Official RJ Barrett Thread

[canada_dry]

Who tf cares about this? He's in YEAR SIX of his career, and the best he's shown for efficiency is 30 games. He's had stints like this before, and he'll have stints like this again. He was inefficient in college and he's been inefficient in the NBA, he is a veteran player, stop acting like just because he's 24 he can make some miraculous turnaround in efficiency based on literally no evidence.

And why does DD matter at all in this? You're comparing a player who made an all star appearance with 1 year LESS experience, stop using the age as a crutch. You're also trying to compare a 12 game sample size to DD's 79.

I don't care about the counting stats, I made that evidently clear in my previous post, I'm talking about his efficiency. He has done an admirable job so far this season handling the ball and bumping the assist numbers, but that's also because he's rocking a 31% USG%, with 36% and 34% in the last 2 games respectively.

No one ever said RJ couldn't put up stats on volume. The question is can he do it without bottom of the league efficiency levels.

What’s your opinion on Norman Powell

Like my personal opinion of him as a player, in regard to efficiency, or compared to RJ overall?

Not sure how to answer the question tbh.

If I give you a gun, and tell you to shoot a bullseye on a target 100ft away, and you miss 90% of the time, then I move the target so then it is only 20ft away, and then you start hitting 90% of the time, you didn't just become the greatest marksman the world has ever seen. The entire situation has changed, if you have bad tendencies and require being put in the perfect system to mitigate them as much as possible, and you see improvements. That's the system at work.

Saying "Hey RJ, you suck at these things, stop doing them, and just follow the lines on the white board, we'll get you the ball in great places." that isn't a player becoming magically better overnight, that's a different system entirely.

RJ has not played differently, he's been instructed to be at different places. Listening, while important, is not improvement, unless the argument is that he sucked in NYC because he never listened. And yet again, it was 30 games, relax.

If the point of the game is to put the ball in the basket more and you do that more effectively, you improved as a player. I don't understand how that is debatable in any way. It doesn't matter what system was put in place to optimize that, the player still improved. A big part of improvement is becoming a smarter player.

Again, move the target closer, you don't become a better shot, you changed the entire system. If RJ improved as much as you are trying to imply, then we wouldn't be seeing the performances this year and his entire game shifting back to playing exactly like he did in NYC.

The system has changed due to a bunch of injuries, and his efficiency has plummeted. If he was truly improved, we wouldn't be seeing more of the same RJ, but rather the new and improved one.

Why do you take into consideration the role change when it comes to his improvement, but you don't consider the role change when trashing his efficiency this year?

You seem to only consider things when it suits you and ignore the exact same context in your next paragraph at times.

Yes. His role changed and he played more efficiently as a result last year. This year he has the ball way more than he normally would, with a much higher usage rate, and as a result his efficiency has suffered, which happens. If it doesn't then you're something of a superstar. His playmaking has taken a big step, that wasn't something he was nearly as good at in the past even on the knicks when he had the ball a lot too. Thats called improvement and development, yes even in his 6th season

Why's it crazy to think once hes playing In a secondary or even tertiary role , and we once again simplify his role and shot diet, he wouldn't play similarly to last year and his efficiency wouldn't be something similar? Rather than whining about his efficiency so far as if this is the player he is and this is his role going forward? In fact if he can go back to something similar to those 30 games and on top of that add his improving pick n roll game especially with jak...again, thats an improved basketball player.

Why is the 30 games not so relevant even though it provided us a window into how he should be used, but the 12 or so games so far this year ARE relavant even though its a role he won't be playing under normal circumstances?

Doesnt seem right to me. Something is off. Your bias might he showing.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

[canada_dry]

If you are utilized in a way that fits your strengths well and you are productive and efficient as a result, you have improved as a player. I don't get why all the credit would go to the system rather than the player in this instance.

If I give you a gun, and tell you to shoot a bullseye on a target 100ft away, and you miss 90% of the time, then I move the target so then it is only 20ft away, and then you start hitting 90% of the time, you didn't just become the greatest marksman the world has ever seen. The entire situation has changed, if you have bad tendencies and require being put in the perfect system to mitigate them as much as possible, and you see improvements. That's the system at work.

Saying "Hey RJ, you suck at these things, stop doing them, and just follow the lines on the white board, we'll get you the ball in great places." that isn't a player becoming magically better overnight, that's a different system entirely.

RJ has not played differently, he's been instructed to be at different places. Listening, while important, is not improvement, unless the argument is that he sucked in NYC because he never listened. And yet again, it was 30 games, relax.

One could argue that the NY coaching staff didn't put him in a position to be successful. They didn't identify his strengths & utilize them properly. It's every leaders responsibility to find their employees stengths & put them in a position to succeed.

Basically what the arguement comes down to is "NY sucked at role management for RJ. The Raptors have been very successful at it".

Is RJ a more useful player here than he was in NY because ot proper role management & utilization? Seems like it.

Whether or not the player "improved" is not as important as "is the player more successful"..

Or "is the player more impactful" which is a clear yes.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Dalek]

I think I have seen enough of RJ to see the Pascal like qualities. The guys can get All-Star type numbers on sometimes iffy shooting splits, but ultimately at the end of the game they are the last guy I want to have the ball. He has been in at least four game-winning/tying situations and he has either missed a shot or missed freethrows in the clutch.

Not having Scottie or IQ around has really forced RJ into a lead handler role which I think distorts his value. He looked better to me as a guy playing off the catch or cut rather than creating his own shot.

[Ell Curry]

Everyone here would trade RJ for Tyrese Maxey in a heartbeat, right? But if you look at Maxey, he's suffering from exactly the same type of problem right now. With Embiid hurt, and PG out, Maxey has been horribly inefficient and jacking up 14 3's a game.. He's also not distributing as well. I don't think one person here would say he's just a bad or inefficient player, or they would never want him on their team.

He's just simply forced into a role right now that he's not suited to. And I think it's a decent comparison. And at least more useful than the last two pages that have been dominated by two people that can't see the forest for the trees.

Eh, I think this is a little much.

Maxey has had straight 3 efficient seasons since his okay for a rookie season. He's struggled in 12 games with a weak team around him.

RJ has had about 40% of one, and a few olympic games. He's struggled efficiency-wise in 12 games with a weak team around him.

Both bad defensively, but Maxey plays a less important position.

It's possible RJ turned a corner after the trade and he'll be solid offensively when Barnes and Quickley are back.

But he might also be empty calories and Rudy Gay 2.0 and we'd be better as soon as the 2026-27 season if we got 2 decent bench pieces and plugged in the 2025 1st rounder into his job .

RJ could also become a quality 6th man who leads that unit and is more efficient against mostly backups (with say Mitchell, Agbaji, Mogbo and Olynyk if we get a starter in the draft, even if that takes half a season or a full season for that guy to move into a starting job).

In any case, I doubt there's some great offer for him on the table, so we'll very likely find out which of those 3 outcomes (solid starter, Rudy Gay get him the hell outta town, good bench guy) it is.

[YogurtProducer]

He wouldn't have to if he wasn't horrifically inefficient otherwise. Consistency is, and always has been the knock on RJ, and nothing has changed that to date. I would rather him be an efficient 15/5/5 than the massive swings of impact and efficiency he is now.

This isn't new criticism, it's been around since his Knicks days. You guys just come out of the wood works when he finally has a really good game.

Why was everyone always on fvvs jock despite his inefficiency? You’re talking about rj since his knicks days like he wasn’t just coming off a rookie contract. The guy is 24 years old not **** 28. When Demar derozan first became an all star with us at 24 he was putting up worse numbers than rj. And I remember every **** year the discussion was he’s still getting better he’s still young he’s still getting better. It’s maddening hearing how people can’t even be consistent with this logic.

Who tf cares about this? He's in YEAR SIX of his career, and the best he's shown for efficiency is 30 games. He's had stints like this before, and he'll have stints like this again. He was inefficient in college and he's been inefficient in the NBA, he is a veteran player, stop acting like just because he's 24 he can make some miraculous turnaround in efficiency based on literally no evidence.

And why does DD matter at all in this? You're comparing a player who made an all star appearance with 1 year LESS experience, stop using the age as a crutch. You're also trying to compare a 12 game sample size to DD's 79.

I don't care about the counting stats, I made that evidently clear in my previous post, I'm talking about his efficiency. He has done an admirable job so far this season handling the ball and bumping the assist numbers, but that's also because he's rocking a 31% USG%, with 36% and 34% in the last 2 games respectively.

No one ever said RJ couldn't put up stats on volume. The question is can he do it without bottom of the league efficiency levels.

So his 12 game sample this year trumps his 32 last year? Why not look at RJs entire stint as a Raptor?

44 games - 22.1/6.4/4.7 on .510/.371/.650 (58.3TS%).

Or are we gonna just hyperfocus on 12 games because it suits your narrative?


Funny thing is, RJ has played 12 games this year. He has a "+" in the +/- category in 5/12 games (in which we have won 2, and both of those we were outscored with him sitting). Maybe, just maybe, RJ is not the problem here.

[PushDaRock]

If I give you a gun, and tell you to shoot a bullseye on a target 100ft away, and you miss 90% of the time, then I move the target so then it is only 20ft away, and then you start hitting 90% of the time, you didn't just become the greatest marksman the world has ever seen. The entire situation has changed, if you have bad tendencies and require being put in the perfect system to mitigate them as much as possible, and you see improvements. That's the system at work.

Saying "Hey RJ, you suck at these things, stop doing them, and just follow the lines on the white board, we'll get you the ball in great places." that isn't a player becoming magically better overnight, that's a different system entirely.

RJ has not played differently, he's been instructed to be at different places. Listening, while important, is not improvement, unless the argument is that he sucked in NYC because he never listened. And yet again, it was 30 games, relax.

One could argue that the NY coaching staff didn't put him in a position to be successful. They didn't identify his strengths & utilize them properly. It's every leaders responsibility to find their employees stengths & put them in a position to succeed.

Basically what the arguement comes down to is "NY sucked at role management for RJ. The Raptors have been very successful at it".

Is RJ a more useful player here than he was in NY because ot proper role management & utilization? Seems like it.

Whether or not the player "improved" is not as important as "is the player more successful"..

Or "is the player more impactful" which is a clear yes.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

I think it's just arguing a bunch of semantics at this point. At the very least he still "improved" his basketball IQ and was able to do the things the team wanted him to do to be more effective on the court than he was in New York.

[pingpongrac]

Barrett has understandably had a lot of ups and downs this season (playing with a weaker team around him forces him into a role he isn't quite suited for while a lot of tough games on the road in a condensed schedule doesn't help either), but his overall numbers as a Raptor have been very impressive. He went from being an 18/5/3 guy on 52 TS% with a 26 USG% in New York to putting up 22/6/5 on 58 TS% with a 27 USG% in 44 games with us so far. His impact numbers are up (higher WS/48, BPM and VORP) and we're seeing signs of a guy that could be a valuable piece in the future due to his improved playmaking and offensive game in general. Yeah, he has attempted a lot more questionable shots this season, but look at who he is playing with. He has played most of his minutes with Poeltl, Mitchell and Agbaji – players who have limited offensive gravity – while he has played more minutes alongside each of Mogbo (126) and Shead (98) – rookies that are much more defensive-focused at this point with very limited scoring games – than Scottie and IQ combined.

[ATLTimekeeper]

RJ has 3 > 10 assist games so far this year. Last year Scottie had 5. He's definitely improved an aspect of his game that gives him another weapon to use going forward. There's more to the game than 50% from the field.

[Scase]

If the sport is hitting the target and you can move closer to the target to hit it more accurately and you start doing that more often, did you not improve your end result or not?

Except he isn't playing exactly like he did in NYC. His career best in APG is 3.0, he's at 6.5 APG this year. He's in a different role now than he ever has been in his career, he's never had this much responsibility to both handle scoring and creating for others before so I don't think it makes too much sense to be overly critical over the 12 game sample size because of some regression in efficiency which I think is to be expected in the first place.

Yeah, and his USG% is also at a career high as well. No one is arguing he isn't putting up more counting stats, his AST% has shot up and his TOV% is only slightly elevated, which is awesome. But for the millionth time, I have no issues with that, what I have issues with is him being one of the least efficient players in the NBA, stop trying to move the goalposts.

One could argue that the NY coaching staff didn't put him in a position to be successful. They didn't identify his strengths & utilize them properly. It's every leaders responsibility to find their employees stengths & put them in a position to succeed.

Basically what the arguement comes down to is "NY sucked at role management for RJ. The Raptors have been very successful at it".

Is RJ a more useful player here than he was in NY because ot proper role management & utilization? Seems like it.

Whether or not the player "improved" is not as important as "is the player more successful"..

This is a very reasonable point, and I agree wholeheartedly. It's what I've been saying, the player themselves has not been the improvement, the situation has. And if that is a better end result, I'm happy. But there is a very big difference from a better fitting system, and a better player. If RJ continued to be even remotely efficient despite the issues we've been seeing, I'd not have said a thing, but he's not even close to league average, and that's the issue. A player is valuable based on their contributions, but if you have to have a perfect environment for that player to perform well, and anything less results in bottom of the league performance, then you should be extremely careful how important that player is in the grand scheme of the team.

Why do you take into consideration the role change when it comes to his improvement, but you don't consider the role change when trashing his efficiency this year?

You seem to only consider things when it suits you and ignore the exact same context in your next paragraph at times.

Yes. His role changed and he played more efficiently as a result last year. This year he has the ball way more than he normally would, with a much higher usage rate, and as a result his efficiency has suffered, which happens. If it doesn't then you're something of a superstar. His playmaking has taken a big step, that wasn't something he was nearly as good at in the past even on the knicks when he had the ball a lot too. Thats called improvement and development, yes even in his 6th season

Why's it crazy to think once hes playing In a secondary or even tertiary role , and we once again simplify his role and shot diet, he wouldn't play similarly to last year and his efficiency wouldn't be something similar? Rather than whining about his efficiency so far as if this is the player he is and this is his role going forward? In fact if he can go back to something similar to those 30 games and on top of that add his improving pick n roll game especially with jak...again, thats an improved basketball player.

Why is the 30 games not so relevant even though it provided us a window into how he should be used, but the 12 or so games so far this year ARE relavant even though its a role he won't be playing under normal circumstances?

Doesnt seem right to me. Something is off. Your bias might he showing.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

It was literally the second to last line of the post you quoted.

The system has changed due to a bunch of injuries, and his efficiency has plummeted.

As for why the 30 games aren't as relevant? Well because there are 30 of them. The 12 games this year mirror the other 300+ from his time in NYC. If someone does the same thing for 5 years, then stops doing it for 2 months, and then starts doing the same thing from the last 5 years again, you don't treat that as something entirely new and forget about the past.

Habits are hard to break, be it simple things like biting your nails, or something massive like a drug addiction. Just because something was halted temporarily, when the backslide happens again, you don't ignore history.

Calling his scoring inefficient isn't a bias, it is a cold hard truth that some people are unwilling to accept because for 30 games it wasn't the case.

I think I have seen enough of RJ to see the Pascal like qualities. The guys can get All-Star type numbers on sometimes iffy shooting splits, but ultimately at the end of the game they are the last guy I want to have the ball. He has been in at least four game-winning/tying situations and he has either missed a shot or missed freethrows in the clutch.

Not having Scottie or IQ around has really forced RJ into a lead handler role which I think distorts his value. He looked better to me as a guy playing off the catch or cut rather than creating his own shot.

This is it to me. If people want to be happy with he's produced so far, then so be it. But it is absurd considering we've all seen this song and dance before, to just ignore all the neon signs pointing to the same limiting issues we've seen with multiple other players here baffles me.


If you want to scream from the rooftops at how great he was last year due to the system changing, then you get to hear the inverse when he tanks due to the system changing. Sorry I don't get hyped over a player that is limited and only produces at a high level when they are in a perfect situation, we've seen plenty of those over the years, and they never lead to anything.

[MEDIC]

Why was everyone always on fvvs jock despite his inefficiency? You’re talking about rj since his knicks days like he wasn’t just coming off a rookie contract. The guy is 24 years old not **** 28. When Demar derozan first became an all star with us at 24 he was putting up worse numbers than rj. And I remember every **** year the discussion was he’s still getting better he’s still young he’s still getting better. It’s maddening hearing how people can’t even be consistent with this logic.

Who tf cares about this? He's in YEAR SIX of his career, and the best he's shown for efficiency is 30 games. He's had stints like this before, and he'll have stints like this again. He was inefficient in college and he's been inefficient in the NBA, he is a veteran player, stop acting like just because he's 24 he can make some miraculous turnaround in efficiency based on literally no evidence.

And why does DD matter at all in this? You're comparing a player who made an all star appearance with 1 year LESS experience, stop using the age as a crutch. You're also trying to compare a 12 game sample size to DD's 79.

I don't care about the counting stats, I made that evidently clear in my previous post, I'm talking about his efficiency. He has done an admirable job so far this season handling the ball and bumping the assist numbers, but that's also because he's rocking a 31% USG%, with 36% and 34% in the last 2 games respectively.

No one ever said RJ couldn't put up stats on volume. The question is can he do it without bottom of the league efficiency levels.

So his 12 game sample this year trumps his 32 last year? Why not look at RJs entire stint as a Raptor?

44 games - 22.1/6.4/4.7 on .510/.371/.650 (58.3TS%).

Or are we gonna just hyperfocus on 12 games because it suits your narrative?


Funny thing is, RJ has played 12 games this year. He has a "+" in the +/- category in 5/12 games (in which we have won 2, and both of those we were outscored with him sitting). Maybe, just maybe, RJ is not the problem here.

100%. The same guys that complain about small sample sizes use small sample.sizes to push agendas. Hard to take seriously.

[MEDIC]

Barrett has understandably had a lot of ups and downs this season (playing with a weaker team around him forces him into a role he isn't quite suited for while a lot of tough games on the road in a condensed schedule doesn't help either), but his overall numbers as a Raptor have been very impressive. He went from being an 18/5/3 guy on 52 TS% with a 26 USG% in New York to putting up 22/6/5 on 58 TS% with a 27 USG% in 44 games with us so far. His impact numbers are up (higher WS/48, BPM and VORP) and we're seeing signs of a guy that could be a valuable piece in the future due to his improved playmaking and offensive game in general. Yeah, he has attempted a lot more questionable shots this season, but look at who he is playing with. He has played most of his minutes with Poeltl, Mitchell and Agbaji – players who have limited offensive gravity – while he has played more minutes alongside each of Mogbo (126) and Shead (98) – rookies that are much more defensive-focused at this point with very limited scoring games – than Scottie and IQ combined.

Speaking of Scottie & IQ. I would like to see what kind of stats they would put up if they had to play with these lineups.

[Scase]

Who tf cares about this? He's in YEAR SIX of his career, and the best he's shown for efficiency is 30 games. He's had stints like this before, and he'll have stints like this again. He was inefficient in college and he's been inefficient in the NBA, he is a veteran player, stop acting like just because he's 24 he can make some miraculous turnaround in efficiency based on literally no evidence.

And why does DD matter at all in this? You're comparing a player who made an all star appearance with 1 year LESS experience, stop using the age as a crutch. You're also trying to compare a 12 game sample size to DD's 79.

I don't care about the counting stats, I made that evidently clear in my previous post, I'm talking about his efficiency. He has done an admirable job so far this season handling the ball and bumping the assist numbers, but that's also because he's rocking a 31% USG%, with 36% and 34% in the last 2 games respectively.

No one ever said RJ couldn't put up stats on volume. The question is can he do it without bottom of the league efficiency levels.

So his 12 game sample this year trumps his 32 last year? Why not look at RJs entire stint as a Raptor?

44 games - 22.1/6.4/4.7 on .510/.371/.650 (58.3TS%).

Or are we gonna just hyperfocus on 12 games because it suits your narrative?


Funny thing is, RJ has played 12 games this year. He has a "+" in the +/- category in 5/12 games (in which we have won 2, and both of those we were outscored with him sitting). Maybe, just maybe, RJ is not the problem here.

100%. The same guys that complain about small sample sizes use small sample.sizes to push agendas. Hard to take seriously.

Totally couldn't have anything to do with those 12 games matching the stats of his 300+ games with poor efficiency. But sure, let's use things like +/- to point to how good of a player he is, definitely a top shelf basketball stat.

But since we want to use that stat, Gradey is a + 14.8 on the season, Davion +13.2, Jak +12.9, RJ -0.4, Ochai -5.6.

Gradey is having a great start to the year, as is Ochai, yet their +/- are polar opposites. Almost like this stat is useless in basketball.

[PushDaRock]

If the sport is hitting the target and you can move closer to the target to hit it more accurately and you start doing that more often, did you not improve your end result or not?

Except he isn't playing exactly like he did in NYC. His career best in APG is 3.0, he's at 6.5 APG this year. He's in a different role now than he ever has been in his career, he's never had this much responsibility to both handle scoring and creating for others before so I don't think it makes too much sense to be overly critical over the 12 game sample size because of some regression in efficiency which I think is to be expected in the first place.

Yeah, and his USG% is also at a career high as well. No one is arguing he isn't putting up more counting stats, his AST% has shot up and his TOV% is only slightly elevated, which is awesome. But for the millionth time, I have no issues with that, what I have issues with is him being one of the least efficient players in the NBA, stop trying to move the goalposts.

One could argue that the NY coaching staff didn't put him in a position to be successful. They didn't identify his strengths & utilize them properly. It's every leaders responsibility to find their employees stengths & put them in a position to succeed.

Basically what the arguement comes down to is "NY sucked at role management for RJ. The Raptors have been very successful at it".

Is RJ a more useful player here than he was in NY because ot proper role management & utilization? Seems like it.

Whether or not the player "improved" is not as important as "is the player more successful"..

This is a very reasonable point, and I agree wholeheartedly. It's what I've been saying, the player themselves has not been the improvement, the situation has. And if that is a better end result, I'm happy. But there is a very big difference from a better fitting system, and a better player. If RJ continued to be even remotely efficient despite the issues we've been seeing, I'd not have said a thing, but he's not even close to league average, and that's the issue. A player is valuable based on their contributions, but if you have to have a perfect environment for that player to perform well, and anything less results in bottom of the league performance, then you should be extremely careful how important that player is in the grand scheme of the team.

Why do you take into consideration the role change when it comes to his improvement, but you don't consider the role change when trashing his efficiency this year?

You seem to only consider things when it suits you and ignore the exact same context in your next paragraph at times.

Yes. His role changed and he played more efficiently as a result last year. This year he has the ball way more than he normally would, with a much higher usage rate, and as a result his efficiency has suffered, which happens. If it doesn't then you're something of a superstar. His playmaking has taken a big step, that wasn't something he was nearly as good at in the past even on the knicks when he had the ball a lot too. Thats called improvement and development, yes even in his 6th season

Why's it crazy to think once hes playing In a secondary or even tertiary role , and we once again simplify his role and shot diet, he wouldn't play similarly to last year and his efficiency wouldn't be something similar? Rather than whining about his efficiency so far as if this is the player he is and this is his role going forward? In fact if he can go back to something similar to those 30 games and on top of that add his improving pick n roll game especially with jak...again, thats an improved basketball player.

Why is the 30 games not so relevant even though it provided us a window into how he should be used, but the 12 or so games so far this year ARE relavant even though its a role he won't be playing under normal circumstances?

Doesnt seem right to me. Something is off. Your bias might he showing.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

It was literally the second to last line of the post you quoted.

The system has changed due to a bunch of injuries, and his efficiency has plummeted.

As for why the 30 games aren't as relevant? Well because there are 30 of them. The 12 games this year mirror the other 300+ from his time in NYC. If someone does the same thing for 5 years, then stops doing it for 2 months, and then starts doing the same thing from the last 5 years again, you don't treat that as something entirely new and forget about the past.

Habits are hard to break, be it simple things like biting your nails, or something massive like a drug addiction. Just because something was halted temporarily, when the backslide happens again, you don't ignore history.

Calling his scoring inefficient isn't a bias, it is a cold hard truth that some people are unwilling to accept because for 30 games it wasn't the case.

I think I have seen enough of RJ to see the Pascal like qualities. The guys can get All-Star type numbers on sometimes iffy shooting splits, but ultimately at the end of the game they are the last guy I want to have the ball. He has been in at least four game-winning/tying situations and he has either missed a shot or missed freethrows in the clutch.

Not having Scottie or IQ around has really forced RJ into a lead handler role which I think distorts his value. He looked better to me as a guy playing off the catch or cut rather than creating his own shot.

This is it to me. If people want to be happy with he's produced so far, then so be it. But it is absurd considering we've all seen this song and dance before, to just ignore all the neon signs pointing to the same limiting issues we've seen with multiple other players here baffles me.


If you want to scream from the rooftops at how great he was last year due to the system changing, then you get to hear the inverse when he tanks due to the system changing. Sorry I don't get hyped over a player that is limited and only produces at a high level when they are in a perfect situation, we've seen plenty of those over the years, and they never lead to anything.

You're the one moving them. There's obvious context to consider (12 game sample size + significantly larger/new role as the #1 option and primary creator) for the drop in efficiency from last season which you're choosing to ignore to suit your own narrative.

[YogurtProducer]

So his 12 game sample this year trumps his 32 last year? Why not look at RJs entire stint as a Raptor?

44 games - 22.1/6.4/4.7 on .510/.371/.650 (58.3TS%).

Or are we gonna just hyperfocus on 12 games because it suits your narrative?


Funny thing is, RJ has played 12 games this year. He has a "+" in the +/- category in 5/12 games (in which we have won 2, and both of those we were outscored with him sitting). Maybe, just maybe, RJ is not the problem here.

100%. The same guys that complain about small sample sizes use small sample.sizes to push agendas. Hard to take seriously.

Totally couldn't have anything to do with those 12 games matching the stats of his 300+ games with poor efficiency. But sure, let's use things like +/- to point to how good of a player he is, definitely a top shelf basketball stat.

But since we want to use that stat, Gradey is a + 14.8 on the season, Davion +13.2, Jak +12.9, RJ -0.4, Ochai -5.6.

Gradey is having a great start to the year, as is Ochai, yet their +/- are polar opposites. Almost like this stat is useless in basketball.

I never used +/- to say he is a great player, and I would be the first to admit it is an entirely fundamentally flawed stat.

But it doesn't take very difficult thinking to realize that RJ is being tasked with offensive responsibility way above his means and in all honesty is doing a decent job at it. The guys is 8th in the entire NBA in FGA and 12th in USG%. Our injuries to the rest of our offensive studs (which were limited to begin with) has led to RJ taking on a ton of offensive responsibility and as a result he is having a ton of defensive attention, and taking a lot of bail out shots that are a low % shot regardless of who takes them.

Also - his current season in no way reflects the 300 games he had before coming to Toronto:

2 pointers assisted - career 42.3%, 2023-24 in TOR 62.2%, 2024-25 in TOR 29.3%
3 pointers assisted - career 93.8%, 2023-24 in TOR 97.9%, 2024-25 in TOR 76.0%
Corner 3's attempted % - career 31.1%, 2023-24 in TOR 32.5%, 2024-25 in TOR 17.6%
Assists - career 3.0APG, 2023-24 in TOR 4.1APG, 2024-25 in TOR 6.5APG (TO% has not increased significantly)
TS% - career 52.7TS%, 2023-24 in TOR 61.5TS%, 2024-25 in TOR 51.4TS%

So my guy, if you can't see the improvements made and the context behind why his efficiency has dropped this year.... IDK what to tell you. Lets be honest - you are just in a hating mood (like usual) and have no justification for your opinions, so you try to bend reality to make it fit.

There is very very very good evidence to suggest that when healthy and he slots back into the complimentary role and is not creating as much that his %'s will begin to rise again.

[tsherkin]

No, he needs to be shooting more often from the corners, playing from the wings and not being the primary ballhandler, which is what he's not doing for the most right now. And which he can't do until the other two guys or at least one comes back.

I have said all of this already... I agree with each part of that. I've specifically mentioned the corners, I've specifically mentioned offloading responsibility to others around him so he can work off of them. I've specifically noted that we haven't had the opportunity to see that yet this season...

[YogurtProducer]

If you want to scream from the rooftops at how great he was last year due to the system changing, then you get to hear the inverse when he tanks due to the system changing.

Everyone in the thread seems to understand that RJ is not going to be the 1st option forever, and that his tanked TS% and general efficiency is a direct result of him playing outside the role he is best suited for.

So sorry man, the rest of us understand context. You have made it extremely clear you don't.

Sorry I don't get hyped over a player that is limited and only produces at a high level when they are in a perfect situation, we've seen plenty of those over the years, and they never lead to anything.

So I guess you expect us to have 5 Lebrons out there or something? You do understand you need 5 players on the court at all times... right? And that they are not all going to be uber efficient #1 options or DPOY candidates, right?

By your logic, Denver never should have traded for Aaron Gordon, right? He is only productive in a perfect situation for him. Same with a guy like Lowry - I guess when he was not capable of being a #1 we should have just cut ties with him right?

Come on man. Your constant goalpost shifting is exhausting. Everyone sees through your bull now, and I assume many are like me when they see your username they already know to not take anything you say seriously.

[Scase]

If the sport is hitting the target and you can move closer to the target to hit it more accurately and you start doing that more often, did you not improve your end result or not?

Except he isn't playing exactly like he did in NYC. His career best in APG is 3.0, he's at 6.5 APG this year. He's in a different role now than he ever has been in his career, he's never had this much responsibility to both handle scoring and creating for others before so I don't think it makes too much sense to be overly critical over the 12 game sample size because of some regression in efficiency which I think is to be expected in the first place.

Yeah, and his USG% is also at a career high as well. No one is arguing he isn't putting up more counting stats, his AST% has shot up and his TOV% is only slightly elevated, which is awesome. But for the millionth time, I have no issues with that, what I have issues with is him being one of the least efficient players in the NBA, stop trying to move the goalposts.

One could argue that the NY coaching staff didn't put him in a position to be successful. They didn't identify his strengths & utilize them properly. It's every leaders responsibility to find their employees stengths & put them in a position to succeed.

Basically what the arguement comes down to is "NY sucked at role management for RJ. The Raptors have been very successful at it".

Is RJ a more useful player here than he was in NY because ot proper role management & utilization? Seems like it.

Whether or not the player "improved" is not as important as "is the player more successful"..

This is a very reasonable point, and I agree wholeheartedly. It's what I've been saying, the player themselves has not been the improvement, the situation has. And if that is a better end result, I'm happy. But there is a very big difference from a better fitting system, and a better player. If RJ continued to be even remotely efficient despite the issues we've been seeing, I'd not have said a thing, but he's not even close to league average, and that's the issue. A player is valuable based on their contributions, but if you have to have a perfect environment for that player to perform well, and anything less results in bottom of the league performance, then you should be extremely careful how important that player is in the grand scheme of the team.

Why do you take into consideration the role change when it comes to his improvement, but you don't consider the role change when trashing his efficiency this year?

You seem to only consider things when it suits you and ignore the exact same context in your next paragraph at times.

Yes. His role changed and he played more efficiently as a result last year. This year he has the ball way more than he normally would, with a much higher usage rate, and as a result his efficiency has suffered, which happens. If it doesn't then you're something of a superstar. His playmaking has taken a big step, that wasn't something he was nearly as good at in the past even on the knicks when he had the ball a lot too. Thats called improvement and development, yes even in his 6th season

Why's it crazy to think once hes playing In a secondary or even tertiary role , and we once again simplify his role and shot diet, he wouldn't play similarly to last year and his efficiency wouldn't be something similar? Rather than whining about his efficiency so far as if this is the player he is and this is his role going forward? In fact if he can go back to something similar to those 30 games and on top of that add his improving pick n roll game especially with jak...again, thats an improved basketball player.

Why is the 30 games not so relevant even though it provided us a window into how he should be used, but the 12 or so games so far this year ARE relavant even though its a role he won't be playing under normal circumstances?

Doesnt seem right to me. Something is off. Your bias might he showing.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

It was literally the second to last line of the post you quoted.

The system has changed due to a bunch of injuries, and his efficiency has plummeted.

As for why the 30 games aren't as relevant? Well because there are 30 of them. The 12 games this year mirror the other 300+ from his time in NYC. If someone does the same thing for 5 years, then stops doing it for 2 months, and then starts doing the same thing from the last 5 years again, you don't treat that as something entirely new and forget about the past.

Habits are hard to break, be it simple things like biting your nails, or something massive like a drug addiction. Just because something was halted temporarily, when the backslide happens again, you don't ignore history.

Calling his scoring inefficient isn't a bias, it is a cold hard truth that some people are unwilling to accept because for 30 games it wasn't the case.

I think I have seen enough of RJ to see the Pascal like qualities. The guys can get All-Star type numbers on sometimes iffy shooting splits, but ultimately at the end of the game they are the last guy I want to have the ball. He has been in at least four game-winning/tying situations and he has either missed a shot or missed freethrows in the clutch.

Not having Scottie or IQ around has really forced RJ into a lead handler role which I think distorts his value. He looked better to me as a guy playing off the catch or cut rather than creating his own shot.

This is it to me. If people want to be happy with he's produced so far, then so be it. But it is absurd considering we've all seen this song and dance before, to just ignore all the neon signs pointing to the same limiting issues we've seen with multiple other players here baffles me.


If you want to scream from the rooftops at how great he was last year due to the system changing, then you get to hear the inverse when he tanks due to the system changing. Sorry I don't get hyped over a player that is limited and only produces at a high level when they are in a perfect situation, we've seen plenty of those over the years, and they never lead to anything.

You're the one moving them. There's obvious context to consider (12 game sample size + significantly larger/new role as the #1 option and primary creator) for the drop in efficiency from last season which you're choosing to ignore to suit your own narrative.

I'm talking about his scoring efficiency, and you're bringing up APG numbers. That's called moving the goalposts.

[PushDaRock]

Yeah, and his USG% is also at a career high as well. No one is arguing he isn't putting up more counting stats, his AST% has shot up and his TOV% is only slightly elevated, which is awesome. But for the millionth time, I have no issues with that, what I have issues with is him being one of the least efficient players in the NBA, stop trying to move the goalposts.



This is a very reasonable point, and I agree wholeheartedly. It's what I've been saying, the player themselves has not been the improvement, the situation has. And if that is a better end result, I'm happy. But there is a very big difference from a better fitting system, and a better player. If RJ continued to be even remotely efficient despite the issues we've been seeing, I'd not have said a thing, but he's not even close to league average, and that's the issue. A player is valuable based on their contributions, but if you have to have a perfect environment for that player to perform well, and anything less results in bottom of the league performance, then you should be extremely careful how important that player is in the grand scheme of the team.



It was literally the second to last line of the post you quoted.



As for why the 30 games aren't as relevant? Well because there are 30 of them. The 12 games this year mirror the other 300+ from his time in NYC. If someone does the same thing for 5 years, then stops doing it for 2 months, and then starts doing the same thing from the last 5 years again, you don't treat that as something entirely new and forget about the past.

Habits are hard to break, be it simple things like biting your nails, or something massive like a drug addiction. Just because something was halted temporarily, when the backslide happens again, you don't ignore history.

Calling his scoring inefficient isn't a bias, it is a cold hard truth that some people are unwilling to accept because for 30 games it wasn't the case.



This is it to me. If people want to be happy with he's produced so far, then so be it. But it is absurd considering we've all seen this song and dance before, to just ignore all the neon signs pointing to the same limiting issues we've seen with multiple other players here baffles me.


If you want to scream from the rooftops at how great he was last year due to the system changing, then you get to hear the inverse when he tanks due to the system changing. Sorry I don't get hyped over a player that is limited and only produces at a high level when they are in a perfect situation, we've seen plenty of those over the years, and they never lead to anything.

You're the one moving them. There's obvious context to consider (12 game sample size + significantly larger/new role as the #1 option and primary creator) for the drop in efficiency from last season which you're choosing to ignore to suit your own narrative.

I'm talking about his scoring efficiency, and you're bringing up APG numbers. That's called moving the goalposts.

You were the one saying RJ is not playing any differently than he did in New York and that's just not true at all.

[Boogie!]

I think I have seen enough of RJ to see the Pascal like qualities. The guys can get All-Star type numbers on sometimes iffy shooting splits, but ultimately at the end of the game they are the last guy I want to have the ball. He has been in at least four game-winning/tying situations and he has either missed a shot or missed freethrows in the clutch.

Not having Scottie or IQ around has really forced RJ into a lead handler role which I think distorts his value. He looked better to me as a guy playing off the catch or cut rather than creating his own shot.

Here’s another take that’s gonna piss people off that can’t be objective - rj has more potential as a playmaker than Scottie does, simply because he’s more crafty with the ball and can actually get deep into the paint.

Scottie struggles when forced to create in iso situations and is not a scoring threat off the dribble

[YogurtProducer]

Someone posted a few days ago, multiple 20-30 game stretches in his time in NYC where he put up similar numbers. I don't think his game has improved, I think the system is more complimentary to him. You are welcome to hope his game improves, I just haven't seen enough to share the same opinion.

Dude - you blatantly lie constantly. Like, just blatantly **** lie about everything hoping no one fact checks you.


From 2019 to 2023, RJ Barrett had a month of 55TS% or greater in the following months:
April 2021 - 59.5TS% (15 games)
Oct 2021 - 59.0TS% (6 games)
Dec 2022 - 57.1TS% (13 games)
Jan 2023 - 55.9TS% (11 games)
Oct 2023 - 57.3TS% (4 games)

That is a grand total of 5 months (2 of which were short October months) out of 29 total months in NYK prior to being traded he had a TS% over 55%.

TLDR - RJ Barrett NEVER HAD ONE span of 15 games, let alone "multiple 20-30 game stretches" putting up these numbers

His TS% by month since being a Raptor:
Jan 2024 - 61.5TS% (13 games)
Feb 2024 - 60.9TS% (9 games)
Mar 2024 - 62.2TS% (5 games)
Apr 2024 - 61.9TS% (5 games)
Oct 2024 - 57.6TS% (2 games)
Nov 2024 - 50.2TS% (10 games) (further note - 8/29 mths pre trade were below this figure in NY).

TLDR - Scase is up in arms about RJ's efficiency because he has had ONE bad month as a Raptor in which he played 22 minutes with Barnes, and 46 minutes with Quickley.

I wish you didn't have me blocked so you could read this. But of course you'll run to your safe space to avoid people proving you wrong.