Official RJ Barrett Thread Part 2

[bonjovi0308]

I think "highly dependent" on other players is an exaggeration. In 41 games with at least one of Scottie or Quickley plays he has a 61TS% averaging something like 23/6/4 . Both of those players have very different play styles, and aren't drawing some MVP type attention.

Without 1 of them our drop off in offensive creation is massive. The fact that RJ needs someone to be better than Davion Mitchell as the primary ballhandler doesn't really say much about him as a player.

And the criticisms of RJ ogten go so over the top they are nothing but hate

I think it's more that he's best deployed when he's slashing without the ball. And it becomes clear that having a proper primary initiator other than RJ is critical to Barrett's ability to thrive and shine. And that's fine, that isn't really any different than a catch-and-shoot guy needing dudes who can screen and get him the ball, right? It's just playing to a strength, and it opens the door for those other guys to do their primary on-ball thing while he attacks against the shifted D.

I think it's clear that he's got a limited scope as an on-ball guy, and his greatest inefficiency comes when he's spamming on-ball sets. But we've all been discussing this all year, right? Finding ways to get better sets to support our guys. Putting them in position to succeed by finding what they do well and letting them do MORE of it. There are similar concerns with Scottie, and Gradey's having his growing pains as a scorer now as well, etc, etc.

We have a superstar-less team, which means we're flawed and need to really lean more on precision execution and role definition. And that certainly applies to more than just RJ.

All that really needs be acknowledged about Barrett is that he needs more off-ball possessions and then he seems to start looking better as far as we've seen in Toronto. He had Quickley in New York and it didn't matter, but Barnes appears to have a pretty strong impact on him. So we have to keep trying to replicate what worked last year, and has been working at times this year, and see how far along we can get and how long he can maintain.

I think this analysis of his game is on point, but i honestly don’t see an issue with him. Rj has flaws in his game just like every other player we’ve had not name Kawhi. Doesn’t mean that hugely flawed players like Siakam, FVV, Ibaka and others weren’t absolutely essential to our title run.

Of course RJ looks bad if we don’t use him properly and play to his strengths, so would Barnes Quickley and everyone else we have. The fact is that we don’t currently really have anyone else with RJs skill set, so why wouldn’t you play to his strengths? He can absolutely be integral to how we play whether as a starter or 6th man of the year bench player.

I think a lot of people just expected too much of him and that’s why he draws so much criticism, rather than seeing him with fresh eyes.

You forgot that the starting 5 on our champion team were all decent 2 way players. It's like you are arguing Demar is a better nba player than Danny Green is, but I'm not sure if we would still win a champion if we had Demar instead of Green

[Madhouse]

If he was a much better defender I would consider him a core piece but you cannot have him and Dick on the court at the same time.

[MEDIC]

If he was a much better defender I would consider him a core piece but you cannot have him and Dick on the court at the same time.

Possibly. But these are problems to be solved down the road. You either play them in limited minutes together (personally, I woulf like one of Gradey or RJ on the floor at all times), or you trade one of them off if a guy like Walter steps up.

Right now it's all about youung asset accumulation && development.

Who knows, maybe Gradey turns into a neutral or plus defender. He has the feet for it. Needs more strength and more reps........and a new haircut.....or maybe some.face tattoos. I want to see him go full birdman..

[ArthurVandelay]

If he was a much better defender I would consider him a core piece but you cannot have him and Dick on the court at the same time.

Possibly. But these are problems to be solved down the road. You either play them in limited minutes together (personally, I woulf like one of Gradey or RJ on the floor at all times), or you trade one of them off if a guy like Walter steps up.

Right now it's all about youung asset accumulation && development.

Who knows, maybe Gradey turns into a neutral or plus defender. He has the feet for it. Needs more strength and more reps........and a new haircut.....or maybe some.face tattoos. I want to see him go full birdman..

All I can think of is Tropic Thunder... "No one should ever go full Birdman."

[MEDIC]

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.
Is he an inefficient volume scorer? Historically speaking, yes.
Has he shown noticeable improvement since joining the Raps? Yes and no, he is highly dependent on other players to be league average or better. With those players and in a controlled environment, he's efficient, without them or that structure, he is quite inefficient.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

For me personally, it's just the timing of these discussions. We are not competing or even close to it, so who cares about which young player is not efficient or isn't the best defender. Maybe they get more efficient. Maybe they improve their defense. Maybe we find a way to compensate for their weaknesses.

I could understand if this was the Lowry/ Derozan Raptors & we had multiple 50 win seasons & couldn't get over the hump in the playoffs. 100% these discussions would be relevant. Maybe you do consider trading RJ or Quickley or Dick or whomever at that point. Those would be very valuable conversations & relevant to the time at hand.

Right now we are trying to develop a bunch of sub 25yo players. You keep throwing them out there & hope they all improve & hope they all find chemistry. You hope management & the coaching staff find ways to make things fit. If not, you move some players after a couple of seasons.

2 years from now, do we need to be having these discussions? Probably. Right now we are in year one of a rebuild & we are trying to improve our players & our team chemistry. There was a big shakeup at the last deadline & with all of the injuries, we haven't even had time for things to settle.

[Tripod]

Yeah our top guys have barely played together. But the injuries have allowed others to get more playing time to expand their roles. In time, things will get figured out.

Barrett is 23-6-6 and becomes efficient as he plays with other good players. So let's see how these collection of good players eventually mix. We have no superstar, but we can do what the KL/DD Raps teams did. And who knows, maybe a superstar is eventually added via draft or trade.

Keep collecting assets.

[Dennis 37]

If he was a much better defender I would consider him a core piece but you cannot have him and Dick on the court at the same time.

He's relatively young. Can defense improve or is it what it is?

[Scase]

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.
Is he an inefficient volume scorer? Historically speaking, yes.
Has he shown noticeable improvement since joining the Raps? Yes and no, he is highly dependent on other players to be league average or better. With those players and in a controlled environment, he's efficient, without them or that structure, he is quite inefficient.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

For me personally, it's just the timing of these discussions. We are not competing or even close to it, so who cares about which young player is not efficient or isn't the best defender. Maybe they get more efficient. Maybe they improve their defense. Maybe we find a way to compensate for their weaknesses.

I could understand if this was the Lowry/ Derozan Raptors & we had multiple 50 win seasons & couldn't get over the hump in the playoffs. 100% these discussions would be relevant. Maybe you do consider trading RJ or Quickley or Dick or whomever at that point. Those would be very valuable conversations & relevant to the time at hand.

Right now we are trying to develop a bunch of sub 25yo players. You keep throwing them out there & hope they all improve & hope they all find chemistry. You hope management & the coaching staff find ways to make things fit. If not, you move some players after a couple of seasons.

2 years from now, do we need to be having these discussions? Probably. Right now we are in year one of a rebuild & we are trying to improve our players & our team chemistry. There was a big shakeup at the last deadline & with all of the injuries, we haven't even had time for things to settle.

If these were players on rookie contracts still I would agree, but these aren't new players to the NBA, this guy is a 6 year vet and expectations are higher. A 2nd year player like Gradey is getting virtually zero criticism because of exactly that, he's a 2nd year player, but discussing a guys inefficiency when he's been inefficient for 5 of 6 years is fair game.

The level of play and inconsistency you get from a guy 6 years in matters, even if you are rebuilding. Because that play will dictate whether or not you can even get to that KL/DD level of 50 games. What I do agree with you on is the concept of trading them later on down the line if it doesn't work out.

My comment was more referencing the people who think that moving certain players is heresy and even discussing it labels you a hater. RJ is fine on the team right now, for what he is, I think he could/should be better in certain aspects, and without those I think he's a prime candidate to be moved in the future. But making statements like that gets you dog piled on, every player has limitations, it's not something that should be a forbidden topic.

[djsunyc]

For me personally, it's just the timing of these discussions. We are not competing or even close to it, so who cares about which young player is not efficient or isn't the best defender. Maybe they get more efficient. Maybe they improve their defense. Maybe we find a way to compensate for their weaknesses.

I could understand if this was the Lowry/ Derozan Raptors & we had multiple 50 win seasons & couldn't get over the hump in the playoffs. 100% these discussions would be relevant. Maybe you do consider trading RJ or Quickley or Dick or whomever at that point. Those would be very valuable conversations & relevant to the time at hand.

Right now we are trying to develop a bunch of sub 25yo players. You keep throwing them out there & hope they all improve & hope they all find chemistry. You hope management & the coaching staff find ways to make things fit. If not, you move some players after a couple of seasons.

2 years from now, do we need to be having these discussions? Probably. Right now we are in year one of a rebuild & we are trying to improve our players & our team chemistry. There was a big shakeup at the last deadline & with all of the injuries, we haven't even had time for things to settle.

this roster is in flux. who is here today may not be here in 2 seasons. there's still a lot of moves on the horizon. masai will keep tinkering until something starts to work. a lot of luck will be involved regardless of path.

like you said, rj is here now and we'll see how he does (along with everyone else). he can be part of the solution (just like everyone else) or he will be moved. i don't think any true group of core players that are untouchable is set in stone right now.

[PushDaRock]

Its not "far" below league average,

Yes, it is.

This is the issue with this conversation and a lot of the posters in defence of some things. It's a general lack of understanding of advanced stats and the context surrounding them. They see a small number and then think it means the same thing in different contexts like FG% or 3p%.

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.
Is he an inefficient volume scorer? Historically speaking, yes.
Has he shown noticeable improvement since joining the Raps? Yes and no, he is highly dependent on other players to be league average or better. With those players and in a controlled environment, he's efficient, without them or that structure, he is quite inefficient.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

Every single player on this roster has faults and negative aspects of their games, addressing them isn't some unspeakable affront to the team or the player, it's just being realistic.

If you play well with better players, that's a good thing. But, RJ also was really good last year even without Scottie and Jak.

9 games without Scottie last season, he put up 24.6 ppg on 61.4% TS

17 games without Jak last season, he put up 22.8 pgg on 59.8% TS

A lot of the inefficiency struggles this season we can see came from asking him to carry way too big of a load. Scottie and IQ ideally are out there also sharing that responsibility with him. It's hard on the entire team when your PG's are complete zeros offensively like Mitchell and Shead. The expectation should not be a 32% USG rate as the primary scorer and playmaker. Anyone other than Superstars will struggle in that role, especially when surrounded by inferior talent.

[tsherkin]

The expectation should not be a 32% USG rate as the primary scorer and playmaker. Anyone other than Superstars will struggle in that role, especially when surrounded by inferior talent.

Absolutely.

And that's what it comes down to: finding a role deployment which works for him. We know he does better when he isn't a huge volume shooter. We know he does better when he can get off-ball more. We know he does better when he has better spacing (duh, that's everyone). We know he has no jumper to speak of except from the corners (especially the right side) and struggles at the line. That's fine, those are known quantities for a guy we already know not to be a perennial All-Star. And that's okay. We just have to put him in position to succeed by trying to run him in possession types at which he excels. Which is true of our entire roster.

He isn't a savior, he's a flawed player who was mostly a salary dump from his previous team. I'd be cautious looking at < 10 games of him without Scottie. In those games, he was pretty hot from 3 when he was doing well, and he had Quick for most of them. And he was bad more than he was good in that stretch, the pair of 70%+ TS games he has really brings up his TS% over that specific stretch. Small samples, and all that.

Regardless, I think looking at him without the supporting pieces probably isn't the thing. We don't WANT to play him without those guys. We want them to be healthy and opening lanes for him, setting him up and making him play better. That's the goal anyway. We know from several years worth of time with New York what Barrett's flaws are as a scorer. And they repeat here in Toronto, but especially with Barnes on the floor, he seems to thrive.

So as we limit his volume and try to push more and more optimal looks at him, he should look better inside that role, which is good stuff for us.

[YogurtProducer]

The expectation should not be a 32% USG rate as the primary scorer and playmaker. Anyone other than Superstars will struggle in that role, especially when surrounded by inferior talent.

Absolutely.

And that's what it comes down to: finding a role deployment which works for him. We know he does better when he isn't a huge volume shooter. We know he does better when he can get off-ball more. We know he does better when he has better spacing (duh, that's everyone). We know he has no jumper to speak of except from the corners (especially the right side) and struggles at the line. That's fine, those are known quantities for a guy we already know not to be a perennial All-Star. And that's okay. We just have to put him in position to succeed by trying to run him in possession types at which he excels. Which is true of our entire roster.

He isn't a savior, he's a flawed player who was mostly a salary dump from his previous team. I'd be cautious looking at < 10 games of him without Scottie. In those games, he was pretty hot from 3 when he was doing well, and he had Quick for most of them. And he was bad more than he was good in that stretch, the pair of 70%+ TS games he has really brings up his TS% over that specific stretch. Small samples, and all that.

Regardless, I think looking at him without the supporting pieces probably isn't the thing. We don't WANT to play him without those guys. We want them to be healthy and opening lanes for him, setting him up and making him play better. That's the goal anyway. We know from several years worth of time with New York what Barrett's flaws are as a scorer. And they repeat here in Toronto, but especially with Barnes on the floor, he seems to thrive.

So as we limit his volume and try to push more and more optimal looks at him, he should look better inside that role, which is good stuff for us.

Yeah RJ was really efficient last year, and was efficient this year when Scottie played (60.4TS% since he returned).

I really don't care what he does when it is RJ as the #1 option. He never will be the #1 option for us and it is kind of irrelevant to how we should view him.

Hell, he even looked good last year with IQ out there. Super small sample of 9 games of RJ/IQ after Scottie got hurt last year but RJ gave us 24.6/6.6/4.6 on .554/.344/.692 (61.4TS%). (IQ also gave us 21.1/5.6/8.3 on .435/.352/.845 (.586TS%)

So far in his Raptor tenure, RJ has been incredibly efficient outside of that stretch where IQ and Barnes were both hurt and he was asked to do a lot more than he should. As a guy who is not the #1 though he has been great, and I think the best is to come when he can play with IQ and Barnes together.

[PushDaRock]

The expectation should not be a 32% USG rate as the primary scorer and playmaker. Anyone other than Superstars will struggle in that role, especially when surrounded by inferior talent.

Absolutely.

And that's what it comes down to: finding a role deployment which works for him. We know he does better when he isn't a huge volume shooter. We know he does better when he can get off-ball more. We know he does better when he has better spacing (duh, that's everyone). We know he has no jumper to speak of except from the corners (especially the right side) and struggles at the line. That's fine, those are known quantities for a guy we already know not to be a perennial All-Star. And that's okay. We just have to put him in position to succeed by trying to run him in possession types at which he excels. Which is true of our entire roster.

He isn't a savior, he's a flawed player who was mostly a salary dump from his previous team. I'd be cautious looking at < 10 games of him without Scottie. In those games, he was pretty hot from 3 when he was doing well, and he had Quick for most of them. And he was bad more than he was good in that stretch, the pair of 70%+ TS games he has really brings up his TS% over that specific stretch. Small samples, and all that.

Regardless, I think looking at him without the supporting pieces probably isn't the thing. We don't WANT to play him without those guys. We want them to be healthy and opening lanes for him, setting him up and making him play better. That's the goal anyway. We know from several years worth of time with New York what Barrett's flaws are as a scorer. And they repeat here in Toronto, but especially with Barnes on the floor, he seems to thrive.

So as we limit his volume and try to push more and more optimal looks at him, he should look better inside that role, which is good stuff for us.

Yeah, I think the fit is actually quite good on a healthy team in this offense. Each one of our young core players brings something unique to the table that they are really good at. RJ is elite at getting to the rim. Scottie is an elite playmaker. IQ is an elite above the break 3 point shooter and can shoot it off the dribble from anywhere. Gradey is our movement shooter with a mid range game and what looks like elite ability to attack closeouts. It's unfortunate we might not even get to see this team fully healthy this year to see how it would look.

A Superstar is the easier path to winning in this league but if you can have a bunch of really good players that are star level instead which fit together, that's going to probably lead to a lot of wins too.

[Indeed]

The expectation should not be a 32% USG rate as the primary scorer and playmaker. Anyone other than Superstars will struggle in that role, especially when surrounded by inferior talent.

Absolutely.

And that's what it comes down to: finding a role deployment which works for him. We know he does better when he isn't a huge volume shooter. We know he does better when he can get off-ball more. We know he does better when he has better spacing (duh, that's everyone). We know he has no jumper to speak of except from the corners (especially the right side) and struggles at the line. That's fine, those are known quantities for a guy we already know not to be a perennial All-Star. And that's okay. We just have to put him in position to succeed by trying to run him in possession types at which he excels. Which is true of our entire roster.

He isn't a savior, he's a flawed player who was mostly a salary dump from his previous team. I'd be cautious looking at < 10 games of him without Scottie. In those games, he was pretty hot from 3 when he was doing well, and he had Quick for most of them. And he was bad more than he was good in that stretch, the pair of 70%+ TS games he has really brings up his TS% over that specific stretch. Small samples, and all that.

Regardless, I think looking at him without the supporting pieces probably isn't the thing. We don't WANT to play him without those guys. We want them to be healthy and opening lanes for him, setting him up and making him play better. That's the goal anyway. We know from several years worth of time with New York what Barrett's flaws are as a scorer. And they repeat here in Toronto, but especially with Barnes on the floor, he seems to thrive.

So as we limit his volume and try to push more and more optimal looks at him, he should look better inside that role, which is good stuff for us.

Indeed, except I want to see much bigger sample on Barrett pairing with Barnes to make that conclusion, particularly with Olynky back. His lower TS% has more to do with Mitchell making that lower than Barnes making him high, imo.

[PushDaRock]

The expectation should not be a 32% USG rate as the primary scorer and playmaker. Anyone other than Superstars will struggle in that role, especially when surrounded by inferior talent.

Absolutely.

And that's what it comes down to: finding a role deployment which works for him. We know he does better when he isn't a huge volume shooter. We know he does better when he can get off-ball more. We know he does better when he has better spacing (duh, that's everyone). We know he has no jumper to speak of except from the corners (especially the right side) and struggles at the line. That's fine, those are known quantities for a guy we already know not to be a perennial All-Star. And that's okay. We just have to put him in position to succeed by trying to run him in possession types at which he excels. Which is true of our entire roster.

He isn't a savior, he's a flawed player who was mostly a salary dump from his previous team. I'd be cautious looking at < 10 games of him without Scottie. In those games, he was pretty hot from 3 when he was doing well, and he had Quick for most of them. And he was bad more than he was good in that stretch, the pair of 70%+ TS games he has really brings up his TS% over that specific stretch. Small samples, and all that.

Regardless, I think looking at him without the supporting pieces probably isn't the thing. We don't WANT to play him without those guys. We want them to be healthy and opening lanes for him, setting him up and making him play better. That's the goal anyway. We know from several years worth of time with New York what Barrett's flaws are as a scorer. And they repeat here in Toronto, but especially with Barnes on the floor, he seems to thrive.

So as we limit his volume and try to push more and more optimal looks at him, he should look better inside that role, which is good stuff for us.

Indeed, except I want to see much bigger sample on Barrett pairing with Barnes to make that conclusion, particularly with Olynky back. His lower TS% has more to do with Mitchell making that lower than Barnes making him high, imo.

Mitchell and Shead are at an unplayable level offensively. It's not even just the horrible efficiency numbers, it's the lack of threat out there too. PG's that can't shoot just kill your offense especially when they are undersized and aren't making it up with an elite ability to get to the rim.

[PushDaRock]

The expectation should not be a 32% USG rate as the primary scorer and playmaker. Anyone other than Superstars will struggle in that role, especially when surrounded by inferior talent.

Absolutely.

And that's what it comes down to: finding a role deployment which works for him. We know he does better when he isn't a huge volume shooter. We know he does better when he can get off-ball more. We know he does better when he has better spacing (duh, that's everyone). We know he has no jumper to speak of except from the corners (especially the right side) and struggles at the line. That's fine, those are known quantities for a guy we already know not to be a perennial All-Star. And that's okay. We just have to put him in position to succeed by trying to run him in possession types at which he excels. Which is true of our entire roster.

He isn't a savior, he's a flawed player who was mostly a salary dump from his previous team. I'd be cautious looking at < 10 games of him without Scottie. In those games, he was pretty hot from 3 when he was doing well, and he had Quick for most of them. And he was bad more than he was good in that stretch, the pair of 70%+ TS games he has really brings up his TS% over that specific stretch. Small samples, and all that.

Regardless, I think looking at him without the supporting pieces probably isn't the thing. We don't WANT to play him without those guys. We want them to be healthy and opening lanes for him, setting him up and making him play better. That's the goal anyway. We know from several years worth of time with New York what Barrett's flaws are as a scorer. And they repeat here in Toronto, but especially with Barnes on the floor, he seems to thrive.

So as we limit his volume and try to push more and more optimal looks at him, he should look better inside that role, which is good stuff for us.

Yeah RJ was really efficient last year, and was efficient this year when Scottie played (60.4TS% since he returned).

I really don't care what he does when it is RJ as the #1 option. He never will be the #1 option for us and it is kind of irrelevant to how we should view him.

Hell, he even looked good last year with IQ out there. Super small sample of 9 games of RJ/IQ after Scottie got hurt last year but RJ gave us 24.6/6.6/4.6 on .554/.344/.692 (61.4TS%). (IQ also gave us 21.1/5.6/8.3 on .435/.352/.845 (.586TS%)

So far in his Raptor tenure, RJ has been incredibly efficient outside of that stretch where IQ and Barnes were both hurt and he was asked to do a lot more than he should. As a guy who is not the #1 though he has been great, and I think the best is to come when he can play with IQ and Barnes together.

I mean I guess technically he's still a #1 because I expect RJ to be the leading scorer with everyone healthy but yeah ideally he's more 26-28% USG and playing off our other playmakers more and being hyper efficient scoring at the rim and getting more corner 3's The way this offense should look when healthy is multiple threats that can go off for 30 any night which makes it hard to key in on any one player.

[tsherkin]

Yeah RJ was really efficient last year, and was efficient this year when Scottie played (60.4TS% since he returned).

I really don't care what he does when it is RJ as the #1 option. He never will be the #1 option for us and it is kind of irrelevant to how we should view him.

I think all we need to take from that is that he shouldn't be the #1 option, and that there are things we shouldn't ask of him. Beyond that, things are very different for RJ when we field our actual team, and I agree that we should focus on that. Finding ways to help him play his best.

Yeah, I think the fit is actually quite good on a healthy team in this offense. Each one of our young core players brings something unique to the table that they are really good at. RJ is elite at getting to the rim. Scottie is an elite playmaker. IQ is an elite above the break 3 point shooter and can shoot it off the dribble from anywhere. Gradey is our movement shooter with a mid range game and what looks like elite ability to attack closeouts. It's unfortunate we might not even get to see this team fully healthy this year to see how it would look.

Yes. I'm eager to see what we look like when we're all together for a little while. It might not happen this year, but the closer we get to it, the more interesting things will be for us.

A Superstar is the easier path to winning in this league but if you can have a bunch of really good players that are star level instead which fit together, that's going to probably lead to a lot of wins too.

Wins, yes. Titles, no. But then, we already have our title and like half the league does not. So we can definitely focus on just being successful in the RS and winning a round or two come the playoffs for a long time and that'd be just fine, no doubt. And we seem to have some pieces which are showing a lot of promise right now.

[Johnny Bball]

Tyrese Maxey ended up with exactly the same efficiency issue that RJ does when better options are hurt. Jalen Suggs will likely show the same. It's been stated about 100 times in this thread that neither is a number 1 option.

I see no reason for these players to be criticized harshly for any efficiency woes in a year/span that they will be placed in roles they cannot flourish in, when you know what their efficiency is in the role you want them in.

Regardless of any backpedalling, none of the three organizations would find the logic used by some of those here remotely useful.

[Indeed]

Yeah RJ was really efficient last year, and was efficient this year when Scottie played (60.4TS% since he returned).

I really don't care what he does when it is RJ as the #1 option. He never will be the #1 option for us and it is kind of irrelevant to how we should view him.

I think all we need to take from that is that he shouldn't be the #1 option, and that there are things we shouldn't ask of him. Beyond that, things are very different for RJ when we field our actual team, and I agree that we should focus on that. Finding ways to help him play his best.

I am unsure that the measurement of a #1 option should be using TS%, particularly that the possession ended in scoring (without credit as assist or putback from an offensive play perspective). It could be an at rim attempt that the C can have the put ball. We also saw against the Knicks where he failed to make the put back twice, that should not be counted as multiple missed shots.

I think Barrett would be borderline #1 option, it just his passing can be earlier to benefit others, instead of trying to finish (even he is a very good finisher). Defense would also be something we desired, even not related to being the #1 option.

He is definitely being respected as the #1 option, as Anunoby was the one guarding him while playing as PF (instead of Anunoby guarding Barnes).

[manjusaka]

Tyrese Maxey ended up with exactly the same efficiency issue that RJ does when better options are hurt. Jalen Suggs will likely show the same. It's been stated about 100 times in this thread that neither is a number 1 option.

I see no reason for these players to be criticized harshly for any efficiency woes in a year/span that they will be placed in roles they cannot flourish in, when you know what their efficiency is in the role you want them in.

Regardless of any backpedalling, none of the three organizations would find the logic used by some of those here remotely useful.

The real problem is among BBQ, RJ is the only one healthy, so he is going to put into the role that will drive down his efficiency.