PG: No four leaf clover in Boston

[SFour]

why would you trade a proven mid FRP player for an unproven mid FRP or late FRP project. Ochai's age is aligned with Barnes/IQ/RJ so it's not like he's too old.

We got him and Kelly for a late first last year. So, a first this year at any place is an upgrade.

That makes no sense. You don't measure the value of a player by their draft position. If that was the case I'd package our 2nd round pick for Joker. It'd be an upgrade for Denver but what the hell, worth a try for us...

The only reasoning I can think of is a Giannis or SGA type situation where Masai and the scouts have their eyes on a promising player that they can grab in the 11-15 range.

[tsherkin]

The average height of an NBA player is 6'5" ish. .

Fast Google says 6'6.3.





Average height appears to have peaked in the last half of the 80s and then again in the first decade of the 2000s, and has been coming down by small increments over the past decade-ish.

Source

Just some thoughts on height. We certainly a lot more short guards in the league with larger ranges of offensive responsibility (mainly shooting volume) than in the 90s and early 2000s. And of course, smaller PFs and Cs in many places, la la la.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

The average height of an NBA player is 6'5" ish. .

Fast Google says 6'6.3.





Average height appears to have peaked in the last half of the 80s and then again in the first decade of the 2000s, and has been coming down by small increments over the past decade-ish.

Source

Just some thoughts on height. We certainly a lot more short guards in the league with larger ranges of offensive responsibility (mainly shooting volume) than in the 90s and early 2000s. And of course, smaller PFs and Cs in many places, la la la.

Average goes up and down. If we're adding a young 6'9" player, it fits the direction we're going. We run like 19 miles per game. You can stay big (Yak), but it slows us down. Then we'd be looking at moving the smaller IQ, maybe RJ.

I'd rather keep the speed and shooting. Push that 19 miles to 23 or so, just run people out the gym.

[tsherkin]

Average goes up and down.

Sure, but there are the charts for it, and the link has a table so you can see the specific numbers. Those are league numbers, not Toronto numbers, obviously.

If we're adding a young 6'9" player, it fits the direction we're going. We run like 19 miles per game. You can stay big (Yak), but it slows us down. Then we'd be looking at moving the smaller IQ, maybe RJ.

I'd rather keep the speed and shooting. Push that 19 miles to 23 or so, just run people out the gym.

Depends on the players involved, really. You give something up whenever you get something. You reduce size, you reduce advantage on the boards and inside in general. You gain speed, potentially lateral coverage on D, etc. But a big guy inside can hit the defensive boards better and if he's any good at outlet passing, then his size is somewhat immaterial. Robert Parish in Boston and Old Kareem with the Showtime Lakers come to mind. Bill Cartwright on the Bulls, too, or really any of their centers. It's all trade-offs.

Our team blows donkeys on defense, so we should be looking at whatever improves us there. So you're probably right, reducing size a little to gain mobility might not be the worst thing, with the appropriate players in mind. The thing with Poeltl he is far and away our best defensive rebounder and one of our most efficient guys with what touches he does get. And we are hot garbage on the defensive glass, 4th-worst in the league.

So his replacement would have to be especially good for a smaller guy in that regard, or that becomes even MORE of a huge problem for us. Possession control matters; if we can't end possessions with rebounding, we're in trouble. And on the other end, he's a top-2 offensive rebounder on the team, and in double Mogbo's minutes. So that's another loss for us. We are the best offensive rebounding team in the league at the moment, so we have more wiggle room there, but he's a huge part of that.

Food for thought.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

Average goes up and down.

Sure, but there are the charts for it, and the link has a table so you can see the specific numbers. Those are league numbers, not Toronto numbers, obviously.

If we're adding a young 6'9" player, it fits the direction we're going. We run like 19 miles per game. You can stay big (Yak), but it slows us down. Then we'd be looking at moving the smaller IQ, maybe RJ.

I'd rather keep the speed and shooting. Push that 19 miles to 23 or so, just run people out the gym.

Depends on the players involved, really. You give something up whenever you get something. You reduce size, you reduce advantage on the boards and inside in general. You gain speed, potentially lateral coverage on D, etc. But a big guy inside can hit the defensive boards better and if he's any good at outlet passing, then his size is somewhat immaterial. Robert Parish in Boston and Old Kareem with the Showtime Lakers come to mind. Bill Cartwright on the Bulls, too, or really any of their centers. It's all trade-offs.

Our team blows donkeys on defense, so we should be looking at whatever improves us there. So you're probably right, reducing size a little to gain mobility might not be the worst thing, with the appropriate players in mind. The thing with Poeltl he is far and away our best defensive rebounder and one of our most efficient guys with what touches he does get. And we are hot garbage on the defensive glass, 4th-worst in the league.

So his replacement would have to be especially good for a smaller guy in that regard, or that becomes even MORE of a huge problem for us. Possession control matters; if we can't end possessions with rebounding, we're in trouble. And on the other end, he's a top-2 offensive rebounder on the team, and in double Mogbo's minutes. So that's another loss for us. We are the best offensive rebounding team in the league at the moment, so we have more wiggle room there, but he's a huge part of that.

Food for thought.

Mogbo would be perfect, even Ochai makes more sense at this speed. It's oversized small ball.

[tsherkin]

Mogbo would be perfect, even Ochai makes more sense at this speed. It's oversized small ball.

It's certainly worth an experiment, this season of all seasons.

[mrdressup]

All regular season games should be practice for making threes. Boston seems to have realized this. You work on defense and making threes, not driving headstrong into defenders with acute tunnel visions like some of our players. That is never going to be something you can rely on when you meet up with great defenses. You do not dives, but they ought to be done with the purpose of opening threes.

Its hard to build a team like Boston, they really only have Tatum and Holiday that can get to the rim consistently. And because they have a lot of equity in the league as a marquee franchise, these guys get calls on every drive. You can't build like them.

That being said, they outscored us by like 30 from 3. The Raptors current design is ineffective, but it's not unsustainable. Replace Shead with IQ. Replace Mogbo with Olynyk and things open up quite a bit more. Now add in Scottie and this is a playoff team.

I don't think so. It might be play-in team in a very weak conference. We try hard. Probably harder than most of opponents. In the crunch we can be outworked.

[will]

A tank is a tank is a tank.

[Boogie!]

This board just wants to trade away players that ste young and developing again lmao…

A 6'4" ish defensive SF shouldn't be in any one's long term plan.

lol. That’s your problem. The marginalization of a player without actually understanding the value of his skill set.

[JB7]

Ngl I don’t feel comfortable with our tank lead rn

Schedule gonna get easier, squad will be healthy… trading Jak at the deadline is the only way to go all in

If we go play in and draft like 12th then C’est la vie

No, Masia needs to have a talk with Jakob. It would go like this.

Jakob, our record sucks and there is minimal chance we would even make the play-in. Are you happy here long term if we don't aim for the playoffs?

If answer is no, then trade him.

If the answer is yes, then restrict him to 20 minutes a game.

For a good return, you trade him no matter what. But I emphasize a good return.

I don't know which team would offer such a return, teams that could use him either are holding on to their assets for something bigger, or have nothing much available to offer.

But the coaches and GMs around the league can see the value.

From the Boston Herald basketball columnist:

Jakob Pöltl and R.J. Barrett gave the Celtics fits.

Pöltl scored a new career high, punishing the Celtics in the paint with 35 points on 16-for-19 shooting. He repeatedly took advantage of physical mismatches, flipping in a series of floaters that were not nearly as easy as he made them look. On several occasions, Pöltl took advantage of the Celtics’ lackluster interior defense — making himself available for a driving guard when the Celtics’ big rotated over to cut off a drive to the rim. Rather than rolling to the basket, Pöltl took advantage of all of his space and simply tossed in a little baby hook.

“It’s a unique situation, right?” Mazzulla said. “Because if you were in a certain coverage, you’re going to give that shot up. If you’re in a different coverage, you’re more susceptible to offensive rebounds.

“So they’re a tricky matchup because of those things. And when it’s a one- or two-possession game, that shot is probably the highest value shot that you could get on the court on both teams, because he’s so good at it.”

The Raptors as a whole, dominating the points in the paint, outscoring the Celtics 76-42, although Mazzulla might accuse us of being sensationalist by pointing it out.

“That number is a little skewed, because it’s Jakob Pöltl,” he said. “So you have to go 76 minus 35 because he shoots floaters from inside the dots, and that’s a shot that you’re willing to give up over time. Those are all technically in the paint, and so some of those you have to give up.

“So do we have to get better at it? Yeah, 76, I know it’s a number that generates a lot of headlines, and you’ll be able to use that later tonight in your articles, but I would say probably about half of those are because of the coverage that you’re going to play on a guy like him throughout a game.

Mazzulla added that the Celtics do need to give up fewer offensive rebounds (the Raptors pulled down 15 on Saturday), and they need to defend better individually.

“He’s a bear down there, though,” Mazzulla continued on Pöltl. “He’s good. I mean, he’s good. It’s one of those situations — if you play one coverage, he’s going to shoot that. If you play a different one, he’s going to bury you on the glass. So he puts teams in a bind. He’s a good player.”

I believe, when the Raps traded for Yak, the other team seriously interested in him was the Celtics. Could you imagine the Celtics with Yak?

[Dennis 37]

No, Masia needs to have a talk with Jakob. It would go like this.

Jakob, our record sucks and there is minimal chance we would even make the play-in. Are you happy here long term if we don't aim for the playoffs?

If answer is no, then trade him.

If the answer is yes, then restrict him to 20 minutes a game.

For a good return, you trade him no matter what. But I emphasize a good return.

I don't know which team would offer such a return, teams that could use him either are holding on to their assets for something bigger, or have nothing much available to offer.

But the coaches and GMs around the league can see the value.

From the Boston Herald basketball columnist:

Jakob Pöltl and R.J. Barrett gave the Celtics fits.

Pöltl scored a new career high, punishing the Celtics in the paint with 35 points on 16-for-19 shooting. He repeatedly took advantage of physical mismatches, flipping in a series of floaters that were not nearly as easy as he made them look. On several occasions, Pöltl took advantage of the Celtics’ lackluster interior defense — making himself available for a driving guard when the Celtics’ big rotated over to cut off a drive to the rim. Rather than rolling to the basket, Pöltl took advantage of all of his space and simply tossed in a little baby hook.

“It’s a unique situation, right?” Mazzulla said. “Because if you were in a certain coverage, you’re going to give that shot up. If you’re in a different coverage, you’re more susceptible to offensive rebounds.

“So they’re a tricky matchup because of those things. And when it’s a one- or two-possession game, that shot is probably the highest value shot that you could get on the court on both teams, because he’s so good at it.”

The Raptors as a whole, dominating the points in the paint, outscoring the Celtics 76-42, although Mazzulla might accuse us of being sensationalist by pointing it out.

“That number is a little skewed, because it’s Jakob Pöltl,” he said. “So you have to go 76 minus 35 because he shoots floaters from inside the dots, and that’s a shot that you’re willing to give up over time. Those are all technically in the paint, and so some of those you have to give up.

“So do we have to get better at it? Yeah, 76, I know it’s a number that generates a lot of headlines, and you’ll be able to use that later tonight in your articles, but I would say probably about half of those are because of the coverage that you’re going to play on a guy like him throughout a game.

Mazzulla added that the Celtics do need to give up fewer offensive rebounds (the Raptors pulled down 15 on Saturday), and they need to defend better individually.

“He’s a bear down there, though,” Mazzulla continued on Pöltl. “He’s good. I mean, he’s good. It’s one of those situations — if you play one coverage, he’s going to shoot that. If you play a different one, he’s going to bury you on the glass. So he puts teams in a bind. He’s a good player.”

I believe, when the Raps traded for Yak, the other team seriously interested in him was the Celtics. Could you imagine the Celtics with Yak?

Celtics frps aren't valuable. Do they own anyone else's picks?

[tsherkin]

That makes no sense. You don't measure the value of a player by their draft position.

I mean, in a way we do. If WE drafted them, anyway, then we are always weighing performance versus expectation.