PG (@Atl): Raps take Hawk Two-ah in Atlanta

[PushDaRock]

Concerned about a 58.3 TS% for a 24 year old averaging 22 ppg?

Yeah. League-average efficiency from your top volume scorers isn't good. And he's in year 6, and still has major gaps in his game which cause that inefficiency. Celebration of mediocrity isn't a thing for me.

If Scottie was doing that, would you be concerned? I think your standard is just incredibly high.

No, they aren't. We know what good top scoring options look like, and this isn't that kind of performance. Stop treating 58% TS like it's a decade ago.

And yes. I would still be concerned if Scottie was managing league-average efficiency. I would, as with Barrett, consider it a step in the right direction because he's been quite bad in that respect previously, but it's still not good. And Scottie, being positioned as the potential focal offensive player, has a higher minimum threshold because he can't rely on the machinations of others to set up his shot. Barrett has that luxury, but without Scottie, he is flatly not good at this level of usage.

We basically got him as a salary dump throw in, hard to complain too much about his flaws in that context.

No, that's not sensible. He's on the team. The nature of the acquisition means little, since he's being propped up as one of the focal elements of our team.

I like Barrett. He's a hometown kid. He's improved his passing. He is some of the only rim pressure we have, even if he is well below average when he gets there. I would like to see him be worth it. And he's not awful alongside Scottie.

But I remain concerned that he isn't a long-term option and I remain skeptical of the sample we have for him without Scottie at this point.

I mean he was a toxic asset when we acquired him and now he's not. He's not out there making max money and he's the leading scorer on the team so yeah I think it's a bit hard to complain too much about his flaws.

I'm not calling either of these guys #1 options. They likely are both #3 options on a contender at best. I would absolutely move either of them if the right deal came up, nobody on this team is close to untouchable.

It's not celebrating mediocrity, it's being realistic with what you have. The vast majority of players are not going to develop into true #1 options maybe only 10-15 of those exist, doesn't mean every other scorer is trash.

[tsherkin]

I mean he was a toxic asset when we acquired him and now he's not. He's not out there making max money and he's the leading scorer on the team so yeah I think it's a bit hard to complain too much about his flaws.

That seems odd to me.

It's not celebrating mediocrity, it's being realistic with what you have. The vast majority of players are not going to develop into true #1 options maybe only 10-15 of those exist, doesn't mean every other scorer is trash.

I find most people who are "being realistic with what [we] have" mostly don't want to hear criticism of any kind, frankly. I'm not concerned about him developing into a true #1. I'd bet money that he won't. He's in his 6th season and his major flaws are all still his major flaws. He relies heavily on being set up to even hit league-average efficiency. He hasn't added a middle game and he's streaky and mediocre from 3, especially outside of the right-side corner.

So yeah. I will continue to discuss the issues with him, regardless of the manner of his acquisition. I will try to be fair and acknowledge when he shows growth, as well, but I'm certainly not going to ignore what I see.

[GoRapstheoriginal]

Can get the next game thread started? Thanks!

[PushDaRock]

I mean he was a toxic asset when we acquired him and now he's not. He's not out there making max money and he's the leading scorer on the team so yeah I think it's a bit hard to complain too much about his flaws.

That seems odd to me.

It's not celebrating mediocrity, it's being realistic with what you have. The vast majority of players are not going to develop into true #1 options maybe only 10-15 of those exist, doesn't mean every other scorer is trash.

I find most people who are "being realistic with what [we] have" mostly don't want to hear criticism of any kind, frankly. I'm not concerned about him developing into a true #1. I'd bet money that he won't. He's in his 6th season and his major flaws are all still his major flaws. He relies heavily on being set up to even hit league-average efficiency. He hasn't added a middle game and he's streaky and mediocre from 3, especially outside of the right-side corner.

So yeah. I will continue to discuss the issues with him, regardless of the manner of his acquisition. I will try to be fair and acknowledge when he shows growth, as well, but I'm certainly not going to ignore what I see.

This is a bad team, we can go through the entire roster and complain about how every player sucks at this or that if we want to and that discussion would never end.

It's fine being critical but you're pointing out obvious flaws we all know about. If he had a mid range game, was a better 3 point shooter, makes all his FT's and could defend better, he would be a definite star and probably a borderline superstar. But, we should also be realistic and recognize there's a reason we got him as essentially a salary dump. I certainly hope he can improve on his weaknesses but I'm not holding my breath and it's more likely we will have to live with some of his flaws if they keep him. He's also making 26m this year, we should be comparing his production to other guys making that much. If he doesn't improve at all from this point, he's maybe like a 4th/5th best player on a good team and he would be a very good 6th man at the very least for every team.

[tsherkin]

I certainly hope he can improve on his weaknesses but I'm not holding my breath and it's more likely we will have to live with some of his flaws if they keep him.

And, until we start actually trying to compete, that's fine. Once our goal changes, however, then he won't really have much of a place unless he improves upon his weaknesses.

Ultimately, he's on the team. He gets discussed. It is what it is.

[YogurtProducer]

We have 69 games of data now with the Raptors. During that time is at 58.3% true shooting. For a decent amount of that time, he has been the primary scorer, has been playing with inexperienced teammates, and has been playing with a lineup that has been in flux.

Yeah, 58% makes sense. That'd be league average the past two seasons, and about half a percent above this year. That isn't good. It's certainly better than his seasonal TS%, though.

Free throws, turnovers, and defence are definitely problem areas. But I still think there is hope for him to be a positive asset, either in a trade, or in a less central role on a more stable roster.

It's possible.

Like Scottie, there are some signs that if RJ reduced his usage and focused on certain types of sets, he'd be better. IT's all a good indication that we're using them both to score (and especially to initiate) too much.

Our big move is to not overpay him when it comes to it, because while he has potential utility to us, he isn't worth a large contract.

Gonna push back on "that isn't good".

Is it elite? no. But is it good? Absolutely.

League average efficiency is propped up by bigs who only dunk, and role players who only shoot wide open 3's. Among guys that actually have to create offence, "league average efficiency" is a solid building block.

For example, 58TS% puts him in the same area (+/- 1ish%) as Devin Booker, Luka Doncic, Donovan Mitchell, Wagner, Derozan, Harden, Embiid, Tatum, Fox, Murray, etc.

Using leauge average efficiency is not a great way to say whether or not a top option is or is not efficient.

[Tripod]

We have 69 games of data now with the Raptors. During that time is at 58.3% true shooting. For a decent amount of that time, he has been the primary scorer, has been playing with inexperienced teammates, and has been playing with a lineup that has been in flux.

Yeah, 58% makes sense. That'd be league average the past two seasons, and about half a percent above this year. That isn't good. It's certainly better than his seasonal TS%, though.

Free throws, turnovers, and defence are definitely problem areas. But I still think there is hope for him to be a positive asset, either in a trade, or in a less central role on a more stable roster.

It's possible.

Like Scottie, there are some signs that if RJ reduced his usage and focused on certain types of sets, he'd be better. IT's all a good indication that we're using them both to score (and especially to initiate) too much.

Our big move is to not overpay him when it comes to it, because while he has potential utility to us, he isn't worth a large contract.

Gonna push back on "that isn't good".

Is it elite? no. But is it good? Absolutely.

League average efficiency is propped up by bigs who only dunk, and role players who only shoot wide open 3's. Among guys that actually have to create offence, "league average efficiency" is a solid building block.

For example, 58TS% puts him in the same area (+/- 1ish%) as Devin Booker, Luka Doncic, Donovan Mitchell, Wagner, Derozan, Harden, Embiid, Tatum, Fox, Murray, etc.

Using leauge average efficiency is not a great way to say whether or not a top option is or is not efficient.

Yeah when the top 5 TS% are:

Allen, Kessler, Gafford, Duren, Lively you can see that context matters.

[TheGeneral99]

So we are 11-21 with Barnes playing this season and 2-11 without him.

[YogurtProducer]

So we are 11-21 with Barnes playing this season and 2-11 without him.

The closest thing we have had to a starting lineup in Mitchell/RJ/Dick/Barnes/Poeltl is actually 6-5 together (and IQ instead of Mitchell is 0-4 randomly).

As people said from the start of the year, if this team is healthy they are not a bad team by any means. Despite what TWO wanted to spout, the only reason we are anywhere near the bottom is due to injury and (IMO) selectively sitting players. Could be a good sign if we hit on a top pick this year and add to it.

[Tripod]

So we are 11-21 with Barnes playing this season and 2-11 without him.

The closest thing we have had to a starting lineup in Mitchell/RJ/Dick/Barnes/Poeltl is actually 6-5 together (and IQ instead of Mitchell is 0-4 randomly).

As people said from the start of the year, if this team is healthy they are not a bad team by any means. Despite what TWO wanted to spout, the only reason we are anywhere near the bottom is due to injury and (IMO) selectively sitting players. Could be a good sign if we hit on a top pick this year and add to it.

It's why I don't see Yak being moved unless he asks for it or doesn't want to re-sign. Because I think they believe we can easily take a Detroit like jump up the standings next year. And honestly, why not?

And then they would just let the 2 1st rd picks fall where they may and know they are adding more depth to the organization.

By my count the Raps lost 13 games by 6 or less pts. With a healthy roster that could have been 7-6 instead and all the sudden they are in the play-in race and only a few games out of 6th. It's a fine line. But for most of the season we were missing 1 or 2 starters and 2 bench rotation guys. That's why Shead, Mogbo, Battle played.

[YogurtProducer]

So we are 11-21 with Barnes playing this season and 2-11 without him.

The closest thing we have had to a starting lineup in Mitchell/RJ/Dick/Barnes/Poeltl is actually 6-5 together (and IQ instead of Mitchell is 0-4 randomly).

As people said from the start of the year, if this team is healthy they are not a bad team by any means. Despite what TWO wanted to spout, the only reason we are anywhere near the bottom is due to injury and (IMO) selectively sitting players. Could be a good sign if we hit on a top pick this year and add to it.

It's why I don't see Yak being moved unless he asks for it or doesn't want to re-sign. Because I think they believe we can easily take a Detroit like jump up the standings next year. And honestly, why not?

And then they would just let the 2 1st rd picks fall where they may and know they are adding more depth to the organization.

By my count the Raps lost 13 games by 6 or less pts. With a healthy roster that could have been 7-6 instead and all the sudden they are in the play-in race and only a few games out of 6th. It's a fine line. But for most of the season we were missing 1 or 2 starters and 2 bench rotation guys. That's why Shead, Mogbo, Battle played.

True. What done is done and we should take advantage this year and grab that pick, but this team is certainly not a bad one.

All things considered, I agree re: Detroit. I don't watch them play or look at their roster and think they are any better than we are. Which is crazy considering arguably 3 of their 5 or 6 most important guys are short term vets (Beasley/Harris/Hardaway) whereas with us we have 1 in Poeltl.

This board just really, really sucks at understanding how much health matters in the regular season. Anyone who though a team that was missing Quickley, Brown, Olynyk, Barnes/Barrett, etc. and was playing multiple rookies and UDFAs was gonna play anywhere near their actual ability was just not in reality.

I still expect us to be humbled in the near future and likely we will see the effort level dwindle and tanking cranked up to 100 post-deadline and lead us to a pick anyways. Next year should be fun (unless we just scrap all the vets and try to do a 2025/2026 b2b tank type thing).

Re: Poeltl is all depends on the offer. You don't move a starting caliber guy for a garbge return, but if we get enough value back I am onboard with that move. It would likely take 2-3 years to replace him so it would be committing to sub 30-win years until 2026/27 at the earliest which could work out.

[pingpongrac]

So we are 11-21 with Barnes playing this season and 2-11 without him.

The closest thing we have had to a starting lineup in Mitchell/RJ/Dick/Barnes/Poeltl is actually 6-5 together (and IQ instead of Mitchell is 0-4 randomly).

As people said from the start of the year, if this team is healthy they are not a bad team by any means. Despite what TWO wanted to spout, the only reason we are anywhere near the bottom is due to injury and (IMO) selectively sitting players. Could be a good sign if we hit on a top pick this year and add to it.

It's why I don't see Yak being moved unless he asks for it or doesn't want to re-sign. Because I think they believe we can easily take a Detroit like jump up the standings next year. And honestly, why not?

And then they would just let the 2 1st rd picks fall where they may and know they are adding more depth to the organization.

By my count the Raps lost 13 games by 6 or less pts. With a healthy roster that could have been 7-6 instead and all the sudden they are in the play-in race and only a few games out of 6th. It's a fine line. But for most of the season we were missing 1 or 2 starters and 2 bench rotation guys. That's why Shead, Mogbo, Battle played.

We have also squeaked out a few close wins too though. All-in-all, we are 5-12 in games decided by 6 points or less. Part of that is a lack of health, but it’s also a bit unrealistic to expect us to have a positive record in close games considering the general lack of experience. That being said, I’ve been of the opinion that we aren’t a bottom 5 team since late in the offseason and we’re seeing lately what the team is capable of when mostly healthy. It wouldn’t surprise me if we went on a 2017 Heat-esque run to wind up winning 33-36 games and squeaking into the play-in if we end up keeping most of the vets (at least 3 of Poeltl, Brown, Boucher, Olynyk and Mitchell).

[YogurtProducer]

The closest thing we have had to a starting lineup in Mitchell/RJ/Dick/Barnes/Poeltl is actually 6-5 together (and IQ instead of Mitchell is 0-4 randomly).

As people said from the start of the year, if this team is healthy they are not a bad team by any means. Despite what TWO wanted to spout, the only reason we are anywhere near the bottom is due to injury and (IMO) selectively sitting players. Could be a good sign if we hit on a top pick this year and add to it.

It's why I don't see Yak being moved unless he asks for it or doesn't want to re-sign. Because I think they believe we can easily take a Detroit like jump up the standings next year. And honestly, why not?

And then they would just let the 2 1st rd picks fall where they may and know they are adding more depth to the organization.

By my count the Raps lost 13 games by 6 or less pts. With a healthy roster that could have been 7-6 instead and all the sudden they are in the play-in race and only a few games out of 6th. It's a fine line. But for most of the season we were missing 1 or 2 starters and 2 bench rotation guys. That's why Shead, Mogbo, Battle played.

We have also squeaked out a few close wins too though. All-in-all, we are 5-12 in games decided by 6 points or less. Part of that is a lack of health, but it’s also a bit unrealistic to expect us to have a positive record in close games considering the general lack of experience. That being said, I’ve been of the opinion that we aren’t a bottom 5 team since late in the offseason and we’re seeing lately what the team is capable of when mostly healthy. It wouldn’t surprise me if we went on a 2017 Heat-esque run to wind up winning 33-36 games and squeaking into the play-in if we end up keeping most of the vets (at least 3 of Poeltl, Brown, Boucher, Olynyk and Mitchell).

I don't think that is going to happen just because that would mean goin 20-17 for 33 wins, and 23-14 for 36 wins.

I can't see us not doing some funky tanking **** post-deadline.

[tsherkin]

Gonna push back on "that isn't good".

Is it elite? no. But is it good? Absolutely.

League average efficiency is propped up by bigs who only dunk, and role players who only shoot wide open 3's. Among guys that actually have to create offence, "league average efficiency" is a solid building block.

For example, 58TS% puts him in the same area (+/- 1ish%) as Devin Booker, Luka Doncic, Donovan Mitchell, Wagner, Derozan, Harden, Embiid, Tatum, Fox, Murray, etc.

Using leauge average efficiency is not a great way to say whether or not a top option is or is not efficient.

I've heard this refrain before and I find it disappointing and inadequate. There are plenty of perimeter guys who do better than league average. Booker is a bad example because he is explicitly having a down year. We know from past seasons that he can do better, but he's having the worst 3pt shooting season he's had this past half-decade or so on the second-highest 3PAr of his career. It's negatively affecting his scoring.

It isn't good. It isn't awful, but it isn't good, either. "Good" implies that this is a desirable thing, and league-average efficiency from a volume scorer (perimeter or otherwise) is not. Historically, the good ones have been several percentage above league average. For decades and decades. And especially on reduced volume, with heavy passing support... no.

That isn't good.

[dublo7]

Wow, Hawks really suck. Why was Trae Young playing to the end in a blowout?

I'm actually starting to be concerned.

stat padding, some assists stat he wanted

[YogurtProducer]

Gonna push back on "that isn't good".

Is it elite? no. But is it good? Absolutely.

League average efficiency is propped up by bigs who only dunk, and role players who only shoot wide open 3's. Among guys that actually have to create offence, "league average efficiency" is a solid building block.

For example, 58TS% puts him in the same area (+/- 1ish%) as Devin Booker, Luka Doncic, Donovan Mitchell, Wagner, Derozan, Harden, Embiid, Tatum, Fox, Murray, etc.

Using leauge average efficiency is not a great way to say whether or not a top option is or is not efficient.

I've heard this refrain before and I find it disappointing and inadequate. There are plenty of perimeter guys who do better than league average. Booker is a bad example because he is explicitly having a down year. We know from past seasons that he can do better, but he's having the worst 3pt shooting season he's had this past half-decade or so on the second-highest 3PAr of his career. It's negatively affecting his scoring.

It isn't good. It isn't awful, but it isn't good, either. "Good" implies that this is a desirable thing, and league-average efficiency from a volume scorer (perimeter or otherwise) is not. Historically, the good ones have been several percentage above league average. For decades and decades. And especially on reduced volume, with heavy passing support... no.

That isn't good.

Okay, but league average efficiency is not the way to do it because league average for a SG would be different than a C for starters, and league average for a 2nd/3rd option guard would be different than a 3+d guard. You can't just look at TS%, compare it to league average TS%, and make a conclusion.

Here is a list of guys who play more than 24 mins (just wanted starters), with a usage rate above 19.9% (kind of random but I just went down to the list until I felt I was leaving "creators" and getting into "role player" territory).

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/advanced?CF=MIN*G*24:USG_PCT*G*19.9&PerMode=Totals&dir=A&sort=TS_PCT

99 total players. RJ is 66th on this list. But again, we were talking about his efficiency with Scottie that is 58TS% this year and 60TS% combining last year. If that was "real", he would be 30th-50th in the league in that general area.

Take into other factors, such as assist rate, and RJ right now is about 30-35th there as well out of 99 guys. I don't think its fair to only look at TS%, because creating and not turning the ball over puts the ball in the net (or prevents it) just as much.

His AST/To ratio here is about average to (among high usage players) at 50th.

So yeah, I would say it is pretty good. Everyone knows in the future he will scale back, but it certainly is promising to see a guy who should in no way be a 1st or 2nd option putting up decent numbers. They are pretty average and pedestrian compared to the leagues elite players, but he is not expected to be a league elite player.

[djsunyc]

So we are 11-21 with Barnes playing this season and 2-11 without him.

2 of those losses include games we had leads and momentum (den/nyk) when he got hurt and had to leave the game.

[srhcan]

Yeah...you are right.

"We should be giving 30+ mins to Walter, Mogbo, and Chomche"

That's what Utah and Washington have been doing. And they're in 1st and 2nd last with the goal of securing a top pick.

Well if there are any organizations to pattern yourself after, it's Utah and Washington

Raptors pattern is more about Spurs when they selected Tim Duncan as #1 in 1997 draft. Spurs were a powerhouse in 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 season but injuries hit them hard in 1996-1997 season and they finished with 3rd worst record.

Raptors also have some very good players, this team should make playoffs in East when they are all fully healthy. But injuries have hit them hard this season and so now they should think about capitalizing on it when given the chance. They just need 1 very good player in the upcoming draft and they will become a contender for years to come. Its a no-brainer what this team should do. But the FO and coach are putting their own jobs and short-term interests over team's long-term interests. They look like are ok with team making playoffs and bouncing out in 1st round or max 2nd round.

[Tripod]

That's what Utah and Washington have been doing. And they're in 1st and 2nd last with the goal of securing a top pick.

Well if there are any organizations to pattern yourself after, it's Utah and Washington

Raptors pattern is more about Spurs when they selected Tim Duncan as #1 in 1997 draft. Spurs were a powerhouse in 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 season but injuries hit them hard in 1996-1997 season and they finished with 3rd worst record.

Raptors also have some very good players, this team should make playoffs in East when they are all fully healthy. But injuries have hit them hard this season and so now they should think about capitalizing on it when given the chance. They just need 1 very good player in the upcoming draft and they will become a contender for years to come. Its a no-brainer what this team should do. But the FO and coach are putting their own jobs and short-term interests over team's long-term interests. They look like are ok with team making playoffs and bouncing out in 1st round or max 2nd round.

So you want Yak, Barnes and RJ to never play?

[RoteSchroder]

Gonna push back on "that isn't good".

Is it elite? no. But is it good? Absolutely.

League average efficiency is propped up by bigs who only dunk, and role players who only shoot wide open 3's. Among guys that actually have to create offence, "league average efficiency" is a solid building block.

For example, 58TS% puts him in the same area (+/- 1ish%) as Devin Booker, Luka Doncic, Donovan Mitchell, Wagner, Derozan, Harden, Embiid, Tatum, Fox, Murray, etc.

Using leauge average efficiency is not a great way to say whether or not a top option is or is not efficient.

I've heard this refrain before and I find it disappointing and inadequate. There are plenty of perimeter guys who do better than league average. Booker is a bad example because he is explicitly having a down year. We know from past seasons that he can do better, but he's having the worst 3pt shooting season he's had this past half-decade or so on the second-highest 3PAr of his career. It's negatively affecting his scoring.

It isn't good. It isn't awful, but it isn't good, either. "Good" implies that this is a desirable thing, and league-average efficiency from a volume scorer (perimeter or otherwise) is not. Historically, the good ones have been several percentage above league average. For decades and decades. And especially on reduced volume, with heavy passing support... no.

That isn't good.

Okay, but league average efficiency is not the way to do it because league average for a SG would be different than a C for starters, and league average for a 2nd/3rd option guard would be different than a 3+d guard. You can't just look at TS%, compare it to league average TS%, and make a conclusion.

Here is a list of guys who play more than 24 mins (just wanted starters), with a usage rate above 19.9% (kind of random but I just went down to the list until I felt I was leaving "creators" and getting into "role player" territory).

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/advanced?CF=MIN*G*24:USG_PCT*G*19.9&PerMode=Totals&dir=A&sort=TS_PCT

99 total players. RJ is 66th on this list. But again, we were talking about his efficiency with Scottie that is 58TS% this year and 60TS% combining last year. If that was "real", he would be 30th-50th in the league in that general area.

Take into other factors, such as assist rate, and RJ right now is about 30-35th there as well out of 99 guys. I don't think its fair to only look at TS%, because creating and not turning the ball over puts the ball in the net (or prevents it) just as much.

His AST/To ratio here is about average to (among high usage players) at 50th.

So yeah, I would say it is pretty good. Everyone knows in the future he will scale back, but it certainly is promising to see a guy who should in no way be a 1st or 2nd option putting up decent numbers. They are pretty average and pedestrian compared to the leagues elite players, but he is not expected to be a league elite player.

There are a couple things I consider when evaluating a player's long-term outlook:

1. Can he contribute positively on a contending team or will he a liability in his supposed role.

2. Is his contract (or expected contract) worth his contribution.

Given RJ's projected role (2B or #3 guy) and his contract, I think he's just fine. His role would consist of: catch and shoot 3's (especially in corners), cutting to the basket, driving to the basket and some play making. He's #1 in volume at the rim and given his frequency, he should be considered fairly elite there. So he's a major contributor in terms of rim pressure.

Assuming that it'll be hard to get a true #1 guy, the goal would be to have 3-4 number two's on top of a strong defensive team. I actually think IQ isn't an ideal long-term starting guard.