Official RJ Barrett Thread Part 2

[ConSarnit]

Lot of talk about how RJ will be better once Barnes and IQ are back. Not being asked: if RJ is better for those guys games? He's not some great floor spacer and he's not taking the toughest defensive assignments. I feel like his drive and kick game works better with Quickley than it does with Barnes. Last season IQ was more efficient with Barrett on the floor but Barnes efficiency declined. Barnes is also more efficient with Barrett off the floor this season.

I think RJ will continue to be solid when Barnes or IQ is healthy but his fit is still not ideal. We are hard up for floor spacing (bottom 3 in 3pa and bottom 7 in 3p fg%). We are also hard up for defence (bottom 10). Neither are RJ's forte. As others have said I don't think it's a huge issue right now (the team is going nowhere this year) but RJ is probably the odd man out long term given what we are lacking. An improvement in defense and 3pa would probably bear much more fruit than whatever we'd lose from RJ's foul drawing.

[Scase]

Absolutely.

And that's what it comes down to: finding a role deployment which works for him. We know he does better when he isn't a huge volume shooter. We know he does better when he can get off-ball more. We know he does better when he has better spacing (duh, that's everyone). We know he has no jumper to speak of except from the corners (especially the right side) and struggles at the line. That's fine, those are known quantities for a guy we already know not to be a perennial All-Star. And that's okay. We just have to put him in position to succeed by trying to run him in possession types at which he excels. Which is true of our entire roster.

He isn't a savior, he's a flawed player who was mostly a salary dump from his previous team. I'd be cautious looking at < 10 games of him without Scottie. In those games, he was pretty hot from 3 when he was doing well, and he had Quick for most of them. And he was bad more than he was good in that stretch, the pair of 70%+ TS games he has really brings up his TS% over that specific stretch. Small samples, and all that.

Regardless, I think looking at him without the supporting pieces probably isn't the thing. We don't WANT to play him without those guys. We want them to be healthy and opening lanes for him, setting him up and making him play better. That's the goal anyway. We know from several years worth of time with New York what Barrett's flaws are as a scorer. And they repeat here in Toronto, but especially with Barnes on the floor, he seems to thrive.

So as we limit his volume and try to push more and more optimal looks at him, he should look better inside that role, which is good stuff for us.

Yeah RJ was really efficient last year, and was efficient this year when Scottie played (60.4TS% since he returned).

I really don't care what he does when it is RJ as the #1 option. He never will be the #1 option for us and it is kind of irrelevant to how we should view him.

Hell, he even looked good last year with IQ out there. Super small sample of 9 games of RJ/IQ after Scottie got hurt last year but RJ gave us 24.6/6.6/4.6 on .554/.344/.692 (61.4TS%). (IQ also gave us 21.1/5.6/8.3 on .435/.352/.845 (.586TS%)

So far in his Raptor tenure, RJ has been incredibly efficient outside of that stretch where IQ and Barnes were both hurt and he was asked to do a lot more than he should. As a guy who is not the #1 though he has been great, and I think the best is to come when he can play with IQ and Barnes together.

I mean I guess technically he's still a #1 because I expect RJ to be the leading scorer with everyone healthy but yeah ideally he's more 26-28% USG and playing off our other playmakers more and being hyper efficient scoring at the rim and getting more corner 3's The way this offense should look when healthy is multiple threats that can go off for 30 any night which makes it hard to key in on any one player.

I think having him and GD float around 24-25% would be a nice middle ground, getting reps for the team while healthy is important to integrating RJ into the offence with the most efficient use of his skill set, but GD needs to continue to be featured heavily. RJ is less of an unknown quantity, we know what he does and how well he does it, but that he does it much better when being "guided".

GD is still up in the air, how good is his movement shooting when featured in the offence as a major part, can he keep driving to the basket vs starters but with a healthy lineup etc. RJ will have incremental improvements, whereas I think GD has those "big leap" potentials. Whether it comes this year or next, I think we need to balance the usage of the two of them.

We've seen what RJ can do with/without support, but we've seen nothing definitive with GD, rather some REALLY promising play that needs more time to cook to tell if it's the real deal.

[tsherkin]

I am unsure that the measurement of a #1 option should be using TS%, particularly that the possession ended in scoring (without credit as assist or putback from an offensive play perspective). It could be an at rim attempt that the C can have the put ball. We also saw against the Knicks where he failed to make the put back twice, that should not be counted as multiple missed shots.

It isn't a measurement. #1 option is a role, not an evaluation. You can be filling that role and have it be a bad idea. The point is more "do you WANT that guy in that role, ideally?" Which, with RJ, is a pretty firm and obvious "no." But he has other uses to us, which is fine.

[manjusaka]

Lot of talk about how RJ will be better once Barnes and IQ are back. Not being asked: if RJ is better for those guys games? He's not some great floor spacer and he's not taking the toughest defensive assignments. I feel like his drive and kick game works better with Quickley than it does with Barnes. Last season IQ was more efficient with Barrett on the floor but Barnes efficiency declined. Barnes is also more efficient with Barrett off the floor this season.

I think RJ will continue to be solid when Barnes or IQ is healthy but his fit is still not ideal. We are hard up for floor spacing (bottom 3 in 3pa and bottom 7 in 3p fg%). We are also hard up for defence (bottom 10). Neither are RJ's forte. As others have said I don't think it's a huge issue right now (the team is going nowhere this year) but RJ is probably the odd man out long term given what we are lacking. An improvement in defense and 3pa would probably bear much more fruit than whatever we'd lose from RJ's foul drawing.

Offensively they are fine.

Defensively with IQ RJ and Dick together with Scottie, Scottie probably needs to do it all, covering every.

[mademan]

Lot of talk about how RJ will be better once Barnes and IQ are back. Not being asked: if RJ is better for those guys games? He's not some great floor spacer and he's not taking the toughest defensive assignments. I feel like his drive and kick game works better with Quickley than it does with Barnes. Last season IQ was more efficient with Barrett on the floor but Barnes efficiency declined. Barnes is also more efficient with Barrett off the floor this season.

I think RJ will continue to be solid when Barnes or IQ is healthy but his fit is still not ideal. We are hard up for floor spacing (bottom 3 in 3pa and bottom 7 in 3p fg%). We are also hard up for defence (bottom 10). Neither are RJ's forte. As others have said I don't think it's a huge issue right now (the team is going nowhere this year) but RJ is probably the odd man out long term given what we are lacking. An improvement in defense and 3pa would probably bear much more fruit than whatever we'd lose from RJ's foul drawing.

Offensively they are fine.

Defensively with IQ RJ and Dick together with Scottie, Scottie probably needs to do it all, covering every.

If IQ/Dick are the future guards, an athletic defensive wing is absolutely a must. But who knows what the future needs are...we get a guy like Dylan Harper and he pans out, one of IQ/Dick probably isnt gonna be here long term. Or Masai believes in Ace Bailey's long term 2 way potential and we become a sniper of a team with Scottie/Ace being our starting defensive stalwarts.

[Indeed]

I am unsure that the measurement of a #1 option should be using TS%, particularly that the possession ended in scoring (without credit as assist or putback from an offensive play perspective). It could be an at rim attempt that the C can have the put ball. We also saw against the Knicks where he failed to make the put back twice, that should not be counted as multiple missed shots.

It isn't a measurement. #1 option is a role, not an evaluation. You can be filling that role and have it be a bad idea. The point is more "do you WANT that guy in that role, ideally?" Which, with RJ, is a pretty firm and obvious "no." But he has other uses to us, which is fine.

There is definitely a measurement, the diminish return, the performance.
#1 option definitely has a measurement, meaning there is a stats to determine. However, it might require advance stats and more complicated understanding.

If there is no supporting argument, I am unsure how people can firmly confirm yes or no.

[Indeed]

Lot of talk about how RJ will be better once Barnes and IQ are back. Not being asked: if RJ is better for those guys games? He's not some great floor spacer and he's not taking the toughest defensive assignments. I feel like his drive and kick game works better with Quickley than it does with Barnes. Last season IQ was more efficient with Barrett on the floor but Barnes efficiency declined. Barnes is also more efficient with Barrett off the floor this season.

I think RJ will continue to be solid when Barnes or IQ is healthy but his fit is still not ideal. We are hard up for floor spacing (bottom 3 in 3pa and bottom 7 in 3p fg%). We are also hard up for defence (bottom 10). Neither are RJ's forte. As others have said I don't think it's a huge issue right now (the team is going nowhere this year) but RJ is probably the odd man out long term given what we are lacking. An improvement in defense and 3pa would probably bear much more fruit than whatever we'd lose from RJ's foul drawing.

Offensively they are fine.

Defensively with IQ RJ and Dick together with Scottie, Scottie probably needs to do it all, covering every.

If IQ/Dick are the future guards, an athletic defensive wing is absolutely a must. But who knows what the future needs are...we get a guy like Dylan Harper and he pans out, one of IQ/Dick probably isnt gonna be here long term. Or Masai believes in Ace Bailey's long term 2 way potential and we become a sniper of a team with Scottie/Ace being our starting defensive stalwarts.

Not seeing Baily being a defensive player, and Harper is more a guard.
I am also not seeing Baily fitting with Barnes.

[mademan]

Offensively they are fine.

Defensively with IQ RJ and Dick together with Scottie, Scottie probably needs to do it all, covering every.

If IQ/Dick are the future guards, an athletic defensive wing is absolutely a must. But who knows what the future needs are...we get a guy like Dylan Harper and he pans out, one of IQ/Dick probably isnt gonna be here long term. Or Masai believes in Ace Bailey's long term 2 way potential and we become a sniper of a team with Scottie/Ace being our starting defensive stalwarts.

Not seeing Baily being a defensive player, and Harper is more a guard.
I am also not seeing Baily fitting with Barnes.

You dont have to convince me. Im a big Bailey hater, but i was also a big Jaylen Brown hater in college, and he shut down Luka in the finals and has become a terrific 2 way player. My preference would be Harper, Denim or even Jak if we fall to ~8

[tsherkin]

I am unsure that the measurement of a #1 option should be using TS%, particularly that the possession ended in scoring (without credit as assist or putback from an offensive play perspective). It could be an at rim attempt that the C can have the put ball. We also saw against the Knicks where he failed to make the put back twice, that should not be counted as multiple missed shots.

It isn't a measurement. #1 option is a role, not an evaluation. You can be filling that role and have it be a bad idea. The point is more "do you WANT that guy in that role, ideally?" Which, with RJ, is a pretty firm and obvious "no." But he has other uses to us, which is fine.

There is definitely a measurement, the diminish return, the performance.
#1 option definitely has a measurement, meaning there is a stats to determine. However, it might require advance stats and more complicated understanding.

If there is no supporting argument, I am unsure how people can firmly confirm yes or no.

I mean, no. #1 option literally just refers to the focal scoring threat. It isn't an examination of quality. It is very important to have a good one, but that isn't how it always works out.

There are no advanced stats necessary, though they help in determining quality.

[Indeed]

It isn't a measurement. #1 option is a role, not an evaluation. You can be filling that role and have it be a bad idea. The point is more "do you WANT that guy in that role, ideally?" Which, with RJ, is a pretty firm and obvious "no." But he has other uses to us, which is fine.

There is definitely a measurement, the diminish return, the performance.
#1 option definitely has a measurement, meaning there is a stats to determine. However, it might require advance stats and more complicated understanding.

If there is no supporting argument, I am unsure how people can firmly confirm yes or no.

I mean, no. #1 option literally just refers to the focal scoring threat. It isn't an examination of quality. It is very important to have a good one, but that isn't how it always works out.

There are no advanced stats necessary, though they help in determining quality.

There are advanced stats, there are performance measurement.
We are in the digital world, everything has performance matrices, including contracts.

[tsherkin]

There is definitely a measurement, the diminish return, the performance.
#1 option definitely has a measurement, meaning there is a stats to determine. However, it might require advance stats and more complicated understanding.

If there is no supporting argument, I am unsure how people can firmly confirm yes or no.

I mean, no. #1 option literally just refers to the focal scoring threat. It isn't an examination of quality. It is very important to have a good one, but that isn't how it always works out.

There are no advanced stats necessary, though they help in determining quality.

There are advanced stats, there are performance measurement.
We are in the digital world, everything has performance matrices, including contracts.

No, you're missing my point.

There are plenty of ways to evaluate quality.

It's just that none of those are relevant. You can be a #1 option and be bad at it. The phrase describes a role, not a level of play.

[Indeed]

I mean, no. #1 option literally just refers to the focal scoring threat. It isn't an examination of quality. It is very important to have a good one, but that isn't how it always works out.

There are no advanced stats necessary, though they help in determining quality.

There are advanced stats, there are performance measurement.
We are in the digital world, everything has performance matrices, including contracts.

No, you're missing my point.

There are plenty of ways to evaluate quality.

It's just that none of those are relevant. You can be a #1 option and be bad at it. The phrase describes a role, not a level of play.

If there is a measurement to qualify for #1 option, then it is not anyone who can be the #1 option. It is no longer whoever take them is the #1 option. Opposing team will also use this measurement to determine #1 option and assign the right defenders.

Therefore, no, it is not a phrase or description, once it has measurement, it has a qualification.

[tsherkin]

There are advanced stats, there are performance measurement.
We are in the digital world, everything has performance matrices, including contracts.

No, you're missing my point.

There are plenty of ways to evaluate quality.

It's just that none of those are relevant. You can be a #1 option and be bad at it. The phrase describes a role, not a level of play.

If there is a measurement to qualify for #1 option, then it is not anyone who can be the #1 option. It is no longer whoever take them is the #1 option. Opposing team will also use this measurement to determine #1 option and assign the right defenders.

Therefore, no, it is not a phrase or description, once it has measurement, it has a qualification.

None of that is accurate, though.

It's literally "the guy the team games to take the shot most of the time" and it varies based on the roster. There isn't need for advanced anything to figure that out.

[YogurtProducer]

Yeah RJ was really efficient last year, and was efficient this year when Scottie played (60.4TS% since he returned).

I really don't care what he does when it is RJ as the #1 option. He never will be the #1 option for us and it is kind of irrelevant to how we should view him.

I think all we need to take from that is that he shouldn't be the #1 option, and that there are things we shouldn't ask of him. Beyond that, things are very different for RJ when we field our actual team, and I agree that we should focus on that. Finding ways to help him play his best.

I am unsure that the measurement of a #1 option should be using TS%, particularly that the possession ended in scoring (without credit as assist or putback from an offensive play perspective). It could be an at rim attempt that the C can have the put ball. We also saw against the Knicks where he failed to make the put back twice, that should not be counted as multiple missed shots.

I think Barrett would be borderline #1 option, it just his passing can be earlier to benefit others, instead of trying to finish (even he is a very good finisher). Defense would also be something we desired, even not related to being the #1 option.

He is definitely being respected as the #1 option, as Anunoby was the one guarding him while playing as PF (instead of Anunoby guarding Barnes).

Sure, but over larger samples that almost always evens out. All players miss multiple missed shots on one possession. Overtime, it generally is such a small % of your total attempts it wont matter.

[Indeed]

No, you're missing my point.

There are plenty of ways to evaluate quality.

It's just that none of those are relevant. You can be a #1 option and be bad at it. The phrase describes a role, not a level of play.

If there is a measurement to qualify for #1 option, then it is not anyone who can be the #1 option. It is no longer whoever take them is the #1 option. Opposing team will also use this measurement to determine #1 option and assign the right defenders.

Therefore, no, it is not a phrase or description, once it has measurement, it has a qualification.

None of that is accurate, though.

It's literally "the guy the team games to take the shot most of the time" and it varies based on the roster. There isn't need for advanced anything to figure that out.

Lakers has Antonio Davis taking the most shots, scoring the most, is he the first option or is that LeBron?
Clippers has Powell taking the most shots, scoring the most, is he the first option or is that Harden?

Although most cases might have the leading scorer being the 1st option (since 1st option requires to be a scorer to begin with), but that is no necessary. Dating back to the DeRozan-Lowry era, Lowry has the higher BPM than DeRozan in regular season even DeRozan has higher field goal attempts, GOAT of the team.

[Indeed]

I think all we need to take from that is that he shouldn't be the #1 option, and that there are things we shouldn't ask of him. Beyond that, things are very different for RJ when we field our actual team, and I agree that we should focus on that. Finding ways to help him play his best.

I am unsure that the measurement of a #1 option should be using TS%, particularly that the possession ended in scoring (without credit as assist or putback from an offensive play perspective). It could be an at rim attempt that the C can have the put ball. We also saw against the Knicks where he failed to make the put back twice, that should not be counted as multiple missed shots.

I think Barrett would be borderline #1 option, it just his passing can be earlier to benefit others, instead of trying to finish (even he is a very good finisher). Defense would also be something we desired, even not related to being the #1 option.

He is definitely being respected as the #1 option, as Anunoby was the one guarding him while playing as PF (instead of Anunoby guarding Barnes).

Sure, but over larger samples that almost always evens out. All players miss multiple missed shots on one possession. Overtime, it generally is such a small % of your total attempts it wont matter.

Certainly, you want him to be efficient and not waste of possessions, however, a good #1 option should use possession based matrices to understand the impact it brings. A 58% TS player without passing vs a 56% TS player with passing that leads to 90% open shots would be different.

I don't have matrices for the above, and recent years having their first option with a higher TS%, however, that may also be related to those teams having another great scorer, or spacing, etc.

[tsherkin]

Lakers has Antonio Davis taking the most shots, scoring the most, is he the first option or is that LeBron?
Clippers has Powell taking the most shots, scoring the most, is he the first option or is that Harden?

Although most cases might have the leading scorer being the 1st option (since 1st option requires to be a scorer to begin with), but that is no necessary. Dating back to the DeRozan-Lowry era, Lowry has the higher BPM than DeRozan in regular season even DeRozan has higher field goal attempts, GOAT of the team.

Lebron is 40. They've switched things up some, yes.

Higher BPM doesn't mean anything in this context. Lowry was the better player, but DeRozan was the first option because Lowry wasn't a volume guy.

[Fairview4Life]

Antonio Davis is even older than Lebron though.

[YogurtProducer]

I am unsure that the measurement of a #1 option should be using TS%, particularly that the possession ended in scoring (without credit as assist or putback from an offensive play perspective). It could be an at rim attempt that the C can have the put ball. We also saw against the Knicks where he failed to make the put back twice, that should not be counted as multiple missed shots.

I think Barrett would be borderline #1 option, it just his passing can be earlier to benefit others, instead of trying to finish (even he is a very good finisher). Defense would also be something we desired, even not related to being the #1 option.

He is definitely being respected as the #1 option, as Anunoby was the one guarding him while playing as PF (instead of Anunoby guarding Barnes).

Sure, but over larger samples that almost always evens out. All players miss multiple missed shots on one possession. Overtime, it generally is such a small % of your total attempts it wont matter.

Certainly, you want him to be efficient and not waste of possessions, however, a good #1 option should use possession based matrices to understand the impact it brings. A 58% TS player without passing vs a 56% TS player with passing that leads to 90% open shots would be different.

I don't have matrices for the above, and recent years having their first option with a higher TS%, however, that may also be related to those teams having another great scorer, or spacing, etc.

Obviously you can get deeper into the discussion. RJ Barrett also isnt a terrific playmaker, and a lot of his assist #'s this year is solely volume based and not due to some great vision he has.

Most #1 options are going to give you 5/6 assists per game just solely due to volume, so we cant really say RJ is playmaking at some great rate to make up for efficiency or lack thereof.

And Anunoby guarding RJ does not really mean much. OG matches up with a guy like RJ and Mikal with Barnes just better that way. Mikal is more of a perimeter defender whereas OG can bang (and RJ likes to be physical on his drives). On most teams, teams dont have two wings like that throw at Barnes and RJ, and most teams would have OG guard Barnes.

[Scase]

Offensively they are fine.

Defensively with IQ RJ and Dick together with Scottie, Scottie probably needs to do it all, covering every.

If IQ/Dick are the future guards, an athletic defensive wing is absolutely a must. But who knows what the future needs are...we get a guy like Dylan Harper and he pans out, one of IQ/Dick probably isnt gonna be here long term. Or Masai believes in Ace Bailey's long term 2 way potential and we become a sniper of a team with Scottie/Ace being our starting defensive stalwarts.

Not seeing Baily being a defensive player, and Harper is more a guard.
I am also not seeing Baily fitting with Barnes.

Bailey has be projected to be a very good help defender much like Scottie, I don't know if I'd be confident saying he'd be an elite defender, but I would be shocked if he couldn't manage being above average. He's got all the physical tools, and you can teach the rest.