Hollinger forecast: Raptors 22-60 (could be worst)

[Gold Chain]

I don't think we're 22 win bad,
but if things do go that way,
will Bryan be able to sit tight and not go out and make a big deal?

I sure hope so.

[TheDoctor]

Quite ok with letting these guys play their way to 22 wins.

[J-Roc]

He's obviously wrong! Where's The Doug or any of our broadcast crew to calm things down.

[Ted Lasso]

Toronto was the league's worst defensive team and no player on its roster finished in the top 75 in PER last season. Other than that, everything should be great.

[Basketball_Jones]

I don't think we're 22 win bad,
but if things do go that way,
will Bryan be able to sit tight and not go out and make a big deal?

I sure hope so.

He won't. Let's just hope the trade to shake things up part way through the season is a failure so the team still gets a top 3 pick anyway.

[Ted Lasso]

It's not just that the Raptors got worse, the rest of the conference got better. Last season, the Raptors went 2-1 against the Bulls, 4-0 against the Pistons, 2-2 against the Heat, 4-0 against the Nets, 4-0 against the Knicks, 3-1 against the Sixers and 2-1 against the Wizards. I can see 10-12 more losses coming against those teams alone. We can also assume that the Clippers and Hornets will be better if their star players are healthy, and the Raptors went 4-0 against those teams last season.

I'm predicting 27-29 wins for the 2010-11 Raptors, but a 22-60 prediction isn't outrageous to me. I really can't make a strong case that another team in the East is definitively worse.

And they went 0-2 against the Suns, 1-3 against Cleveland, 0-2 against GSW, if the Nets get Anthony then 0-2 against Denver has reversal possibilities while NJ will not be a power, and there are other teams which will have injuries. There will be the chance to beat teams on the second games of back to backs for opponents. I can see the decline from 40 to 30, but 22 is too low.

I'm not saying 22 wins is necessarily the likeliest outcome, but it could easily happen. It's not too low.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Hollinger is wrong on his claim that we don't have enough bulk at the PF position. There's a handful of guys that make their paycheque with muscle down low at that position (Boozer, ZBo, Amare, Jefferson, Landry, and DaMarcus Cousins + Blake Griffin will join them). It won't be an issue. If anything their added mobility and defensive tenacity will be a better bridge to fighting off the bigger guys but also keeping up with the stretch 4s and finesse bigs that most teams go with.

[theSkinny]

Guys just avoid the scoreboard and W/L column this season and just enjoy glimpses of the future..
Oh and hopefully a dump truck full of nasty dunks.

We all know we will get a top 5 pick have some cap space, options and some nice young pieces.
Arguing what our final tally of W's seems to me like an attempt in futility.

[Mattd97]

hey at least he took a stand this year rather than last years ridiculous 'they could be good, they could be bad' prediction

[MrBojangelz71]

Guys just avoid the scoreboard and W/L column this season and just enjoy glimpses of the future..
Oh and hopefully a dump truck full of nasty dunks.

We all know we will get a top 5 pick have some cap space, options and some nice young pieces.
Arguing what our final tally of W's seems to me like an attempt in futility.

Problem is that most will agree with you yet blow a gasket during the process.

[tsherkin]

Hollinger is wrong on his claim that we don't have enough bulk at the PF position. There's a handful of guys that make their paycheque with muscle down low at that position (Boozer, ZBo, Amare, Jefferson, Landry, and DaMarcus Cousins + Blake Griffin will join them). It won't be an issue. If anything their added mobility and defensive tenacity will be a better bridge to fighting off the bigger guys but also keeping up with the stretch 4s and finesse bigs that most teams go with.

I don't know what ball you're watching, but with the guys we have, we're going to get trucked by the PF position (minding that DeMarcus Cousins is probably going to be the 5 in Sacramento, not the 4).

It's not even just about scoring, it's about rebounding, too. We're likely to give up strong rebounding nights to Al Horford (who will be a 4 this year), Garnett, Boozer, Kenyon Martin (if he's healthy), David Lee, Chuck Hayes, Elton Brand, Gasol, Bosh himself, Derrick Favours, Amare, Tiago Splitter/DaJuan Blair and Al Jefferson, to say nothing of the centers of the league.

And even the guys who aren't low-post bruisers are going to have a lot of fun scoring against our paper-thin defense. Bargs is going to have a lot of trouble with the perimeter-oriented, finesse PFs too, not just low-block scorers.

Like I said, I think rebounding at the 4 is going to be a major concern because Bargs is so bad at it and it's a common skill at teh position. Unless he makes a major stride, we're going to get killed on the glass again, especially if Kleiza and/or Davis aren't really making it up for us elsewhere on the floor.

EDIT: This remains true if Bargs stays at the 5, only it gets worse.

[Ripp]

The other forecasts are worth reading. I really liked this paragraph from the Bucks article:

Later in the season, Hammond grabbed Salmons in a salary dump by the Bulls. Salmons was perfect for the Bucks -- they desperately needed a one-on-one scorer at the end of the shot clock, and he fit the bill, averaging 19.8 points a game in March and April. The Bucks also moved up in the draft as a result of that trade and relinquished nothing of consequence to Chicago.

There is something...mouthwatering about moves like that. Fill a huge need for your team AND move up in the draft? Impressive.

(This is from a different article, so LilOzzy doesn't need to freak out over fair use)

[Ripp]

It's not even just about scoring, it's about rebounding, too. We're likely to give up strong rebounding nights to Al Horford (who will be a 4 this year), Garnett, Boozer, Kenyon Martin (if he's healthy), David Lee, Chuck Hayes, Elton Brand, Gasol, Bosh himself, Derrick Favours, Amare, Tiago Splitter/DaJuan Blair and Al Jefferson, to say nothing of the centers of the league.

You forgot LaMarcus Aldridge. Even a poor rebounder like him is going to have fun on the glass when matched up against our frontcourt...he had an 8 offensive rebound game against us recently

That to me is a big issue also...even certain bad rebounders seem to have success against our team.

[tsherkin]

You forgot LaMarcus Aldridge. Even a poor rebounder like him is going to have fun on the glass when matched up against our frontcourt...he had an 8 offensive rebound game against us recently

That to me is a big issue also...even certain bad rebounders seem to have success against our team.

Yep. Aldridge is, however, a good offensive rebounder, so that was no surprise. He's declined in rate recently, but that's on account of Oden and Camby and Przybilla. Portland has a lot of centers that rebound well. Meantime, LMA has quietly posted 3 9%+ OREB% seasons and one this past season at 8%+. He's a solid offensive rebounder, he just blows monkey dong on the defensive glass (ironically, he was better there this past season than the last three, which is counterintuitive and weird).

We suck on the glass. We have crappy perimeter rebounders, Bargs is a waste of skin on the glass and we generally field one decent rebounder at any given time. This is a recipe for sucking on the glass, which we do. Toronto consistently gets abused because our frontcourt is rarely assembled with decent talent in this respect. The best we fielded in the last decade or so has been Bosh and what remains of Jermaine O'neal, and the JYD/Antonio Davis frontcourt. That's...

That's sad (though certainly fond memories of what JYD and Davis could get done together on the glass).

We seem to continuously build the same crappy team and expect it to do well, only we add less and less grit each year.

[Harry Palmer]

One small point that's been touched on but largely overlooked:

Hollinger mentioned that, in addition to our woes last year, losses this offseason, etc. we were, last year, luckier and healthier than would be usual. And therefore luckier and healthier than should be counted on when projecting forward.

[Brinbe]

Guys just avoid the scoreboard and W/L column this season and just enjoy glimpses of the future..
Oh and hopefully a dump truck full of nasty dunks.

We all know we will get a top 5 pick have some cap space, options and some nice young pieces.
Arguing what our final tally of W's seems to me like an attempt in futility.

Damn right, just sit back and have fun. No pressure this season. We should be fun to watch, and any wins are just a plus at this point.

[dagger]

One small point that's been touched on but largely overlooked:

Hollinger mentioned that, in addition to our woes last year, losses this offseason, etc. we were, last year, luckier and healthier than would be usual. And therefore luckier and healthier than should be counted on when projecting forward.

Except that we got younger and younger teams often have better health records than older teams. And we lost our best player and have no particular dependence on any one guy. If you are going to base predictions on the assumption that a team's injury luck will turn, you'd definitely short the Thunder because they had unbelievable health last year and cannot afford a major injury to Durant or even Westbrook

[Ripp]

One small point that's been touched on but largely overlooked:

Hollinger mentioned that, in addition to our woes last year, losses this offseason, etc. we were, last year, luckier and healthier than would be usual. And therefore luckier and healthier than should be counted on when projecting forward.

This is something I've wondered about. People sometimes use secondary measures like efficiency differential and SRS (simple rating system) to measure the luckiness of a team. For example, Hollinger panned the Mavericks even on their big win streak during the regular season after their trade because their efficiency differential wasn't very impressive.

So is this the general consensus for measuring "luck"? Like, how do you guys decide if a team overachieved or underachieved for the year?

[Harry Palmer]

One small point that's been touched on but largely overlooked:

Hollinger mentioned that, in addition to our woes last year, losses this offseason, etc. we were, last year, luckier and healthier than would be usual. And therefore luckier and healthier than should be counted on when projecting forward.

Except that we got younger and younger teams often have better health records than older teams. And we lost our best player and have no particular dependence on any one guy. If you are going to base predictions on the assumption that a team's injury luck will turn, you'd definitely short the Thunder because they had unbelievable health last year and cannot afford a major injury to Durant or even Westbrook

Yes, but we were already young, and it's not that predictive until you get to the extremes. Besides, some of the younger guys we've added come with health concerns.

As far as depending on one person, don't see your point. Yes, losing that key guy will cost you more, but having him in there will gain you more than vs. a homogenized lineup with distributed injury projections. It's not like Bosh missed 40 games or something...he missed 12, and averaged 36 mpg in the games he played, most on the team.

As for your point about the Thunder, same applies. Yes, an injured Durant kills them, but a non-injured Durant helps them more than a few averagely injured average talents.

[Harry Palmer]

One small point that's been touched on but largely overlooked:

Hollinger mentioned that, in addition to our woes last year, losses this offseason, etc. we were, last year, luckier and healthier than would be usual. And therefore luckier and healthier than should be counted on when projecting forward.

This is something I've wondered about. People sometimes use secondary measures like efficiency differential and SRS (simple rating system) to measure the luckiness of a team. For example, Hollinger panned the Mavericks even on their big win streak during the regular season after their trade because their efficiency differential wasn't very impressive.

So is this the general consensus for measuring "luck"? Like, how do you guys decide if a team overachieved or underachieved for the year?

Yeah, as much as can be measured, I look at Pyth diff + injuries + SOS.