB can go low. They can switch places with ease because AB can shoot from anywhere. What don't you get about that? Explain to us how that doesn't work in your infinite wisdom? GTFO with your bitching!!!

Two players who need the rock and dont faciitaye naturally should never be on the court together.

And when Bargnani starts missing, which he will....to the bench hell go.

Tkf may be bitching, but its no worse than still trying make people believe in Santa.

Its one thing to hope, but now its reaching delusion.

I dont see how in one breathe everything WILL work out and then another acknowledging the team isnt that good, and admitting the player has legit flaws.

nixluva wrote:

knickscity wrote:

nixluva wrote:

tkf wrote:it is amazing how you talk about the future as if it has happened already..... am I missing something or did carmelo and bargnani play together somewhere?

NO! I'm using my common sense. If you add a 7' player who can score from everywhre on the floor, is a top of the league PnP/PnR player, can post, pump fake n drive and hit the 3, then this is a player who can play well next to Melo because no matter what Melo wants to do he can fit in. If Melo is in the high post, AB can go low. They can switch places with ease because AB can shoot from anywhere. What don't you get about that? Explain to us how that doesn't work in your infinite wisdom? GTFO with your bitching!!!

There will only be one basketball.

Two players who need the rock and dont faciitaye naturally should never be on the court together.

And when Bargnani starts missing, which he will....to the bench hell go.

Tkf may be bitching, but its no worse than still trying make people believe in Santa.

Its one thing to hope, but now its reaching delusion.

I dont see how in one breathe everything WILL work out and then another acknowledging the team isnt that good, and admitting the player has legit flaws.

What you're saying makes no sense. Of course there's only one BB, but we saw early last year that this team can move the ball and play team BB. Our problem was that we had very few skilled scorers on the team and too often players passed up the open shots or couldn't create their own offense. If they weren't making 3's then we had very little else.

I wish you would stop talking like we should expect AB to be a horrible shooter. "when Bargnani starts missing, which he will....to the bench hell go." PLEASE! I don't believe we should be expecting AB to shoot horribly if he's healthy. Aside from last year nothing in his career suggests he'll be a bad shooter. The multiple posts in this thread show that he's a top tier shooter on PnP plays which we should expect a lot of on this team.

"Two players who need the rock and dont faciitaye naturally should never be on the court together." Melo is here to score. AB is here to score. Yes players need to pass if they don't have a shot and another player has a better one, but lets be honest here, these guys are expected to carry the load scoring wise. When the defense is tough you need players that can make something out of nothing.

The entire point of adding Bargnani is to add more versatility to the offense. The same with Beno MWP and THJ. We depended too much on JR as the 2nd scoring option, but he came off the bench. In the starting lineup we need another legit scoring option. We need a player who can play with Melo and mesh. AB has the overall game to be able to keep the floor spaced and be a constant threat no matter where he is. That's not pie in the sky. That is backed up by every statistic on his shooting. He doesn't have to be great from everywhere, but he's good enough that teams will pay for not keeping up with him as they focus on stopping Melo.

In this thread i'm still trying to understand your position. It seems that you are betting on the team being bad the way you're going on about what Bargnani can't do. Even without him this team still has ample talent so why should the team not play as well as they did last year at the least? Most of the key players are back and we actually added talent to the bench. So what leg do you have to stand on that this team shouldn't be better than it was or at the least equally as good?

We'll have some pretty good laughs about this too.

yellowboy90 wrote:I doubt it.

Do you have anything to back that up besides opinion? I see usage rate & assist rate were used to support the other side of the argument.