Lunchbox Links
by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on Aug 5, 2009 12:05 PM EDT
in Daily Links
Email
PrintANDREA BARGNANI = OVERPAID?
The Underpaid and Overpaid in 2008-09 | The Wages of Wins Journal
According to Wages of Wins, Jose Calderon and former Raptor Jamario Moon were among the underpaid in 2008-09 while former Raptor Jermaine O'Neal topped the list of overpaid players. Beyond 2010, though, the freshly extended Andrea Bargnani appears poised to take a future MOP (Most Overpaid Player) title.
DEMAR DEROZAN
Raptors' mid-summer report | TheStar.com
Rookie DeRozan the key question on team that appears better than last season's.
2009-10 NBA SCHEDULE
Panning for the gems of the 2009-2010 NBA schedule | SI.com
Sports Illustrated tabs Phoenix at Toronto on Sunday November 29 as one of the gems of the new schedule.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Scary
I wanted to also point out that Andrea Bargnani is showing up on the list of most overpaid players WHILE HE’S STILL ON HIS ROOKIE CONTRACT!!!
I think it’s inevitable that he tops this list once that $50 million extension kicks in (unless there is some sort of meteoric rise to superstardom).
by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on Aug 5, 2009 12:08 PM EDT reply actions
Bargnani is a liability, but WOW makes him seem even worse than he is.
There will always be someone with a max-type deal who is massively underperforming.
Peja at 15m per is easily more overpaid than Andrea.
Knock it off guys. We’re not going to let this place turn into RealGM.
Kinnon "Vicious D" Yee
Author - RaptorsHQ.com
by Raptors HQ - Vicious D on Aug 6, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Or maybe by just keep doing what he is doing
Mind you an useless Okafor makes way more than Andrea (even with a new contract) and he gives you much less.
I remain thoroughly unimpressed with a metric that consistently presents Jamario Moon as one of the best players in the league.
It could also be pointed out that this is effectively a list of the most overpaid starters. Bargnani was not “overpaid” compared to Marcus Banks, or any of a large number of benchwarmers who actually play semi-regularly.
I've been looking at the sky
Bargnani
The problem with the WOW metric is how it handles players like Bargnani and Moon.
In Moon’s case he is a decent rebounder, and relatively efficient shooter for his position, so he ranks high despite the fact his other intangibles are terrible.
In Bargnani’s case, his score suffers because he is compared to the averages for the position of center. Defensively, this is where Bargnani plays, and so it is fair to compare him on that side of the ball – and while his numbers at that end (D-rebounds, blocks) are ok, they still need to improve. But offensively he is more of a 7ft 2-guard in how he scores and where he plays on the floor. So unlike a ‘pure’ or traditional center whose job is to clean the glass and score on efficient dunks and put backs, Bargs is wandering out to the three point line and hitting treys.
It’s interesting to note that if you compare Bargs to the 2-Guards using WOW metrics, he rates as an average player or better. In effect, his versatility offensively compared to other centers is what destroys his WOW score because he gets compared to an offensive position he isn’t actually playing.
by velociraptor on Aug 5, 2009 2:47 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Ultimately, he is a centre and should be compared to other centres. I mean, if Bargnani isn’t supplying what is required of a starting centre (in terms of rebounding, shot blocking, etc) then who is?
I can’t get down with the “he might be a below average centre but he’s an average two guard” argument.
by RaptorsHQ - Defensive Stance on Aug 5, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Bargnani
Here’s the thing, he isn’t supplying the typical production numbers of a center, because he isn’t a traditional center. His game simply has more long range, and less short range to it.
As for who is providing us with the rebounding and putbacks that Bargs is leaving on the table, that is a very good question. Last year Marion at the SF spot picked up a lot of that slack, and Bosh is always filling in at ‘center’ in terms of the short game – and in some cases is defined as a ‘C’ rather than a ‘PF’ because of it.
My issue with the WOW stats is one of how positions are defined. It used to be that the position you defend is the position you are. Bargs defends centers. But his offensive game isn’t that of a traditional center. He doesn’t live on the low-block, doesn’t post-up other big men with regularity, and he doesn’t make his living cleaning the offensive glass.
Instead; he is a terrific spot up shooter with awesome range, and he can drill three point shots with the best of them. He drives on bigger men guarding him from far out and shoots over the smaller men who cover him. All of which makes him essentially a 7ft guard on the offensive end.
So why insist on comparing him to lesser skilled hulks who make their living two feet from the cylinder?
The key is how does the Raptor braintrust make the most of his unique abilities; can they graft traditional big-man skills to his already formidable package (ala Dirk)? Do we compensate with a SF or PF who has a talent for rebounding in the paint? Is he better utilized at PF with a more traditional center? Etc.
My understanding of how BC likes to operate is to have players who can play a multitude of roles and positions. He loves un-traditional guys like Hedo, Diaw, Marion, etc. Guys who don’t fit a single position and can do lots of different things – and Bargs is definitely a part of that. non-traditional approach.
I am sorry yall, but I have to agree that you cannot compare Bargnani to other centers. It is very obvious that he plays more of a traditional 2 guard role on offense so maybe they need to compromise and find a middle ground (sf/pf) for comparison. He definitely needs to improve his rebounding and you cannot complain about his blocks as he averages more than Bosh does. He also averages less turnovers than Bosh does.
It gets very interesting if you do a comparison with Moons numbers. As you look at them they are almost identical except:
Bargnani averages twice as many points.
Moon averages 3 times the steals that bargnani does (Steals are about clogging the passing lanes and probably reflects more of where Bargnani is positioned on the floor defensively).
Moon averaged half as many fouls per game as Bargnani but again this is probably reflective of the positions as Centers probably average more fouls per game then small forwards do.
What I find interesting is if you do a compare against other centres.
Perkins, Kendrick 76 76 29.7 0.577 0.000 0.600 2.7 5.5 8.1 1.3 0.3 2.0 2.2 0.6 3.3 8.5
Bargnani, Andrea 78 59 31.6 0.450 0.409 0.831 0.9 4.4 5.3 1.2 0.4 1.2 1.7 0.7 3.1 15.4
Miller, Brad 27 43 27.6 0.478 0.231 0.853 2.5 5.0 7.4 3.2 0.8 0.4 1.7 1.8 3.3 11.8 (with the bulls)
Ilgauskas, Zydrunas 65 65 27.1 0.472 0.385 0.799 2.4 5.1 7.5 1.0 0.4 1.3 1.4 0.7 2.8 12.9
Do you notice a trend here? I know the numbers are not easy to read but basically none of these centers average 10 rebounds or more per game. Bargnani also has a better per then Perkins does and I am not sure how Ilgauskaus is almost 4 points better in per when his stat line is almost identical to Bargnani (yes Illy averages more rebounds but it is only 2 per game and his shooting % is only 20 points higher and his free throw percentage is actually lower with less attempts per game). Bargnani also averaged more points per game then all three guys. I could go through the entire NBA but I bet most centers are about the same (I am sure there a few whose stat lines are much better but only a few). So the issue here is, why does Bargnani get such a low WoW score when his stat line is perfectly respectable considering he only started in 2/3 of the games he played in? I would imagine that starting all 82 games (or every game he plays) will improve his rebounding numbers (say to 6.5) at which point I still have doubts that his WoW numbers will improve because I think the system is broken.
PER and WP48 are both per minute stats. Bargnani played more minutes (~10%) than the other 3, so their per game stats may look lower but you would need to equalize the minutes played to make a fair comparison.
Also, Illgauskas grabbed 7.5 rebounds vs. Bargnani’s 5.3 in less minutes. That is why his PER is close, and his WP48 is higher.
Yeah but you are talking about 2 or 3 (ok 4 for Ilgauskas) minutes per game. I would agree with that statement if we were talking about 5 or more minutes but for 2 or 3 per game it seems a little unfair. I know you have to use mathematical projections but we have all seen players have wicked per 40 minute stats never actually be able to translate that into actual numbers when given significant minutes. I understand how per works but it is theoretical in nature as not many players actually ever play 40 minutes a game on average and if one did their stat line would probably actually level out due to fatigue (the superstars of the league being the exceptions). As for the idea that a player can actually contribute to a team’s losses based on the fact they under rebound for their position, well that is simply ludicrous. You have to look at what the average scoring against a certain player is to determine what kind of effect they have on winning %’s. Not sure but I believe the average center would have to average more than 16 points per game before you could say Bargnani is a detriment to the team defensively, and considering there are not a lot of high scorers at the center position, does anyone believe that is the case?
As for the idea that a player can actually contribute to a team’s losses based on the fact they under rebound for their position, well that is simply ludicrous.
Sorry, I appreciate the response but that is completely wrong. Every time your team grabs a rebound, your team gains possession of the ball. If your team gives up a rebound it should have gotten to the other team, that has the same effect as a turnover.
Suppose all of the players on Team A thought that rebounding was unimportant and did not contribute to losses. Every member on this team decides that they aren’t going to rebound at all. What do you think happens?
Team A only gets the ball off of turnovers or after a made shot. Team B keeps shooting and rebounding until they 1) score 2) get blocked and don’t pick up the loose ball 3) turn the ball over. Team A will most definitely get slaughtered as they will allow points on 80% of their defensive possessions but only score on 40-50% of their own.
I disagree, his game does not have less short range. He actually immediately post up smaller players and very effectively. This is also called playing by your strengths and by your opponent weaknesses. We have seen him toying with about any other center at about 6 to 7 meters from the bucket. You may cry how much you want about him not “abusing them” much closer, but why should he? He still gets his way against them (sometime absolutely schooling opponents) He helps everybody else’s game by taking the opposing “defense anchor” out of the way. Yesterday, for example he had, by stats standards an awful game against France, yet the opposing bigs (Turiaf among them) had a combined stat line of 6 points and 4 rebounds. I know quite a number of people, even on this forum, would change Andrea + 10 Millions for Oden. Oden, why having been a complete laugh so far (more faults than either points or rebounds last year) just fulfill better the “traditional” understanding of a C. Well, today at least (the future maybe different) all in all, does it help A TEAM more having Andrea at the C or Oden? Think twice before answering
It’s not that he shouldn’t be compared to other centres; it’s that the WOW metric doesn’t do it very well. WOW rewards guys like Moon who can’t be trusted with the ball – which is normal for most centres on offense. It punishes Bargnani because compared to other players at his position, he actually has skill and is expected to do things on offense other than set picks and take up space under the basket.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Aug 5, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, his main responsibility on offense is to stand around and take a jump shot when the ball is passed to him. That is captured in WOW. It’s just that there is not much weight put on an average scoring efficiency. There is some sort of point at which it is assumed that every player should be able to score at. If you are above, you get credit, below you lose credit, and if you are like Bargs (close to average) – your scoring doesn’t move the needle much despite it’s volume. On the other hand, Calderon doesn’t shoot much but gets plenty of credit because he is quite accurate when he does. This doesn’t mean that Calderon can shoot the same percentage over a higher volume though.
That is because WP48 is very end-result oriented (doesn’t measure what players are capable of in different roles) and only measures things that occur within the boxscore. Suppose there was a PF who forced a miss on every shot he defended (but never blocked any), and got his team a layup every time he set a pick. This player would obviously be extremely valuable, but none of that would be valued in WOW. But it’s not as though a box score only fan would have picked up on that either.
One problem with people just stating opinions without stats to back them up is that they often end up inflating the positive on-court effects for players they like and largely ignoring the negative ones.
All of this is true
But this particular stat seems to have been referenced many times recently, at least through this blog, and it has specific flaws with respect to Moon and Bargnani. People sometimes look at stats as indisputable numbers – they don’t question enough.
Unlike most SFs, Moon’s role on offense was to set the odd pick and only get the ball when the rotation worked out so that he was wide open (at which point he would listen to Smitch plead with him to drive and then jack up a three). His efficiency, then, is based on taking wide open shots with little chance of being blocked or turning the ball over. This made him look more efficient than other SFs who are expected to ‘create’ offense (and take risks). Combined with his active defense and rebounding and he comes out looking very good in WP48.
Bargnani is the opposite case. The fact that he takes many more shots than other Cs is directly tied to the fact that many of those shots aren’t layups. Necessarily, he’s going to be less efficient when he’s taking lower percentage shots. However, because he was better at it than his teammates, he was called upon to make plays and take those long range, under pressure shots. He’s penalized under WP48 for having talent and being called upon to use it.
It seems to me that WP48 only works when players are playing their ‘roles’. It will work well for Calderon or Parker or Bosh – most players, really – but it struggles with the contributions of Bargnani and with giving major minutes to the offensive liabilities of Moon.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Aug 6, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
It really depends. I’m not a proponent for PER or WP48 because both have serious flaws in their analysis and the amount of information you can gleam from both. People who look at those stats really can use them for Fantasy and other theoretical calculations, but Basketball is one of the very few team sports out there where your stats can be greatly affected by who you’re put on the court with, in what situations. Parsing everything out individually is extremely difficult, unlike in other sports… Say Baseball…
Kinnon "Vicious D" Yee
Author - RaptorsHQ.com
by Raptors HQ - Vicious D on Aug 6, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
and what metric do you use for “getting the opposing center out so everybody else can attack the bucket?”
The key for assessing Bargnani is IMO his defensive stats. If his defensive rebounds, blocks, and positional defense are above average I don’t care if he is scoring his points by bombing from outside.
Which I think we can all agree improved quite a bit last year. Even with JO around, he was fighting him for most blocks on the team and the way he was cutting off the lane of smaller players in pick and roll situations was just a thing of beauty to see at the end of the year.
Kinnon "Vicious D" Yee
Author - RaptorsHQ.com
by Raptors HQ - Vicious D on Aug 6, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
price per minute ?
What does pob bring to the table,banks ? too much is made about Bargs new contract that starts next year…what if,and I know what if,he continues to play like he finished off last season…will he still be overpaid I doubt it.
Bargs will be an allstar this coming season. no doubt. Who cares what those guys say. They don’t watch the raptors, all they do is put a bunch of numbers together at the end of the season that doesn’t even tell the story. Bargs is not your conventional centre who camp out in the lane and try and get put backs. If you compare Bargs to all the Centre he goes up against on any given night I bet Bargs will come out on top, scoring wise, and the other center might come out on top rebounding wise, so 6 of one, half dozen of the other. ……raps4life…..Bargs 4 the allstar in Phoenix.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
