Indeed wrote:tsherkin wrote:Indeed wrote:Not sure I agree your reason on Lowry not being a volume guy. More because FGA doesn't tell the full story, because Lowry isn't a finisher, and he makes the pass instead of finishing.
There is differentiation between "better player" and "first option."
Your definition of #1 option is not valid. Regardless of switching things up or some other reasons, it is not necessarily the #1 option nor the best player. There are exceptions.
"Best player" doesn't really enter the equation.
"First option" is literally a descriptor: the first choice in the offensive scheme...
Now you get a new definition as compare to before?
tsherkin wrote:
None of that is accurate, though.
It's literally "the guy the team games to take the shot most of the time" and it varies based on the roster. There isn't need for advanced anything to figure that out.
Are you saying "First option" is "the first choice in the offensive scheme" and "the guy the team games to take the shot most of the time"? And what am I wrong with saying it should not be determined by TS%? And how you determine someone not qualify for "First option" if it is just "the first choice in the offensive scheme"?
A good example to use would be Nash vs Marion in 2005-06 when Amare was injured. Nash was at 13.4 FGA and Marion was 16.9 FGA. I'd be hard pressed to call Marion the 1st option in that offense. To me, a 1st option is your teams primary/main initiator and playmaker, whether he's making plays for himself or for others.
For DD/Lowry, it's a bit more muddled as DD had higher usage. I also don't think it's necessary to put one clearly over the other. I'd leave it at "they were both main options".
YogurtProducer wrote:tsherkin wrote:PushDaRock wrote: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.
It's more so the role he plays (and partially his own decision making) than Scottie vs no Scottie.
With IQ/Scottie out, he can maintain his efficiency by staying in a smaller role and having Scottie's usage replaced by Shead/Mitchell/Ja'Kobe/Olynyk/Poeltl/etc. Making him the lead guard will essentially damage his efficiency.
1) He's never been efficient at pull-up shots under any scenario or team. He's only efficient from 3 on wide open shots (6+ feet) and has consistently been inefficient at open shots (defender 4-6 feet away).
2) Thibs had RJ + bench line-ups where RJ is leading the bench.
3) One strange phenomenon to note is RJ's efficiency with and without Mitchell Robinson.
In his past two Knicks seasons,
he was at 56.5 TS% and 57.5 TS% with Mitchell and 50.9 TS% and 50.3 TS% without. That's a massive difference and the sample size is fairly large. Conversely, his efficiency takes a notable dip playing alongside iHart in the last two seasons, also on a fairly large sample size. Would need to dig deeper to find the underlying reason.
