Official RJ Barrett Thread Part 2

[Scase]

Sincere question: what makes you think RJ still have potential to have a significant leap in his free throw % by now? He probably knows he's sucks at the free throw line by his 2nd year in the NBA already

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

[bonjovi0308]

Sincere question: what makes you think RJ still have potential to have a significant leap in his free throw % by now? He probably knows he's sucks at the free throw line by his 2nd year in the NBA already

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

even a 74% FT doesn't cut it for me for a sg or sf, especially his bread and butter is driving to the basket. We could lose a very close game because of free throws if we play both Barnes and RJ the majority minutes.

[Scase]

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

even a 74% FT doesn't cut it for me for a sg or sf, especially his bread and butter is driving to the basket. We could lose a very close game because of free throws if we play both Barnes and RJ the majority minutes.

Scottie is actually above average at his position 74% vs 76% career average, RJ is notably below average. Scottie isn't a concern to me in that regard, but RJ definitely is.

[raptorforlife88]

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

even a 74% FT doesn't cut it for me for a sg or sf, especially his bread and butter is driving to the basket. We could lose a very close game because of free throws if we play both Barnes and RJ the majority minutes.

I think 61% is the outlier there if anything. His range has been pretty tight really for five years so he can fluctuate between those. Can't imagine calling 74% the outlier when it's been 2 of his most recent 5 years.

[johanliebert]

Sincere question: what makes you think RJ still have potential to have a significant leap in his free throw % by now? He probably knows he's sucks at the free throw line by his 2nd year in the NBA already

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

Part 2 and you’re still going? Head over to that OKC board you love their players.

[tsherkin]

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

Part 2 and you’re still going? Head over to that OKC board you love their players.

The player thread doesn't mean everyone has to love every component of a player's game. RJ has flaws. He has strengths, too. They're all getting discussed.

[Scase]

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

Part 2 and you’re still going? Head over to that OKC board you love their players.

Just because objective stats don't jive with your glazing, doesn't mean they aren't valid.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

even a 74% FT doesn't cut it for me for a sg or sf, especially his bread and butter is driving to the basket. We could lose a very close game because of free throws if we play both Barnes and RJ the majority minutes.

I think 61% is the outlier there if anything. His range has been pretty tight really for five years so he can fluctuate between those. Can't imagine calling 74% the outlier when it's been 2 of his most recent 5 years.

That's fair, I can't argue the 61% is an outlier as well, unsurprising with it being his rookie year. But 2 years of 71% and a current 3rd year of 70% doesn't mean 74% is a safe assumption. It's just weird that a guy who gets to the line so much doesn't get any better at that shot.

[YogurtProducer]

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

even a 74% FT doesn't cut it for me for a sg or sf, especially his bread and butter is driving to the basket. We could lose a very close game because of free throws if we play both Barnes and RJ the majority minutes.

Scottie is actually above average at his position 74% vs 76% career average, RJ is notably below average. Scottie isn't a concern to me in that regard, but RJ definitely is.

RJ is a career 71% and is actually closer to 73% without his horrible rookie year, Scottie is a career 76%.

Being worried about 1 but not the other is just clearly you having bias.

Just because objective stats don't jive with your glazing, doesn't mean they aren't valid.

This coming from you is **** hilarious.

[ItsDanger]

Ultimately, it's about how a player performs against the best teams in the league. Playoffs are about matchups and your statistical averages from regular season mean much less at that point. That's how you should evaluate a player like RJ moving forward. Determine if he is a core piece or not.

[billy_hoyle]

Ultimately, it's about how a player performs against the best teams in the league. Playoffs are about matchups and your statistical averages from regular season mean much less at that point. That's how you should evaluate a player like RJ moving forward. Determine if he is a core piece or not.

By that notion wouldn't Jaylen Brown have been traded away by the Celtics (he was crucified for previous playoff runs, and becomes their finals MVP last year)? Should we have had FVV in the rotation after the Philly series (he went on to explode in the finals)?

Like what do you even mean by this statement? It's illogical and has no basis in practicality.

[ItsDanger]

Ultimately, it's about how a player performs against the best teams in the league. Playoffs are about matchups and your statistical averages from regular season mean much less at that point. That's how you should evaluate a player like RJ moving forward. Determine if he is a core piece or not.

By that notion wouldn't Jaylen Brown have been traded away by the Celtics (he was crucified for previous playoff runs, and becomes their finals MVP last year)? Should we have had FVV in the rotation after the Philly series (he went on to explode in the finals)?

Like what do you even mean by this statement? It's illogical and has no basis in practicality.

As example, let's say his production declines against big shot blocking front courts and most of the best teams feature that. How valuable is he then? Best players are consistent and the opposition doesn't impact their productivity as much.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I think if the core can win together in the regular season you keep them together until they reach their limit, and then you explore a trade. Jrue Holiday was an awful playoff performer throughout his career. He's a 2X champ after the age of 30.

[tsherkin]

I think if the core can win together in the regular season you keep them together until they reach their limit, and then you explore a trade. Jrue Holiday was an awful playoff performer throughout his career. He's a 2X champ after the age of 30.

Role matters, right? As does roster. He played with MVP Giannis and then became part of a particularly talented Boston squad.

And as it happens, during the 2021 title, his scoring wasn't stunning. He was almost 4% below postseason average TS% on 13 FGA/g. He was horrid ass against the Nets. He was hitting his three against the Hawks but was still about 1.7% below postseason average TS, and then was dog crap against the Suns in the Finals.

So his titles after the age of 30 mean only so much, leastwise when you look at his scoring; obviously, he does other things as well. He wasn't asked to carry a huge scoring load, which was good, because he was pretty bad at it. He was a supporting member who could sometimes hit his 3s, did a pretty good job of playmaking and was a quality defensive player. Decent piece, but let's not act like he suddenly and magically got better after that age, right? So if this is to apply to Barrett, it's not an especially flattering comparison.

Of course, RJ is still young, and there are some encouraging signs as far as how we deploy and support him. But yeah, Jrue isn't a great way to position the idea of him developing over time.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I think if the core can win together in the regular season you keep them together until they reach their limit, and then you explore a trade. Jrue Holiday was an awful playoff performer throughout his career. He's a 2X champ after the age of 30.

Role matters, right? As does roster. He played with MVP Giannis and then became part of a particularly talented Boston squad.

And as it happens, during the 2021 title, his scoring wasn't stunning. He was almost 4% below postseason average TS% on 13 FGA/g. He was horrid ass against the Nets. He was hitting his three against the Hawks but was still about 1.7% below postseason average TS, and then was dog crap against the Suns in the Finals.

So his titles after the age of 30 mean only so much, leastwise when you look at his scoring; obviously, he does other things as well. He wasn't asked to carry a huge scoring load, which was good, because he was pretty bad at it. He was a supporting member who could sometimes hit his 3s, did a pretty good job of playmaking and was a quality defensive player. Decent piece, but let's not act like he suddenly and magically got better after that age, right? So if this is to apply to Barrett, it's not an especially flattering comparison.

Of course, RJ is still young, and there are some encouraging signs as far as how we deploy and support him. But yeah, Jrue isn't a great way to position the idea of him developing over time.

His titles mean he was a core piece on those teams, period. How much is it supposed to mean in this context? Anyone that decided at 24 that Jrue couldn't be a core piece on a champion would have been wrong.

[tsherkin]

His titles mean he was a core piece on those teams, period.

They certainly mean he was on the roster. And he definitely contributed, but it's worth remembering how those teams won. The Bucks had a dominant 2-way MVP rocking 30/13/5 and leading the playoffs in rebounding. They had Khris Middleton scoring 23 ppg in the playoffs. Brook Lopez in the middle.

Holiday contributed, for sure, but there's only so much data there. A bunch of other guys could have filled that role without much pause from Milwaukee's run.

Also, Jrue wasn't much different a player at that age than he was at 24, so it's also not especially illuminating. What happened was the context around him allowed for his weaknesses to be overlooked/overcome.

I'd like to think RJ actually still has a change to improve because we have some use-case change data for him based on how we deploy him, right?

[ATLTimekeeper]

His titles mean he was a core piece on those teams, period.

They certainly mean he was on the roster. And he definitely contributed, but it's worth remembering how those teams won. The Bucks had a dominant 2-way MVP rocking 30/13/5 and leading the playoffs in rebounding. They had Khris Middleton scoring 23 ppg in the playoffs. Brook Lopez in the middle.

Holiday contributed, for sure, but there's only so much data there. A bunch of other guys could have filled that role without much pause from Milwaukee's run.

Also, Jrue wasn't much different a player at that age than he was at 24, so it's also not especially illuminating. What happened was the context around him allowed for his weaknesses to be overlooked/overcome.

I'd like to think RJ actually still has a change to improve because we have some use-case change data for him based on how we deploy him, right?

You can go out and try and prove a bunch of other guys could have won with the Bucks and Celtics and I will raise you Malcolm Brogdan, Eric Bledsoe, Damien Lillard, Kyrie Irving, Kemba Walker, Malcolm Brogdan (again!), Derrick White (as PG).

[brownbobcat]

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

I don't know that there are too many examples of wings getting better at FT shooting after 24/25. Joe Johnson? But he was never below 75%

[tsherkin]

You can go out and try and prove a bunch of other guys could have won with the Bucks and Celtics and I will raise you Malcolm Brogdan, Eric Bledsoe, Damien Lillard, Kyrie Irving, Kemba Walker, Malcolm Brogdan (again!), Derrick White (as PG).

Timing, health, roster, specific level of play. WE can banter about the semantics of it.

Ultimately, Jrue gave what he usually does: defense, playmaking and limp scoring threat. He's a useful roleplayer, but there are other archetypes who could have fit into that spot. I don't really care if you agree, because that wasn't the thrust of my point.

The point I was making was more that this doesn't reflect on RJ to any sort of positive degree. Jrue didn't change who he was, he didn't evolve meaningfully as a player from an earlier point in his career. What happened was the context around him changed.

RJ is still young. That shouldn't be our defense of him. It's clear that context around him could change, but comparing to the 21 Bucks does us no favors because we have nothing like Giannis. What we do have is a couple of young guys who might still actually do what Holiday never did and improve/add to their game. And that's of much more interest to me than praying that the context around RJ shifts so much that we can tolerate him as he has been to date.

[DreamTeam09]

Sincere question: what makes you think RJ still have potential to have a significant leap in his free throw % by now? He probably knows he's sucks at the free throw line by his 2nd year in the NBA already

I think that one's pretty simple, it's because he's been a better FT shooter before already. He's had a couple of seasons where he shot 74%. If he was just doing that it would be fine. If he was a couple of points better than that it would be nice.

He doesn't need a significant leap, he just needs to get back to where he's been at least.

He shot :
66% in college
61% in year 1
74% in year 2
71% in year 3
74% in year 4
71% in year 5
70% (so far) in year 6
He also averages about 70% when playing for team canada.

74% is an outlier more than anything. He's never going to be a good FT shooter, it's 6 years in, and the peak he's managed is below average. In the last decade SFs have averaged a little over 78% from the line, there is nothing in his 6 year NBA, college, or international play history to indicate he will suddenly jump close to 10%.

Sometimes guys get better, but a lot of times what you see from large sample sizes over significant periods of time, is what you get.

Not sure how you can look at this and say 74% is an outlier when he's hit those marks 2 out of 7 yrs posted and 5-7 he's hovered around 70-74% .

Really it would be astronomical of RJ to get to 74% while he's currently avg 70% ??

[ATLTimekeeper]

You can go out and try and prove a bunch of other guys could have won with the Bucks and Celtics and I will raise you Malcolm Brogdan, Eric Bledsoe, Damien Lillard, Kyrie Irving, Kemba Walker, Malcolm Brogdan (again!), Derrick White (as PG).

Timing, health, roster, specific level of play. WE can banter about the semantics of it.

Ultimately, Jrue gave what he usually does: defense, playmaking and limp scoring threat. He's a useful roleplayer, but there are other archetypes who could have fit into that spot. I don't really care if you agree, because that wasn't the thrust of my point.

The point I was making was more that this doesn't reflect on RJ to any sort of positive degree. Jrue didn't change who he was, he didn't evolve meaningfully as a player from an earlier point in his career. What happened was the context around him changed.

RJ is still young. That shouldn't be our defense of him. It's clear that context around him could change, but comparing to the 21 Bucks does us no favors because we have nothing like Giannis. What we do have is a couple of young guys who might still actually do what Holiday never did and improve/add to their game. And that's of much more interest to me than praying that the context around RJ shifts so much that we can tolerate him as he has been to date.

We have a lot of young pieces. That's context changing possibilities. None of that requires prayer.