# Aldridge or Bargnani?



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Who will be the better NBA player next year? Five years from now?

I think both players are for real and will be great NBA players in the future, but who will be better? I was debating this with a rapters fan friend of mine, and he kept on telling me to take off my rose colored glasses, that it was obvious that Bargnani would be the better pro, but no matter what he said, I just don't see it. 

Aldridge seems to be the type of player who has very few holes in his game. He has great inside moves, a very nice shooting stroke, good man on defense and also great at rotating on team D. Aldridge almost never turns the ball over and makes very few mistakes for a rookie. He is a much better shot blocker than Bargnani and Aldridge is also a better rebounder.

Now I am not claiming that Bargnani is a slouch. He has a great face the basket game, can shoot very well out to the 3pt line. But I think he is too much of a outside player to match up in the future with Aldridge, especially since Bargnani is most likely a PF.

What do you think?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> Who will be the better NBA player next year? Five years from now?
> 
> I think both players are for real and will be great NBA players in the future, but who will be better? I was debating this with a rapters fan friend of mine, and he kept on telling me to take off my rose colored glasses, that it was obvious that Bargnani would be the better pro, but no matter what he said, I just don't see it.
> 
> ...


I think they'll both be excellent players, but I think Aldridge's defensive ability will make him the more valuabl player. Bargnani may end up scoring slightly more, but Aldridge will always have an advantage rebounding and a BIG advantage defensively.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Fork said:


> I think they'll both be excellent players, but I think Aldridge's defensive ability will make him the more valuabl player. Bargnani may end up scoring slightly more, but Aldridge will always have an advantage rebounding and a BIG advantage defensively.


my thoughts exactly. i also like aldridge more because he'll play like the traditional big men, whereas bargnani floats too much outside for my liking.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

seeing how the nba is going for the next 5-7 years, i'm going with bargnani to have the advantage until the zone defenses get shelved. had this been 5-10 years ago, aldridge would be better no doubt.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

AB is a fantastic player and could be a superstar in this leauge - but I think LA has a higher upper side for two reasons:

1. He has a better inside game while his jump shot is limited to the edge of the 3 point line while AB is a better jump shooter with a longer range but is much more limited in the paint. I think it is easier to become a long range shooter than a great inside player - so I think Lamarcus will be able to close the long distance shooting gap to AB more than AB will be able to do in the paint compared to Lamarcus.

2. Lamarcus is faster and has amazing footwork on defense for such a tall guy - he could become (some would argue he already is) an impact player on both ends of the floor. AB's defense, FWIW - is better than I expected him - but LA could be a 1st team all defense team member as he develops. 

With this all said and done - these guys will be as good as they want to be and their health allows them to. AB seems fearless (which is great) while Lamarcus was questioned as soft - from what we have seen last year I doubt that Lamarcus is really soft - but only time will tell.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

They are going to be very different players, so it's a bit of a judgement call. Bargnani will probably be a much better scorer. He can shoot from outside, put it on the floor a bit and he plays in a system that rewards that. Aldridge doesn't have the outside shot, although his midrange is great, and he gets lots of his points from putbacks. So far, he hasn't shown the kind of ability to create shots that is usually needed for a guy to become a big-time scorer. That could change, but Bargnani is further along now and probably always will be.

But Aldridge has him beat by a mile on the defensive end. I'm not afraid to say now, LaMarcus will be a top-level defensive player in the NBA in 5 years. Not only does he rebound decently and block shots well now, but his timing and footwork are phenomenal. Of course he still makes rookie mistakes, and it would help to bulk up, but I expect both of those to resolve. Bargnani, OTOH, has length and some shot-blocking ability, but on defense he's nothing special. If he's playing the SF position, he's going to have some trouble with quicker guys, at PF or C he's going to have trouble with stronger guys. He doesn't have the frame to add a lot of strength to.

So call it rose-colored vision if you want, but I pick Aldridge easily. He won't be as much of a scorer, but he will be able to score, and he will just be a more complete player. I've seen some Toronto fans saying they think Bargnani will be better than Dirk. I think that's pretty unrealistic. I do think that Aldridge though will realistically be a not as strong, but quicker version of Rasheed Wallace, without the attitude.

edit: one more thing, if the two players are matched up, I think LMA has the advantage. He can guard the perimeter extremely well, and he will slow down a guy like Bargnani fairly easily, whereas AB will have a very tough time boxing LMA out and closing out on him when he is open for Js. In a head to head matchup, if they guard each other, I think LMA comes out way ahead.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Nate McVillain said:


> Who will be the better NBA player next year? Five years from now?
> 
> I think both players are for real and will be great NBA players in the future, but who will be better? I was debating this with a rapters fan friend of mine, and he kept on telling me to take off my rose colored glasses, that it was obvious that Bargnani would be the better pro, but no matter what he said, I just don't see it.
> 
> ...


The problem now and in the future will be how do you compare?

Let's assume they both continue to improve and both become key players on their team.

One is an inside playing PF/C. The other is a outside playing F. Right there Aldridge has an advantage, as finding non-scrub players that can man the C spot is difficult. There are loads of forwards in the NBA that are at least decent.

Assume Bargnani averages more points then Aldridge, even a lot more. Assume Aldridge has a higher shooting percentage, rebounds more, blocks more and plays better defense. Who is the better player?

NOT to say they are exactly the same or will be as good, but this is similar to the Dirk vs. Duncan debate.

Dirk won the MVP this season. He scored a TON. But who has the team that is moving on? Doesn't prove who is the better player. But as long as both Dirk and Duncan are playing at high levels and are in the mix of the MVP debate, how do you say which is better individually? An awesome scorer? Or the all-around traditional big?

I (and many other Blazer fans) am happy with Aldridge. I don't like players that can't add something to the equation on the defensive end. (Even Zach boxes out and grabs defensive rebounds.) Most Raps fans seem positively giddy over Bargnani. Guess it works for both teams and fan bases right now.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Bargnani is probably the superior positional defender right now or at least equal, if we eliminate rebounding from the equation (which is clearly a mismatch despite the fact that Aldridge is only an average rebounder statistically)

You will never acknowledge that... in fact you guys see it as a wide advantage for Aldridge on defence which is terribly inaccurate.

Acknowledge this and perhaps we can begin a meaningful discussion. If you guys can't accurately assess one strength's and weaknessess how can there be a meaningful discussion on this issue.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Bargnani is probably the superior positional defender right now or at least equal, if we eliminate rebounding from the equation
> 
> You will never acknowledge that... in fact you guys see it as a wide advantage for Aldridge which is terribly inaccurate.
> 
> ...


Just curious, have you ever seen Aldridge play?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

There is a big difference between not having an outside shot and not taking many. Aldridge has good range, he just doesn't shoot so many from the far outside. 

I firmly believe that Aldridge game is stronger in every facet over Bargiani. He is a better defender, better post scorer, better rebounder, and he can shoot from the outside, but fortunately for us chooses not to be an outside player. In order for your bigs to be as effective as they can be, they have to have an inside presence. Has Bargiani ever displayed an inside presence? Not really. Only in brief instances.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Bargnani is probably the superior positional defender right now or at least equal, if we eliminate rebounding from the equation (which is clearly a mismatch despite the fact that Aldridge is only an average rebounder statistically)
> 
> You will never acknowledge that... in fact you guys see it as a wide advantage for Aldridge on defence which is terribly inaccurate.
> 
> Acknowledge this and perhaps we can begin a meaningful discussion. If you guys can't accurately assess one strength's and weaknessess how can there be a meaningful discussion on this issue.


I think Bargnani is a much better defender then I thought he would be, but Aldridge is an even better defender. Aldridge has a shot at being one of the better PF/C defenders in the league in a couple of years, he is already by far the best on the blazers, including Joel Przybilla. 

This is not saying that Bargnani is a bad defender, just that Aldridge is much better. Aldridge has one big problem on defense, and that is defending very large low post threats. He is very good at defendingthe low post against quicker players, but the very large ones use their weight against him. During the season last year, Aldridge added 15lbs and trainers have said that the he is the Blazer who spends the most time in the weight room, which leads me to believe that this weakness will be overcome.



EDIT: Aside from 3pt shooting, what does Bargnani do better then Aldridge? It seems to me that in every other category, they are either tied or Aldridge is better.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Bargnani is probably the superior positional defender right now or at least equal, if we eliminate rebounding from the equation (which is clearly a mismatch despite the fact that Aldridge is only an average rebounder statistically)


Have you seen LaMarcus Aldridge play before? When he got the playing time this season and wasn't injured, did you see him perform in a game that started at 10:30 ET?



> You will never acknowledge that... in fact you guys see it as a wide advantage for Aldridge on defence which is terribly inaccurate.


How so? You're making vague assertions with a sweeping hand, based presumably on the fact that your guy was slighted in a certain category. Let's try to look at a few statistics so that maybe we can come up with some conclusions on these players.

Blocks per 48 minutes: LaMarcus Aldridge was 3rd among rookies with 2.52; Bargnani had 1.52. I'm not saying that one's ability to block shots necessarily makes them the better defensive player, I'm just going on the emprical data available.

Steals per 48 minutes: Bargnani was 32nd among rookies with .94 per 48, Aldridge was 40th with .76. Pretty close. In games after the all-star break, Aldridge and Bargnani tied with 1.15 steals per 48. 

Rebounds per 48 minutes: Aldridge was 10th among rookies with 10.8 RPG. Bargnani was 20th.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I say Bargnani will be widely regarded as the "better" player. He's got the skills to be the primary offensive option on a team and thus far it does not look like Aldridge is. Bargs can kind of do it all, where as Aldridge seemed to score mostly on mid range jumpers and put-backs. I'm trying to come up with a guy that was a good useful guy on offense but not the main focus and the name that pops into my head is Charles Oakley. A guy that was indispensable because of his ability to hit the open mid range jumper and take care of the glass. But nobody you'd want to build a team around. You're not likely to hear the phrase "the defense collapses on Aldridge" very often. But Bargnani will drive to the hoop and create opportunities for his team mates in a way that Aldridge simply can't do.

The real question is who's more "valuable" to their team.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Aldridge did a very respectable job of guarding Tim Duncan one on one - to say that AB is a "superior positional defender" is absurd - and not because he is a poor defender - he is not - he is actually good - but Aldridge is very good. He was able to effectivly guard opposing guards on a switch - he was able to play well against bigs - despite his weight disadvantage.


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

I think you guys are showing a little favoritism towards LA, but I can't say I blame you, since he's your boy. I am a bit of a homer for AB.

I think we can all agree both players will make an all-star team in their career, although likely AB before LA (just because of how stacked the PF position is in the West right now)

I think LA is going to be a guy who at his peak can give you 18-20 PPG and 10-12 RPG.

I think AB is going to be a better shooting, weaker rebounding version of Dirk.

I would agree with most of you that LA is a better defender than AB right now, but I think that AB will greatly improve that aspect of his game as he gets used to the NBA game. He was a VERY good defender in Europe. I think eventually both will be plus defenders in the league.

But to the guy who said that LA is better at all aspects, I disagree. AB is easily a better shooter.

Anyways, nice to see a good friendly discussion, both teams are lucky to have their guy!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

LMA by a long shot....
He is a much better on and off the ball defender.
He grabs a lot more rebounds and is longer so that gives him another advantage.
He is just as good a mid range shooter as AB
His back to the basket game is leaps and bounds better
AB has the better outside touch, but I don't like my big men playing out there.

While I think LMA and Roy will be the 2 best from this class, Gay 3rd, Thomas/Millsap 4th/5th...AB will probably be 6th, and Surgee being the wild card. He could end up top 3 or rounding out the top 10.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'd take Aldridge, but not because I think he will be better.....especially by a long shot. I like the kid, and don't know a think about Bargnani other than he has great skills and will probably be a very good player in this league for a long time


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

i think that bargnani will be considered the "better player". but aldridge is gonna be by far the more valuable to a team.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

As a Raptor fan, before the draft I actually wanted to take Aldridge because he seemed like the most stable solid pick. I shyed away from Bargnani mainly because I didn't know much about him or how his game would translate to the NBA.

After a year I still feel that Aldridge would have been the most solid stable pick, but I now feel that Bargnani was the right pick because he has the potential to be a star, and that's what you go for with the #1 overall pick.

it's hard to evaluate guys after thier first year or two, let's bring back this debate after a couple of years. I remember NJ fans up until last year claiming that Nenad Kristic was better than Chris Bosh, kinda silly now, but more close back then.......this is how I feel this debate will go

while Aldridge is solid, in a few years I believe Bargnani will be clearly the better and more valuable player.


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

> LMA by a long shot....


Ok now thats just stupid. Come on now.

Neither player "by a long shot"



> While I think LMA and Roy will be the 2 best from this class, Gay 3rd, Thomas/Millsap 4th/5th...AB will probably be 6th, and Surgee being the wild card. He could end up top 3 or rounding out the top 10.


Ignorance on your part. No other way to explain it. This is the silliest post I have come across on these forums in some time.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

firstrounder said:


> Ignorance on your part. No other way to explain it. This is the silliest post I have come across on these forums in some time.


I agree. AB will be one of the best 5 from this draft - possibly even the best. My gut feeling is that it will be Aldridge as the best and Roy or AB as the #2 when all is said and done - but only time will tell.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Well to use the "Swirsky" logic:

I have watched Aldridge all season and can tell you he will clearly be the best player from the draft.

(However, I respect the opinion of others and don't understand why those Portland fans are so mean.)


----------



## sammysamosa (Mar 10, 2003)

If he's as good as you all are saying he is going to be on defense...he's more likely to be a Camby type player...while Bargnani has potential to be Dirk with better defense.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

sammysamosa said:


> If he's as good as you all are saying he is going to be on defense...he's more likely to be a Camby type player...while Bargnani has potential to be Dirk with better defense.


Ahhh, I love this logic. Priceless.


----------



## sammysamosa (Mar 10, 2003)

This discussion is worthless right now...come back in 2years and we'll see then...


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Aldridge. Nuff Said.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

It is a more diffuclt decision than I thought it would be. 
I really liked what I saw out of Aldridge this year. I actually had Aldridge listed as my top prospect before the draft, mainly because I liked what I saw and I also knew next to nothing about Bargnani (aside from our 30-something page thread about him last year). 

Bargnani exceeded my expectations of him and proved that he will not be a white stiff bust, like some, including myself, might have been secretly harboring. He has skills........ He's quick, can elevate, has great size and athleticism, can shoot Well, tries on defense a lot more than people might have though, has the tools to be a good defender, and has a competitive fire.

But, Aldridge also showed some things also that I didn't quite expect from him. First of all, he was tagged as being "soft". This was quite obviously not true. He was a true warrior out there this season when he finally got playing time; hustling, rebounding, hard fouls, not backing down from proven players, defending, and even a little competitive trash talking. Aldridge also has skills........ He is very quick for his position....heck, he is quick, even if you don't take position into account, he has great length and athleticism, he HAS great defensive skills and fundamentals and should turn into a good/great defender, he showed some inside scoring moves, and he also can shoot the midrange jumpshot at a high clip. 

So, with all of that said, I like Aldridge better, mostly because I like the kind of player he CAN be more than I like the type of player Bargnani CAN be. I would compare Bargnani to a poorman's Dirk, at least until proven otherwise. And I would compare Aldridge to a poorman's Tim Duncan/Chris Bosh until proven otherwise. When you compare players to those level of players, objectivity is thrown out of the window (defenestrated, if you will). If you put up a poll, especially before the Mav's playoffs collapse, asking who one may prefer between a Dirk-type player or a Duncan/Bosh type player, the results would probably be split to a high degree. 

So, in my opinion....both will be good to great players and both teams will be glad that they got their guy. 

Also, as I imagine this to be the type of thread to resurface later on (let's say in a year or so) for told-you-so's and further review, I would like to take a second to talk to my future self who will most likely be reading this:

Hello future-self (god, that sounded like a line from Bill and Ted). 
Were you correct in your assumptions? Is it still too early to tell? Did someone jump the gun and bring this back up before judgements could truely be dealt? If so, shame on them. As an aside, I hope everything is still well for you. Did your/my band ever make it; take off? Play some good shows? At least make a living off of it? No? Come on man.....what are you doing wasting your time on these message boards when you should be writing a new song or something? If you have your/my act together, then please disregard all of the previous jests. Oh, what's that, Future Self, The Blazers made the playoffs? Really? Nice.....

Ok, that's enough.




* ps, defenestration or as I used it, defenestrated, is the greatest word ever grabbed from the skies and written down. 


prunetang of the past

(edit) - after rereading this post, I must implore you, future self, to get better at spell checking and proper grammar usage. Please. I am too lazy to edit all of the mistakes right now. And on that note: please quit being lazy as well. Tis no good.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

I would love to see what a LA and AB team could do!


----------



## firstrounder (Oct 31, 2004)

Me too! How about we trade you TJ Ford for LA?

hehe


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

firstrounder said:


> Me too! How about we trade you TJ Ford for LA?
> 
> hehe


i wouldn't trade tj ford for LA if i was Toronto. 

you might want to visit the Sixers' board for their opinions of your trade idea rather than portland's board though. Louis Amundson plays for philadelphia. i think he's a free agent next season though. you can just sign him.


----------



## Turkish Delight (Mar 17, 2004)

LOL LA is just as good of a midrange shooter? You are ****ing kidding me. 
You don't like you're bigs playing out in the 3 point line even though it stretches the defense out? If Aldridge could even come close to that sort of range you wouldn't have said a thing. 
Bargnani is better than Aldridge in every aspect of the game except for rebounding. Keep living in your little world, we'll see what happens when Bargnani starts putting monster numbers up next year in the Raptors' starting lineup.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Most Portland fans are gonna say Aldridge, most Toronto fans are gonna say Bargnani. If you look at unbiased fans, fans of other teams, more of them say they'd want Bargnani. So I gotta believe AB is the better prospect at this point but I'm very happy to have LMA. We also got Roy who many would now pick over either one of the bigs.

I actually posted a thread awhile ago in the Chicago board asking if they'd take LMA over Tyrus if they could redo the draft. Almost everyone said they would stay with Thomas over LMA which proves one of three things. Either how low other teams value LMA compared to us Portland fans, how high Chicago fans view Thomas, or how big of homers all of us are.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

So sorry if I think AB will have to battle Tyrus to be in the top 5 of this class. If given minutes, Millsap would put up better numbers than AB. Milsap is an absolute beast on the glass. I am just not sold on AB. I think he's closer to Raef LaFrentz circa 2000 then Dirk Nowitzki. He can't and don't think he' ever be a good rebounder or defender. Why am I even arguing this on a message board, I am so glad we got LMA, he's going to be the next big thing from the post position. Best. Draft. Ever.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Turkish Delight said:


> LOL LA is just as good of a midrange shooter? You are ****ing kidding me.
> You don't like you're bigs playing out in the 3 point line even though it stretches the defense out? If Aldridge could even come close to that sort of range you wouldn't have said a thing.
> Bargnani is better than Aldridge in every aspect of the game except for rebounding. Keep living in your little world, we'll see what happens when Bargnani starts putting monster numbers up next year in the Raptors' starting lineup.


Hey, it's another guy who has probably never even seen Aldridge play. How many Blazer games did you actually get to watch last season Turkish? Go ahead and lie if you don't want to admit that it was few or none.

I'm going to try to remember this thread after next season. It will be fun to post a link to it on the Toronto board, so they can see how wrong they were.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Turkish Delight said:


> Bargnani is better than Aldridge in every aspect of the game except for rebounding.


I would also say that Aldridge is a better shot blocker, interior defender, post player, and has a higher field goal percentage.

Don't worry, they'll both have great careers.


----------



## Toxicity (Jul 21, 2004)

I haven't seen much of Aldridge to compare them well... on the other hand, Blazers fans probably haven't seen much of Bargnani... i think a comparison in a Raptors or Blazers forum could be biased (obviously).

I think both will be nice player, the only sure thing is LMA seems to be the classic big man while AB is a perimeter-oriented big man. They both can improve a lot in their weaknesses but they'll likely remain that kind of players even at full development.


----------



## shookem (Nov 1, 2005)

Hmmm. The thing that makes AB different from most rookies in that he is a stone cold killer. He'll take the big shot and has done it in the postseason where things matter more.

I won't pretend to have seen many Blazers games last year, probably less than a dozen but from what I saw LA was impressive. I think he'll take longer to hit his stride than AB but I believe both have the potential to become All-Star and impact players in this league.

Like I said though, Bargs has ice in his veins.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

shookem said:


> Hmmm. The thing that makes AB different from most rookies in that he is a stone cold killer. He'll take the big shot and has done it in the postseason where things matter more.
> 
> I won't pretend to have seen many Blazers games last year, probably less than a dozen but from what I saw LA was impressive. I think he'll take longer to hit his stride than AB but I believe both have the potential to become All-Star and impact players in this league.
> 
> Like I said though, Bargs has ice in his veins.



That's the nice thing about Roy and Aldridge as well. Roy won or tied numerous games for us, and Aldridge did so as well in a few. One in particular I remember was when he hit two free throws to ice a game against Minnesota and called Ricky Davis a ***** after he hit both free throws.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Turkish Delight said:


> LOL LA is just as good of a midrange shooter? You are ****ing kidding me.
> You don't like you're bigs playing out in the 3 point line even though it stretches the defense out? If Aldridge could even come close to that sort of range you wouldn't have said a thing.
> Bargnani is better than Aldridge in every aspect of the game except for rebounding. Keep living in your little world, we'll see what happens when Bargnani starts putting monster numbers up next year in the Raptors' starting lineup.


Aldridge is by far the better defender. Early in the season, he took Dirk Nowitzki completely out of a game. He has quickness and athleticism that AB simply does not have.

AB is a better scorer, especially from deep, and is a better ball handler.

LA is better on defense and rebounding and can run the floor better.

In essence, AB is a better perimeter player, and LA is a better inside player. AB is a better fit for Toronto since he blends well with Bosh, and LA is a better fit for Portland as he complements Zach very well.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Turkish Delight said:


> LOL LA is just as good of a midrange shooter? You are ****ing kidding me.
> You don't like you're bigs playing out in the 3 point line even though it stretches the defense out? If Aldridge could even come close to that sort of range you wouldn't have said a thing.
> Bargnani is better than Aldridge in every aspect of the game except for rebounding. Keep living in your little world, we'll see what happens when Bargnani starts putting monster numbers up next year in the Raptors' starting lineup.


Bargnani is a better midrange shooter. But to say that rebounding is Aldridge's only advantage is absurd.


----------



## Toxicity (Jul 21, 2004)

BTW Bargnani averaged 3.9 rebounds in 25.1 mpg while Aldridge 5.0 in 22.1 mpg. You obviously can see LMA seems by far the best rebounder, but... look at their defensive rebounds:

Bargnani 3.1 (5.9 per 48')

Aldridge 2.7 (5.9 per 48')

:eek8:

That's pretty singular...

LaMarcus did a wonderful job at offensive rebs (2.3 against just 0.8 by Andrea) to justify the gap but you have to take in account Bargs is 99% of time around or out the 3p line on offense... :wink:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Toxicity said:


> You have to take in account Bargs is 99% of time around or out the 3p line on offense...


That's a big mistake. Rashweed Wallace has wasted most of his talent by hovering around the 3-point line for years now.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Toxicity knows how many of us Blazers fans were/are big Bargnani fans. Like Blazer Maven said, LaMarcus is a great fit for Portland; Andrea is a great fit for Toronto. Knowledgable fans can see this and can see the strengths of each player. As for a clueless Toronto homer who wants to pollute the discussion....:banned:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> That's a big mistake. Rashweed Wallace has wasted most of his talent by hovering around the 3-point line for years now.


Yeah, he wasted that talent to the tune of 3 all star games and a championship. Not to mention 256 win shares and a 17.4 career PER average. What a waste.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Toxicity said:


> BTW Bargnani averaged 3.9 rebounds in 25.1 mpg while Aldridge 5.0 in 22.1 mpg. You obviously can see LMA seems by far the best rebounder, but... look at their defensive rebounds:
> 
> Bargnani 3.1 (5.9 per 48')
> 
> ...


True, but it does not tell the entire story since Lamarcus played alongside two fantastic rebounders in Zach and Jamal and because of his defensive ability he did manage to spend a nice amount of time defending opposing perimeter players...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Toxicity said:


> BTW Bargnani averaged 3.9 rebounds in 25.1 mpg while Aldridge 5.0 in 22.1 mpg. You obviously can see LMA seems by far the best rebounder, but... look at their defensive rebounds:


Without taking pace into effect, comparing numbers like rebounds or rebounds/48 isn't terribly helpful. Portland had the second-lowest pace in the NBA (ahead of only Detroit), while Toronto had the 11th-highest pace.

It's interesting, of course, to see the raw numbers, but Aldridge's defensive rebounding definitely wasn't a strength this year and hopefully it gets better as he gets stronger and/or after Zach is dealt.

As for the two players: I like Aldridge because it looks like he'll be able to play (or at least defend) centers. Bargnani is going to be a good player, but not at the level of where LA will end up. But I could be wrong. 

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Rashard Lewis. That's the kind of game we can expect from Bargnani, although AB won't take as many years to reach his peak (Shard still hasn't...).


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Without taking pace into effect, comparing numbers like rebounds or rebounds/48 isn't terribly helpful. Portland had the second-lowest pace in the NBA (ahead of only Detroit), while Toronto had the 11th-highest pace.
> 
> It's interesting, of course, to see the raw numbers, but Aldridge's defensive rebounding definitely wasn't a strength this year and hopefully it gets better as he gets stronger and/or after Zach is dealt.
> 
> ...


To illustrate: rebound rating takes pace and rebound opportunities into account. (rebounds per 100 rebound opportunities.) Aldridge's rebound rating: 13.9. Bargnani's rebound rating: 9.2. Aldridge is a much better rebounder.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> They are going to be very different players, so it's a bit of a judgement call. Bargnani will probably be a much better scorer. He can shoot from outside, put it on the floor a bit and he plays in a system that rewards that. Aldridge doesn't have the outside shot, although his midrange is great, and he gets lots of his points from putbacks. So far, he hasn't shown the kind of ability to create shots that is usually needed for a guy to become a big-time scorer. That could change, but Bargnani is further along now and probably always will be.
> 
> But Aldridge has him beat by a mile on the defensive end. I'm not afraid to say now, LaMarcus will be a top-level defensive player in the NBA in 5 years. Not only does he rebound decently and block shots well now, but his timing and footwork are phenomenal. Of course he still makes rookie mistakes, and it would help to bulk up, but I expect both of those to resolve. Bargnani, OTOH, has length and some shot-blocking ability, but on defense he's nothing special. If he's playing the SF position, he's going to have some trouble with quicker guys, at PF or C he's going to have trouble with stronger guys. He doesn't have the frame to add a lot of strength to.
> 
> ...


if people would have listened to me from the beginning, they would have known he isnt soft


----------



## Toxicity (Jul 21, 2004)

andalusian said:


> True, but it does not tell the entire story since Lamarcus played alongside two fantastic rebounders in Zach and Jamal and because of his defensive ability he did manage to spend a nice amount of time defending opposing perimeter players...


I'd say the same thing for Andrea (who played with a top rebounder like Bosh and spent a lot of time guarding SFs)...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Toxicity said:


> I'd say the same thing for Andrea (who played with a top rebounder like Bosh and spent a lot of time guarding SFs)...


Bosh is a good rebounder, but he's the only one the Raps have, so Bargnani had quite a bit less competition from his own teammates for rebounds than Aldridge did. The Raptors were -3 in rebounding differential, which was 4th worst in the league. The Blazers, OTOH, were +0.3 which is just above average.

But certainly, if you are guarding opposing SFs, it generally puts you farther away from the hoop and less likely to get a real rebounding opportunity.


----------

