Source: nbaroundtable.com I found this to be an interesting comparison. I think pretty highly of nbaroundtable, there articles are usually an excellent mix of statistical analysis and actual evaluation. I ended up being pretty surprised how close the comparison was at this point. Deep down, I've believed that Bargnani would become a better player a few years down the road. However, it was more of a personal hunch and I didn't even consider thinking that they'd be comparable so soon.
Most of them don't go out of the blazers forum. What is there to say? Bargnani has been playing damn well this year. It just depends on what you want because they play different styles.
Just to add to the writers stats, Portland plays at the slowest pace in the league. So the 2 ppg or whatever bargs would average over Aldridge in per 36 doesn't necessarily mean much.
That 5% better from the floor is skewed IMO. Bargs shoots much better from 3pt range, but Aldridge almost never shoots from that far out. From the floor, Aldridge is shooting better, from the charity stripe Bargs is. It's that simple. I hate the per/36 minutes stat. If a player is good enough or able to stay outta of foul trouble, they'll play 36 minutes. If they're not they don't regardless of what they 'would' average.
Interesting how they chose a 3 month span for Bargs to compare with the season stats of Aldridge. Shouldn't they be using the same 3 month sample for both if they want a good comparison (or 35 game sample, or whatever). I don't know that it would change things significantly, but it seems a flawed method otherwise. Or if they really wanted an accurate comparison, they should use Aldridge's best 3 month (or 35 game) span of the season since that's what they chose for Bargnani. Otherwise, what's to argue about it? Bargnani is coming on strong and proving that he's not the bust some others have said. Good for him, I always thought he could be good. Wow, nearly a whole hour passed late at night without a Portland poster responding to something in the Raptors forum. What a shock!
They're taking Bargnani's best three months of his career against the same stretch for Aldridge. Why not take Aldridge's best three month stretch as well then? The findings from this report are inconsequential, IMO.
The thread really wasn't meant to gloat, so much as to take a look back at two players who the Raptors looked at the strongest before the '07 draft. Pretty much everyone's maintained that Aldridge has been the better player, and while that's still true IMO, it's interesting to see how close to being up in the air again. Also, they're taking Bargnani's best 3 consecutive months under the assumption that this'll be the player we see going forward. They're comparing the current Bargnani instead of the bust from the beginning of the season. That's a pretty big assumption, given that there've been a bunch of players who go off for half a season or so and never build on it. But I think it somewhat explains why they did it for Andrea and not Aldridge. If you've watched Bargs this season, the transition from "bust" has been radical and almost instantaneous. Sure, he's had the skills and talent to play this way, but the change really has no statistical precedent. It came out of nowhere. Whereas, while LaMarcus has probably improved over the course of the season, he's played at a high level for a pretty consistent amount of time. It'd be interesting to see what Aldridge's best 3 month period looks like though.
I think Bargs was playing his best basketball during the second half of his rookie year. The Raps were a playoff team (first in the Atlantic) and he was the second best player on a deep team. He then got injured, had his illness, some sort of surgery on his nasal cavity...I don't really remember why he was out, but he has never been the same since....
aldridge is a much more complete player than bargnani. bargs has his limitations specifically defensively whereas aldridge is a better defensive player now and has a greater ceiling in terms of his defensive potential.
