Official RJ Barrett Thread Part 2

[pingpongrac]

This board’s inability to give RJ the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how he’s playing now and/or in the future due to his past is baffling. He wasn’t necessarily in a toxic environment in New York, but the Knicks were playing such an ISO-centric offence that wasn’t helping RJ’s game at all — similar to the games this season without Scottie + IQ where RJ has been forced to be the #1 option and basically the only offensive creator on our team. Still, he has generally been really good since we acquired him last year (23/7/5 on 51/37/66 shooting splits in 54 games) and he has displayed a lot of growth in his playmaking and efficiency (1.33 AST/TO ratio on 52 TS% with a 25.6 USG% with the Knicks VS 1.72 AST/TO ratio on 59 TS% with a 27.4 USG% with the Raptors).

His tenacity and willingness to get into the paint is desperately needed on this roster while his catch and shoot percentages are respectable enough (40/106 or 38% this season) for him to be a threat on the perimeter as well. If he could just improve his defence a bit from below average to average on the wing while also getting that FT% up to the 75-80% range, I’d have very little to nitpick with his game. The fact that he plays so hard and is a hometown kid makes it even easier to root for his success.

[Scase]

Its not "far" below league average,

Yes, it is.

This is the issue with this conversation and a lot of the posters in defence of some things. It's a general lack of understanding of advanced stats and the context surrounding them. They see a small number and then think it means the same thing in different contexts like FG% or 3p%.

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.
Is he an inefficient volume scorer? Historically speaking, yes.
Has he shown noticeable improvement since joining the Raps? Yes and no, he is highly dependent on other players to be league average or better. With those players and in a controlled environment, he's efficient, without them or that structure, he is quite inefficient.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

Every single player on this roster has faults and negative aspects of their games, addressing them isn't some unspeakable affront to the team or the player, it's just being realistic.

[tsherkin]

**** sakes. Learn how to read a room and be less annoying.

Respond to ALL of what I wrote, and we won't have so many problems

This is the issue with this conversation and a lot of the posters in defence of some things. It's a general lack of understanding of advanced stats and the context surrounding them. They see a small number and then think it means the same thing in different contexts like FG% or 3p%.

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

It certainly adds a layer of challenge.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.

I agree. And as I've said, I think he's showing some promising signs when we use him a certain way. He has his limitations, but that's hardly unique to him. As you say, he's dependent upon playing with others in a certain fashion, but that's not really different than having specialist shooters and such. He isn't a superstar; no one really thought/said he was, though, so that's okay. That means we just need to tweak his deployment until he works, when we have that luxury. It'd be nice if we didn't ignore reality when his warts surface and come to light, but that's another thing.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

Yes, this is very annoying and limiting to quality conversation, I agree.

Every single player on this roster has faults and negative aspects of their games, addressing them isn't some unspeakable affront to the team or the player, it's just being realistic.

Agreed. And to be fair, even the superstars of the league have their limitations. They are, obviously, less pronounced but they exist never the less. So it's only sensible and normal for lesser players to have more significant issues.

[Scase]

I agree. And as I've said, I think he's showing some promising signs when we use him a certain way. He has his limitations, but that's hardly unique to him. As you say, he's dependent upon playing with others in a certain fashion, but that's not really different than having specialist shooters and such. He isn't a superstar; no one really thought/said he was, though, so that's okay. That means we just need to tweak his deployment until he works, when we have that luxury. It'd be nice if we didn't ignore reality when his warts surface and come to light, but that's another thing.

My only gripe about this bit (not your comment but rather the situation) is that players like specialist shooters etc., either aren't usually starters, or when they are, they aren't major parts of the teams plans to the degree that RJ is. Unless they are absolutely elite at what they do, minor caveat.

I've mentioned this before but if your team relies on a player that is only really successful in limited and specific situations, then it really cripples you when that situation isn't able to be achieved. Case in point, Scottie getting another random injury.

If he slides back to his previous inefficiency, it's fair to say that injuries are impacting his performance, but maybe there shouldn't be such a reliance on a player that is that "inflexible". In our current state we don't have the luxury of not relying on him, so I get that. But it makes me way less accepting of having that same player be that integral to a team looking for prolonged success.

Doesn't matter if it's Scottie, RJ, IQ, or anyone. RJ just happens to fit the scenario here, it's why I think out of the current "core" he's the most replaceable down the line. But sadly, that's always seen as if you hate the guy with every fibre of your being, rather than pragmatism.

[nikster]

Its not "far" below league average,

Yes, it is.

This is the issue with this conversation and a lot of the posters in defence of some things. It's a general lack of understanding of advanced stats and the context surrounding them. They see a small number and then think it means the same thing in different contexts like FG% or 3p%.

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.
Is he an inefficient volume scorer? Historically speaking, yes.
Has he shown noticeable improvement since joining the Raps? Yes and no, he is highly dependent on other players to be league average or better. With those players and in a controlled environment, he's efficient, without them or that structure, he is quite inefficient.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

Every single player on this roster has faults and negative aspects of their games, addressing them isn't some unspeakable affront to the team or the player, it's just being realistic.

I think "highly dependent" on other players is an exaggeration. In 41 games with at least one of Scottie or Quickley plays he has a 61TS% averaging something like 23/6/4 . Both of those players have very different play styles, and aren't drawing some MVP type attention.

Without 1 of them our drop off in offensive creation is massive. The fact that RJ needs someone to be better than Davion Mitchell as the primary ballhandler doesn't really say much about him as a player.

And the criticisms of RJ ogten go so over the top they are nothing but hate

[raptorforlife88]

I agree. And as I've said, I think he's showing some promising signs when we use him a certain way. He has his limitations, but that's hardly unique to him. As you say, he's dependent upon playing with others in a certain fashion, but that's not really different than having specialist shooters and such. He isn't a superstar; no one really thought/said he was, though, so that's okay. That means we just need to tweak his deployment until he works, when we have that luxury. It'd be nice if we didn't ignore reality when his warts surface and come to light, but that's another thing.

My only gripe about this bit (not your comment but rather the situation) is that players like specialist shooters etc., either aren't usually starters, or when they are, they aren't major parts of the teams plans to the degree that RJ is. Unless they are absolutely elite at what they do, minor caveat.

I've mentioned this before but if your team relies on a player that is only really successful in limited and specific situations, then it really cripples you when that situation isn't able to be achieved. Case in point, Scottie getting another random injury.

If he slides back to his previous inefficiency, it's fair to say that injuries are impacting his performance, but maybe there shouldn't be such a reliance on a player that is that "inflexible". In our current state we don't have the luxury of not relying on him, so I get that. But it makes me way less accepting of having that same player be that integral to a team looking for prolonged success.

Doesn't matter if it's Scottie, RJ, IQ, or anyone. RJ just happens to fit the scenario here, it's why I think out of the current "core" he's the most replaceable down the line. But sadly, that's always seen as if you hate the guy with every fibre of your being, rather than pragmatism.

I think long term the team will be better if he's not a starter, but there really is a key bench role with what are basically close to starter minutes for someone with R.J's skills. When he's on he's basically unstoppable going downhill. Off the bench you get to rotate him through the starters so he won't dominate the ball but he can play off someone and do what he does best. On top of that bench minutes should allow you to protect him defensively a little bit.

I can envision a way in which he adds a lot to this team when it's better.

[Scase]

Yes, it is.

This is the issue with this conversation and a lot of the posters in defence of some things. It's a general lack of understanding of advanced stats and the context surrounding them. They see a small number and then think it means the same thing in different contexts like FG% or 3p%.

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.
Is he an inefficient volume scorer? Historically speaking, yes.
Has he shown noticeable improvement since joining the Raps? Yes and no, he is highly dependent on other players to be league average or better. With those players and in a controlled environment, he's efficient, without them or that structure, he is quite inefficient.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

Every single player on this roster has faults and negative aspects of their games, addressing them isn't some unspeakable affront to the team or the player, it's just being realistic.

I think "highly dependent" on other players is an exaggeration. In 41 games with at least one of Scottie or Quickley plays he has a 61TS% averaging something like 23/6/4 . Both of those players have very different play styles, and aren't drawing some MVP type attention.

Without 1 of them our drop off in offensive creation is massive. The fact that RJ needs someone to be better than Davion Mitchell as the primary ballhandler doesn't really say much about him as a player.

It's not an exaggeration when a player swings from 50% to 60%+ TS% when missing specific teammates. That's going from 5th percentile to like 90th+ percentile, that is an absolutely justified statement. There is a reasonable expectation for players to suffer when major injuries occur, but not to that degree. Tyrese maxey for instance has a career TS% of 57.6%, which is right around league average.

Without Embiid he has a 56.1% TS%, and with Embiid he has a 58.7% TS%. That is a reasonable impact felt from losing a player that is absolutely a bigger loss to a team than Scottie and IQ combined. The swings RJ exhibits are monumental in comparison, and the more you rely on a player that is so dependent on others, the more susceptible your team becomes to injuries.

And the criticisms of RJ ogten go so over the top they are nothing but hate

Thank you for also proving my point.

I agree. And as I've said, I think he's showing some promising signs when we use him a certain way. He has his limitations, but that's hardly unique to him. As you say, he's dependent upon playing with others in a certain fashion, but that's not really different than having specialist shooters and such. He isn't a superstar; no one really thought/said he was, though, so that's okay. That means we just need to tweak his deployment until he works, when we have that luxury. It'd be nice if we didn't ignore reality when his warts surface and come to light, but that's another thing.

My only gripe about this bit (not your comment but rather the situation) is that players like specialist shooters etc., either aren't usually starters, or when they are, they aren't major parts of the teams plans to the degree that RJ is. Unless they are absolutely elite at what they do, minor caveat.

I've mentioned this before but if your team relies on a player that is only really successful in limited and specific situations, then it really cripples you when that situation isn't able to be achieved. Case in point, Scottie getting another random injury.

If he slides back to his previous inefficiency, it's fair to say that injuries are impacting his performance, but maybe there shouldn't be such a reliance on a player that is that "inflexible". In our current state we don't have the luxury of not relying on him, so I get that. But it makes me way less accepting of having that same player be that integral to a team looking for prolonged success.

Doesn't matter if it's Scottie, RJ, IQ, or anyone. RJ just happens to fit the scenario here, it's why I think out of the current "core" he's the most replaceable down the line. But sadly, that's always seen as if you hate the guy with every fibre of your being, rather than pragmatism.

I think long term the team will be better if he's not a starter, but there really is a key bench role with what are basically close to starter minutes for someone with R.J's skills. When he's on he's basically unstoppable going downhill. Off the bench you get to rotate him through the starters so he won't dominate the ball but he can play off someone and do what he does best. On top of that bench minutes should allow you to protect him defensively a little bit.

I can envision a way in which he adds a lot to this team when it's better.

This is precisely what I've been saying since last year, just because RJ can be a starter, doesn't mean he should be a starter. We are not at the point where him being a starter is detrimental to the team, the team is bad, and that's not on him. But I take issue with people suggesting he is a long term starter that can be mutual with a very successful team. His game has too many holes in it, he would absolutely feast on bench units, and his lacklustre defence would not be nearly as much of an issue.

Maybe that situation doesn't happen for a couple more years, but it doesn't mean that it is some sort of wild personal attack on the guy that it's a suggested outcome.

[tsherkin]

I think "highly dependent" on other players is an exaggeration. In 41 games with at least one of Scottie or Quickley plays he has a 61TS% averaging something like 23/6/4 . Both of those players have very different play styles, and aren't drawing some MVP type attention.

Without 1 of them our drop off in offensive creation is massive. The fact that RJ needs someone to be better than Davion Mitchell as the primary ballhandler doesn't really say much about him as a player.

And the criticisms of RJ ogten go so over the top they are nothing but hate

I think it's more that he's best deployed when he's slashing without the ball. And it becomes clear that having a proper primary initiator other than RJ is critical to Barrett's ability to thrive and shine. And that's fine, that isn't really any different than a catch-and-shoot guy needing dudes who can screen and get him the ball, right? It's just playing to a strength, and it opens the door for those other guys to do their primary on-ball thing while he attacks against the shifted D.

I think it's clear that he's got a limited scope as an on-ball guy, and his greatest inefficiency comes when he's spamming on-ball sets. But we've all been discussing this all year, right? Finding ways to get better sets to support our guys. Putting them in position to succeed by finding what they do well and letting them do MORE of it. There are similar concerns with Scottie, and Gradey's having his growing pains as a scorer now as well, etc, etc.

We have a superstar-less team, which means we're flawed and need to really lean more on precision execution and role definition. And that certainly applies to more than just RJ.

All that really needs be acknowledged about Barrett is that he needs more off-ball possessions and then he seems to start looking better as far as we've seen in Toronto. He had Quickley in New York and it didn't matter, but Barnes appears to have a pretty strong impact on him. So we have to keep trying to replicate what worked last year, and has been working at times this year, and see how far along we can get and how long he can maintain.

[nikster]

This is the issue with this conversation and a lot of the posters in defence of some things. It's a general lack of understanding of advanced stats and the context surrounding them. They see a small number and then think it means the same thing in different contexts like FG% or 3p%.

It makes the discussions impossible because of an utter lack of objectivity and basic understanding of the topic at hand.

Is RJ a bad basketball player? No, not by a long shot.
Is he an inefficient volume scorer? Historically speaking, yes.
Has he shown noticeable improvement since joining the Raps? Yes and no, he is highly dependent on other players to be league average or better. With those players and in a controlled environment, he's efficient, without them or that structure, he is quite inefficient.

The discourse around these parts is basically, if you don't have anything nice to say, you have a slant or you're a hater. It's so tiresome.

Every single player on this roster has faults and negative aspects of their games, addressing them isn't some unspeakable affront to the team or the player, it's just being realistic.

I think "highly dependent" on other players is an exaggeration. In 41 games with at least one of Scottie or Quickley plays he has a 61TS% averaging something like 23/6/4 . Both of those players have very different play styles, and aren't drawing some MVP type attention.

Without 1 of them our drop off in offensive creation is massive. The fact that RJ needs someone to be better than Davion Mitchell as the primary ballhandler doesn't really say much about him as a player.

It's not an exaggeration when a player swings from 50% to 60%+ TS% when missing specific teammates. That's going from 5th percentile to like 90th+ percentile, that is an absolutely justified statement. There is a reasonable expectation for players to suffer when major injuries occur, but not to that degree. Tyrese maxey for instance has a career TS% of 57.6%, which is right around league average.

Without Embiid he has a 56.1% TS%, and with Embiid he has a 58.7% TS%. That is a reasonable impact felt from losing a player that is absolutely a bigger loss to a team than Scottie and IQ combined. The swings RJ exhibits are monumental in comparison, and the more you rely on a player that is so dependent on others, the more susceptible your team becomes to injuries.

And the criticisms of RJ ogten go so over the top they are nothing but hate

Thank you for also proving my point.

My only gripe about this bit (not your comment but rather the situation) is that players like specialist shooters etc., either aren't usually starters, or when they are, they aren't major parts of the teams plans to the degree that RJ is. Unless they are absolutely elite at what they do, minor caveat.

I've mentioned this before but if your team relies on a player that is only really successful in limited and specific situations, then it really cripples you when that situation isn't able to be achieved. Case in point, Scottie getting another random injury.

If he slides back to his previous inefficiency, it's fair to say that injuries are impacting his performance, but maybe there shouldn't be such a reliance on a player that is that "inflexible". In our current state we don't have the luxury of not relying on him, so I get that. But it makes me way less accepting of having that same player be that integral to a team looking for prolonged success.

Doesn't matter if it's Scottie, RJ, IQ, or anyone. RJ just happens to fit the scenario here, it's why I think out of the current "core" he's the most replaceable down the line. But sadly, that's always seen as if you hate the guy with every fibre of your being, rather than pragmatism.

I think long term the team will be better if he's not a starter, but there really is a key bench role with what are basically close to starter minutes for someone with R.J's skills. When he's on he's basically unstoppable going downhill. Off the bench you get to rotate him through the starters so he won't dominate the ball but he can play off someone and do what he does best. On top of that bench minutes should allow you to protect him defensively a little bit.

I can envision a way in which he adds a lot to this team when it's better.

This is precisely what I've been saying since last year, just because RJ can be a starter, doesn't mean he should be a starter. We are not at the point where him being a starter is detrimental to the team, the team is bad, and that's not on him. But I take issue with people suggesting he is a long term starter that can be mutual with a very successful team. His game has too many holes in it, he would absolutely feast on bench units, and his lacklustre defence would not be nearly as much of an issue.

Maybe that situation doesn't happen for a couple more years, but it doesn't mean that it is some sort of wild personal attack on the guy that it's a suggested outcome.

RJ TS is 53% in the non Scottie/Quickley minutes this season, not 50. Have you seen Maxey this year? TS% is at 52% overall on the season this year because Embiid and PG have missed so much time, even worse than RJ in his non Scottie minutes. In 22-23 Maxey also had a 63TS% with Harden on the floor and 57.5 without Embiid or Harden.

I dont think sharing the floor with any other offensive creator to be a "Limited and specific situation". Losing your top 2 offensive creators is crippling no matter who you have in RJs place.

I didn't say your take was hating, but that other claims have been. I still think he should come off the bench take is ridiculous. Weve determined that he is extremely effective playing beside other creators and he does it without domianting the ball and you want to take him away from that.

And we've seen him as one of the best players on a 47 win team that made the 2nd round. It was hardly a stacked roster or a particularly good fit for RJ with poor/mediocre defenders in Brunson, Randle and Quickley leading the team in minutes, offensively playing a non shooting C beside Randle, and playing at a slow paced iso heavy offense. He wasn't detrimental as a starter to them, why would he be detrimental to a better future version of the Raptors when he plays so well off our creators?

[anotherhomer]

Rj needs more respect from refs

[Scase]

I think "highly dependent" on other players is an exaggeration. In 41 games with at least one of Scottie or Quickley plays he has a 61TS% averaging something like 23/6/4 . Both of those players have very different play styles, and aren't drawing some MVP type attention.

Without 1 of them our drop off in offensive creation is massive. The fact that RJ needs someone to be better than Davion Mitchell as the primary ballhandler doesn't really say much about him as a player.

It's not an exaggeration when a player swings from 50% to 60%+ TS% when missing specific teammates. That's going from 5th percentile to like 90th+ percentile, that is an absolutely justified statement. There is a reasonable expectation for players to suffer when major injuries occur, but not to that degree. Tyrese maxey for instance has a career TS% of 57.6%, which is right around league average.

Without Embiid he has a 56.1% TS%, and with Embiid he has a 58.7% TS%. That is a reasonable impact felt from losing a player that is absolutely a bigger loss to a team than Scottie and IQ combined. The swings RJ exhibits are monumental in comparison, and the more you rely on a player that is so dependent on others, the more susceptible your team becomes to injuries.

And the criticisms of RJ ogten go so over the top they are nothing but hate

Thank you for also proving my point.

I think long term the team will be better if he's not a starter, but there really is a key bench role with what are basically close to starter minutes for someone with R.J's skills. When he's on he's basically unstoppable going downhill. Off the bench you get to rotate him through the starters so he won't dominate the ball but he can play off someone and do what he does best. On top of that bench minutes should allow you to protect him defensively a little bit.

I can envision a way in which he adds a lot to this team when it's better.

This is precisely what I've been saying since last year, just because RJ can be a starter, doesn't mean he should be a starter. We are not at the point where him being a starter is detrimental to the team, the team is bad, and that's not on him. But I take issue with people suggesting he is a long term starter that can be mutual with a very successful team. His game has too many holes in it, he would absolutely feast on bench units, and his lacklustre defence would not be nearly as much of an issue.

Maybe that situation doesn't happen for a couple more years, but it doesn't mean that it is some sort of wild personal attack on the guy that it's a suggested outcome.

RJ TS is 53% in the non Scottie/Quickley minutes this season, not 50. Have you seen Maxey this year? TS% is at 52% overall on the season this year because Embiid and PG have missed so much time, even worse than RJ in his non Scottie minutes. In 22-23 Maxey also had a 63TS% with Harden on the floor and 57.5 without Embiid or Harden.

I dont think sharing the floor with any other offensive creator to be a "Limited and specific situation". Losing your top 2 offensive creators is crippling no matter who you have in RJs place.

I didn't say your take was hating, but that other claims have been. I still think he should come off the bench take is ridiculous. Weve determined that he is extremely effective playing beside other creators and he does it without domianting the ball and you want to take him away from that.

And we've seen him as one of the best players on a 47 win team that made the 2nd round. It was hardly a stacked roster or a particularly good fit for RJ with poor/mediocre defenders in Brunson, Randle and Quickley leading the team in minutes, offensively playing a non shooting C beside Randle, and playing at a slow paced iso heavy offense. He wasn't detrimental as a starter to them, why would he be detrimental to a better future version of the Raptors when he plays so well off our creators?

Yeah, I'm using actual sample size, not like 10-20 games. Maxey over his entire career has very little fluctuation in efficiency, RJ has massive swings.

As for his place on that Knicks team, yeah as a 3rd option, and he was still inefficient on 53% TS%. Compared to IQ 58%, Randle 58%, Brunson 60%. If you think he's not detrimental when the other 3 people you mentioned are leagues more efficient and putting up much better stats overall, then yeah maybe you should rethink that. As for the playoffs, they made it to the second round because Brunson went god mode, not because of RJ averaging 19/4/3 on below average efficiency. The revisionist history here is wild.

[nikster]

It's not an exaggeration when a player swings from 50% to 60%+ TS% when missing specific teammates. That's going from 5th percentile to like 90th+ percentile, that is an absolutely justified statement. There is a reasonable expectation for players to suffer when major injuries occur, but not to that degree. Tyrese maxey for instance has a career TS% of 57.6%, which is right around league average.

Without Embiid he has a 56.1% TS%, and with Embiid he has a 58.7% TS%. That is a reasonable impact felt from losing a player that is absolutely a bigger loss to a team than Scottie and IQ combined. The swings RJ exhibits are monumental in comparison, and the more you rely on a player that is so dependent on others, the more susceptible your team becomes to injuries.



Thank you for also proving my point.



This is precisely what I've been saying since last year, just because RJ can be a starter, doesn't mean he should be a starter. We are not at the point where him being a starter is detrimental to the team, the team is bad, and that's not on him. But I take issue with people suggesting he is a long term starter that can be mutual with a very successful team. His game has too many holes in it, he would absolutely feast on bench units, and his lacklustre defence would not be nearly as much of an issue.

Maybe that situation doesn't happen for a couple more years, but it doesn't mean that it is some sort of wild personal attack on the guy that it's a suggested outcome.

RJ TS is 53% in the non Scottie/Quickley minutes this season, not 50. Have you seen Maxey this year? TS% is at 52% overall on the season this year because Embiid and PG have missed so much time, even worse than RJ in his non Scottie minutes. In 22-23 Maxey also had a 63TS% with Harden on the floor and 57.5 without Embiid or Harden.

I dont think sharing the floor with any other offensive creator to be a "Limited and specific situation". Losing your top 2 offensive creators is crippling no matter who you have in RJs place.

I didn't say your take was hating, but that other claims have been. I still think he should come off the bench take is ridiculous. Weve determined that he is extremely effective playing beside other creators and he does it without domianting the ball and you want to take him away from that.

And we've seen him as one of the best players on a 47 win team that made the 2nd round. It was hardly a stacked roster or a particularly good fit for RJ with poor/mediocre defenders in Brunson, Randle and Quickley leading the team in minutes, offensively playing a non shooting C beside Randle, and playing at a slow paced iso heavy offense. He wasn't detrimental as a starter to them, why would he be detrimental to a better future version of the Raptors when he plays so well off our creators?

Yeah, I'm using actual sample size, not like 10-20 games. Maxey over his entire career has very little fluctuation in efficiency, RJ has massive swings.

As for his place on that Knicks team, yeah as a 3rd option, and he was still inefficient on 53% TS%. Compared to IQ 58%, Randle 58%, Brunson 60%. If you think he's not detrimental when the other 3 people you mentioned are leagues more efficient and putting up much better stats overall, then yeah maybe you should rethink that. As for the playoffs, they made it to the second round because Brunson went god mode, not because of RJ averaging 19/4/3 on below average efficiency. The revisionist history here is wild.

Now this post season talk is where we get into straight hating. you dont want to give him any credit for being the 2nd best player on the team in the post season. You telling me they beat Cleveland in 5 games only because Brunson went "got mode" with 24/5 on 53TS%? The supporting cast gets no credit?

[pingpongrac]

It's not an exaggeration when a player swings from 50% to 60%+ TS% when missing specific teammates. That's going from 5th percentile to like 90th+ percentile, that is an absolutely justified statement. There is a reasonable expectation for players to suffer when major injuries occur, but not to that degree. Tyrese maxey for instance has a career TS% of 57.6%, which is right around league average.

Without Embiid he has a 56.1% TS%, and with Embiid he has a 58.7% TS%. That is a reasonable impact felt from losing a player that is absolutely a bigger loss to a team than Scottie and IQ combined. The swings RJ exhibits are monumental in comparison, and the more you rely on a player that is so dependent on others, the more susceptible your team becomes to injuries.



Thank you for also proving my point.



This is precisely what I've been saying since last year, just because RJ can be a starter, doesn't mean he should be a starter. We are not at the point where him being a starter is detrimental to the team, the team is bad, and that's not on him. But I take issue with people suggesting he is a long term starter that can be mutual with a very successful team. His game has too many holes in it, he would absolutely feast on bench units, and his lacklustre defence would not be nearly as much of an issue.

Maybe that situation doesn't happen for a couple more years, but it doesn't mean that it is some sort of wild personal attack on the guy that it's a suggested outcome.

RJ TS is 53% in the non Scottie/Quickley minutes this season, not 50. Have you seen Maxey this year? TS% is at 52% overall on the season this year because Embiid and PG have missed so much time, even worse than RJ in his non Scottie minutes. In 22-23 Maxey also had a 63TS% with Harden on the floor and 57.5 without Embiid or Harden.

I dont think sharing the floor with any other offensive creator to be a "Limited and specific situation". Losing your top 2 offensive creators is crippling no matter who you have in RJs place.

I didn't say your take was hating, but that other claims have been. I still think he should come off the bench take is ridiculous. Weve determined that he is extremely effective playing beside other creators and he does it without domianting the ball and you want to take him away from that.

And we've seen him as one of the best players on a 47 win team that made the 2nd round. It was hardly a stacked roster or a particularly good fit for RJ with poor/mediocre defenders in Brunson, Randle and Quickley leading the team in minutes, offensively playing a non shooting C beside Randle, and playing at a slow paced iso heavy offense. He wasn't detrimental as a starter to them, why would he be detrimental to a better future version of the Raptors when he plays so well off our creators?

Yeah, I'm using actual sample size, not like 10-20 games. Maxey over his entire career has very little fluctuation in efficiency, RJ has massive swings.

As for his place on that Knicks team, yeah as a 3rd option, and he was still inefficient on 53% TS%. Compared to IQ 58%, Randle 58%, Brunson 60%. If you think he's not detrimental when the other 3 people you mentioned are leagues more efficient and putting up much better stats overall, then yeah maybe you should rethink that. As for the playoffs, they made it to the second round because Brunson went god mode, not because of RJ averaging 19/4/3 on below average efficiency. The revisionist history here is wild.

If you're using "actual sample size" for Maxey, why would you not do the same thing for Barrett? His efficiency in ~1000 minutes without Scottie has been fine (55.9 TS%) while he has been very efficient when sharing the floor with Scottie (62.8 TS% in ~800 minutes). A ~7% drop-off is not near as outlandish as you're making it out to be, especially considering the players that RJ has been sharing the floor with the most in those non-Scottie are Gradey (502 minutes), Ochai (478 minutes), Jakob (409 minutes), IQ (375 minutes) and Davion (345 minutes). Of those 5 players, the only ones that can be considered as good offensive players are IQ (who has been on the floor for just ~33% of those minutes) and Gradey (who was a rookie for ~50% of those minutes) while the others are very limited offensively. His overall level of play without Scottie has been VERY good (25/7/6 per36 on 56 TS%) despite not having much offensive talent around him. For a guy that points to the lack of talent around Scottie and how he'd be averaging a triple-double if he had better teammates, you'd think you'd cut Barrett some slack. What makes it even more ironic is Scottie's numbers without RJ over the same span are inarguably worse (21/7/7 per36 on 55 TS%)...but I guess that doesn't matter because the drop-off in efficiency isn't "monumental".

[bonjovi0308]

I think RJ has 3 major flaws:
1) his defense
2) his free throw %
3) if everyone is healthy, you won't let him to take the last shot

[Scase]

RJ TS is 53% in the non Scottie/Quickley minutes this season, not 50. Have you seen Maxey this year? TS% is at 52% overall on the season this year because Embiid and PG have missed so much time, even worse than RJ in his non Scottie minutes. In 22-23 Maxey also had a 63TS% with Harden on the floor and 57.5 without Embiid or Harden.

I dont think sharing the floor with any other offensive creator to be a "Limited and specific situation". Losing your top 2 offensive creators is crippling no matter who you have in RJs place.

I didn't say your take was hating, but that other claims have been. I still think he should come off the bench take is ridiculous. Weve determined that he is extremely effective playing beside other creators and he does it without domianting the ball and you want to take him away from that.

And we've seen him as one of the best players on a 47 win team that made the 2nd round. It was hardly a stacked roster or a particularly good fit for RJ with poor/mediocre defenders in Brunson, Randle and Quickley leading the team in minutes, offensively playing a non shooting C beside Randle, and playing at a slow paced iso heavy offense. He wasn't detrimental as a starter to them, why would he be detrimental to a better future version of the Raptors when he plays so well off our creators?

Yeah, I'm using actual sample size, not like 10-20 games. Maxey over his entire career has very little fluctuation in efficiency, RJ has massive swings.

As for his place on that Knicks team, yeah as a 3rd option, and he was still inefficient on 53% TS%. Compared to IQ 58%, Randle 58%, Brunson 60%. If you think he's not detrimental when the other 3 people you mentioned are leagues more efficient and putting up much better stats overall, then yeah maybe you should rethink that. As for the playoffs, they made it to the second round because Brunson went god mode, not because of RJ averaging 19/4/3 on below average efficiency. The revisionist history here is wild.

If you're using "actual sample size" for Maxey, why would you not do the same thing for Barrett? His efficiency in ~1000 minutes without Scottie has been fine (55.9 TS%) while he has been very efficient when sharing the floor with Scottie (62.8 TS% in ~800 minutes). A ~7% drop-off is not near as outlandish as you're making it out to be.

Because he has a grand total 54 games as a raptor? What kind of a stupid question is this? We're talking about TS with and without specific players.

I also already addressed his efficiency with/without Scottie in a previous post(it's 55.8% btw), so not sure this is the "gotcha" you think it is. It also shows how inadequately informed you are when you try and brush off a 7% drop off in TS% as "not outlandish". That's literally the difference between bottom of the NBA and top of the NBA.

This isn't FG%, stop treating it like it is. 7% is massive.

[pingpongrac]

Yeah, I'm using actual sample size, not like 10-20 games. Maxey over his entire career has very little fluctuation in efficiency, RJ has massive swings.

As for his place on that Knicks team, yeah as a 3rd option, and he was still inefficient on 53% TS%. Compared to IQ 58%, Randle 58%, Brunson 60%. If you think he's not detrimental when the other 3 people you mentioned are leagues more efficient and putting up much better stats overall, then yeah maybe you should rethink that. As for the playoffs, they made it to the second round because Brunson went god mode, not because of RJ averaging 19/4/3 on below average efficiency. The revisionist history here is wild.

If you're using "actual sample size" for Maxey, why would you not do the same thing for Barrett? His efficiency in ~1000 minutes without Scottie has been fine (55.9 TS%) while he has been very efficient when sharing the floor with Scottie (62.8 TS% in ~800 minutes). A ~7% drop-off is not near as outlandish as you're making it out to be.

Because he has a grand total 54 games as a raptor? What kind of a stupid question is this? We're talking about TS with and without specific players.

I also already addressed his efficiency with/without Scottie in a previous post(it's 55.8% btw), so not sure this is the "gotcha" you think it is. It also shows how inadequately informed you are when you try and brush off a 7% drop off in TS% as "not outlandish". That's literally the difference between bottom of the NBA and top of the NBA.

This isn't FG%, stop treating it like it is. 7% is massive.

You’re really going to correct 55.9 TS% to 55.8 TS% while brushing off the fact that you’re blatantly skewing numbers (like saying RJ is a low 50s TS% player without Scottie) to fit your narrative then doubling down and acting like 56 TS% is bottom of the league and 63 TS% is top of the league? That 55.8 TS% would be slightly below the median among qualified players this season (158th of 276 qualified players) whereas the 62.8 TS% would be just inside the top 50 (47th). It’s a big swing in efficiency, but 55.8 TS% is nowhere near the bottom of the league. Considering there is a plethora of all-star talent putting up ~56 TS% on 1st/2nd option usage (56.5 for Luka, 56.4 for LaMelo, 56.0 for Ingram, 55.8 for Haliburton, 55.7 for Brown, 55.6 for Harden, 55.3 for Cade, etc.), it is ridiculous that you’re trying to use that number as some glaring flaw in Barrett’s game because of the fact that he plays even better with better talent around him. Where is the logic in that?

[Scase]

If you're using "actual sample size" for Maxey, why would you not do the same thing for Barrett? His efficiency in ~1000 minutes without Scottie has been fine (55.9 TS%) while he has been very efficient when sharing the floor with Scottie (62.8 TS% in ~800 minutes). A ~7% drop-off is not near as outlandish as you're making it out to be.

Because he has a grand total 54 games as a raptor? What kind of a stupid question is this? We're talking about TS with and without specific players.

I also already addressed his efficiency with/without Scottie in a previous post(it's 55.8% btw), so not sure this is the "gotcha" you think it is. It also shows how inadequately informed you are when you try and brush off a 7% drop off in TS% as "not outlandish". That's literally the difference between bottom of the NBA and top of the NBA.

This isn't FG%, stop treating it like it is. 7% is massive.

You’re really going to correct 55.9 TS% to 55.8 TS% while brushing off the fact that you’re blatantly skewing numbers (like saying RJ is a low 50s TS% player without Scottie) to fit your narrative then doubling down and acting like 56 TS% is bottom of the league and 63 TS% is top of the league? That 55.8 TS% would be slightly below the median among qualified players this season (158th of 276 qualified players) whereas the 62.8 TS% would be just inside the top 50 (47th). It’s a big swing in efficiency, but 55.8 TS% is nowhere near the bottom of the league. Considering there is a plethora of all-star talent putting up ~56 TS% on 1st/2nd option usage (56.5 for Luka, 56.4 for LaMelo, 56.0 for Ingram, 55.8 for Haliburton, 55.7 for Brown, 55.6 for Harden, 55.3 for Cade, etc.), it is ridiculous that you’re trying to use that number as some glaring flaw in Barrett’s game because of the fact that he plays even better with better talent around him. Where is the logic in that?

I was using a range to show how bad some of his games without Scottie vs how good with Scottie they are. If I wanted to be specific, I would've used an exact number.

But hey, you sure showed me by using examples like Luka who is so far an away better than RJ acting like his TS% being similar indicates that RJs is fine. Then using massive top notch players like Lamelo who has done nothing but play on one of the worst teams in the NBA his entire career, Ingram who is a joke of a 1st option, same for Hali, Jaylen who has averaged a 58% ts the last 5 years in a row but sure lets use 19 whole games lmao, a way beyond his prime Harden, and Cade who up until VERY recently people were writing off.

Great examples, yeah that's exactly what RJ should strive to be. If RJ played better with better talent around him, he'd have been way better in NYC, unless you think that a 25 win team is better and more talented than the Knicks teams he was on.

None of this disputes the fact that RJ has a massive drop off in efficiency when he isn't being set up on the majority of his shots. 7% TS% is 7%. None of your hoop jumping changes that.

[Got Nuffin]

I think "highly dependent" on other players is an exaggeration. In 41 games with at least one of Scottie or Quickley plays he has a 61TS% averaging something like 23/6/4 . Both of those players have very different play styles, and aren't drawing some MVP type attention.

Without 1 of them our drop off in offensive creation is massive. The fact that RJ needs someone to be better than Davion Mitchell as the primary ballhandler doesn't really say much about him as a player.

And the criticisms of RJ ogten go so over the top they are nothing but hate

I think it's more that he's best deployed when he's slashing without the ball. And it becomes clear that having a proper primary initiator other than RJ is critical to Barrett's ability to thrive and shine. And that's fine, that isn't really any different than a catch-and-shoot guy needing dudes who can screen and get him the ball, right? It's just playing to a strength, and it opens the door for those other guys to do their primary on-ball thing while he attacks against the shifted D.

I think it's clear that he's got a limited scope as an on-ball guy, and his greatest inefficiency comes when he's spamming on-ball sets. But we've all been discussing this all year, right? Finding ways to get better sets to support our guys. Putting them in position to succeed by finding what they do well and letting them do MORE of it. There are similar concerns with Scottie, and Gradey's having his growing pains as a scorer now as well, etc, etc.

We have a superstar-less team, which means we're flawed and need to really lean more on precision execution and role definition. And that certainly applies to more than just RJ.

All that really needs be acknowledged about Barrett is that he needs more off-ball possessions and then he seems to start looking better as far as we've seen in Toronto. He had Quickley in New York and it didn't matter, but Barnes appears to have a pretty strong impact on him. So we have to keep trying to replicate what worked last year, and has been working at times this year, and see how far along we can get and how long he can maintain.

I think this analysis of his game is on point, but i honestly don’t see an issue with him. Rj has flaws in his game just like every other player we’ve had not name Kawhi. Doesn’t mean that hugely flawed players like Siakam, FVV, Ibaka and others weren’t absolutely essential to our title run.

Of course RJ looks bad if we don’t use him properly and play to his strengths, so would Barnes Quickley and everyone else we have. The fact is that we don’t currently really have anyone else with RJs skill set, so why wouldn’t you play to his strengths? He can absolutely be integral to how we play whether as a starter or 6th man of the year bench player.

I think a lot of people just expected too much of him and that’s why he draws so much criticism, rather than seeing him with fresh eyes.

[manjusaka]

Because he has a grand total 54 games as a raptor? What kind of a stupid question is this? We're talking about TS with and without specific players.

I also already addressed his efficiency with/without Scottie in a previous post(it's 55.8% btw), so not sure this is the "gotcha" you think it is. It also shows how inadequately informed you are when you try and brush off a 7% drop off in TS% as "not outlandish". That's literally the difference between bottom of the NBA and top of the NBA.

This isn't FG%, stop treating it like it is. 7% is massive.

You’re really going to correct 55.9 TS% to 55.8 TS% while brushing off the fact that you’re blatantly skewing numbers (like saying RJ is a low 50s TS% player without Scottie) to fit your narrative then doubling down and acting like 56 TS% is bottom of the league and 63 TS% is top of the league? That 55.8 TS% would be slightly below the median among qualified players this season (158th of 276 qualified players) whereas the 62.8 TS% would be just inside the top 50 (47th). It’s a big swing in efficiency, but 55.8 TS% is nowhere near the bottom of the league. Considering there is a plethora of all-star talent putting up ~56 TS% on 1st/2nd option usage (56.5 for Luka, 56.4 for LaMelo, 56.0 for Ingram, 55.8 for Haliburton, 55.7 for Brown, 55.6 for Harden, 55.3 for Cade, etc.), it is ridiculous that you’re trying to use that number as some glaring flaw in Barrett’s game because of the fact that he plays even better with better talent around him. Where is the logic in that?

I was using a range to show how bad some of his games without Scottie vs how good with Scottie they are. If I wanted to be specific, I would've used an exact number.

But hey, you sure showed me by using examples like Luka who is so far an away better than RJ acting like his TS% being similar indicates that RJs is fine. Then using massive top notch players like Lamelo who has done nothing but play on one of the worst teams in the NBA his entire career, Ingram who is a joke of a 1st option, same for Hali, Jaylen who has averaged a 58% ts the last 5 years in a row but sure lets use 19 whole games lmao, a way beyond his prime Harden, and Cade who up until VERY recently people were writing off.

Great examples, yeah that's exactly what RJ should strive to be. If RJ played better with better talent around him, he'd have been way better in NYC, unless you think that a 25 win team is better and more talented than the Knicks teams he was on.

None of this disputes the fact that RJ has a massive drop off in efficiency when he isn't being set up on the majority of his shots. 7% TS% is 7%. None of your hoop jumping changes that.

Not necessary better talent but definitely better fit. He was playing with Randle in NYK. And We just witnessed this year when Randle got traded for KAT, NYK’s team offensive efficiency go up tremendously.

[Thaddy]

You can hate on RJ all you want but he dropped 30 on the best wing defender in the NBA (OG) on great percentages.

I'm saying this as an RJ hater. He rebounded from that bad game well.