GreatWhiteStiff wrote:Derozan wasn't definitely below what I would say is the mendoza line of TS% (.500) for most of the playoffs. In face he was well below for the entire playoffs in spite of how he played at the end. Earlier he wasn't even close to mediocrity. It is difficult to put a positive spin on a guy with 46% TS in a playoff, to be commended for sure.
Indeed. He had a 6-game series against the Cavs where his shot was falling despite not playing any differently compared to the earlier matchups where his poor decisions were getting him into trouble. By series...
vs IND: 36.2 mpg, 17.9 PPG, 19.7 FGA/g, 31.9% FG, 2.6 3PA/g, 16.7% 3P, 5.6 FTA/g, 87.2% FT, 40.3% TS, 87 ORTG
vs MIA: 38.4 mpg, 22.1 PPG, 21.7 FGA/g, 38.8% FG, 0.6 3PA/g, 25.0% 3P, 7.3 FTA/g, 70.6% FT, 44.4% TS, 94 ORTG
vs CLE: 37.4 mpg, 23.0 ppg, 18.0 FGA/g, 50.0% FG, 0.7 3PA/g, 0.0% 3P, 5.5 FTA/g, 90.9% FT, 56.3% TS, 109 ORTG
So he was brutal at the one thing we really ask of him for 14 of 20 games. IN the Indy series, you can look at Paul George, but also his decision-making. In the Miami series, there was the thumb, but also his decision-making. In the Cleveland series, he was still basically playing the same way, but his shots started falling, and so he looked much better... which was timely, matching off against the fact that it reinforced his bad habits and weak approach.
Things to think about. We've now seen five postseason matchups from Demar and about four of them have been mediocre or worse, and his decision-making has been comparably poor and without any real adaptation in each, which is not an encouraging trend. He is a slow learner with respect to basketball, so this doesn't really bolster my spirits looking forward in the hopes of him looking better. We basically survived Demar for two rounds (although Lowry took his sweet time coming around as well, and there were other issues of consequence, surely), and that's not really ideal for a big-minutes, 30% USG player. That is, in fact, directly a structural issue with roster design, presuming that consistent playoff success and deep playoff runs are a major point of interest. We really should have lost both the opening series and the semis, but the other team outplayed us in their efforts to lose. That won't happen all of the time, and I feel like a lot of people are missing out on the context of how things went. We fought and scrapped to seven games against some teams that really weren't that good, either in the regular season or during the postseason. We made that look so, so hard that it was a little embarrassing. I mean, it's nice that we won: we set a couple of franchise-firsts, and that's always nice to see. It's about time we had a 50-win season and got out of the first round for the second time, that was great. But man, did we ever make the first two rounds of the playoffs look like the Battle of Stalingrad in the process.
