Official RJ Barrett Thread Part 2

[deeps6x]

True, it is not like about a month ago we did not see him do in 3 straight games, without Scottie:
31pts
33pts
31pts
and more recently do a 39 against Pascal with Scottie twinning with Bruce Brown on the bench.
It will be very interesting indeed

When his 3 is falling at unsustainable percentages, he can be efficient any time. That much is clear. I'm more interested in what he looks like inside the arc when he's not on a random 3pt streak, you know?

This month with Scottie: 26.2ppg|7.8rbs|4.2ast| 54.3 FG%|83.3 FT%|37.9 3P% If you didnt know, you would think those are Jayson Tatum numbers.
Without Scottie, can we expect his FG%/3P% to drop having to take&force shots? Sure! Though, let's see what Ja'Kobe has in store for us, to take some of the attention away.

Yes, this month it looks like Tatum's O stats. But this season RJ's O stats seem to have him looking like a slightly better Jaylen Brown.
Of course, RJ's D isn't close to either Boston player's D right now.

[Indeed]

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.

Bailey has all the physical tools and great shooting touch. However, he might need a good situation in the NBA to grow. His game needs a lot of refinement. Theoretically he looks great besides Scottie.

Our system that fits with Barnes requires a lot of passing.
Baily will be great as a finisher in a iso heavy system, where he doesn't need to make that much of a pass, and he can go iso.

[ash_k]

When his 3 is falling at unsustainable percentages, he can be efficient any time. That much is clear. I'm more interested in what he looks like inside the arc when he's not on a random 3pt streak, you know?

This month with Scottie: 26.2ppg|7.8rbs|4.2ast| 54.3 FG%|83.3 FT%|37.9 3P% If you didnt know, you would think those are Jayson Tatum numbers.
Without Scottie, can we expect his FG%/3P% to drop having to take&force shots? Sure! Though, let's see what Ja'Kobe has in store for us, to take some of the attention away.

Yes, this month it looks like Tatum's O stats. But this season RJ's O stats seem to have him looking like a slightly better Jaylen Brown.
Of course, RJ's D isn't close to either Boston player's D right now.

and that same age, Jaylen Brown was just starting to break out(20.3ppg|6.4ppg); to become an all-star the following year.
RJ is on the same path.

[ash_k]

When his 3 is falling at unsustainable percentages, he can be efficient any time. That much is clear. I'm more interested in what he looks like inside the arc when he's not on a random 3pt streak, you know?

This month with Scottie: 26.2ppg|7.8rbs|4.2ast| 54.3 FG%|83.3 FT%|37.9 3P% If you didnt know, you would think those are Jayson Tatum numbers.
Without Scottie, can we expect his FG%/3P% to drop having to take&force shots? Sure! Though, let's see what Ja'Kobe has in store for us, to take some of the attention away.

Yes, this month it looks like Tatum's O stats. But this season RJ's O stats seem to have him looking like a slightly better Jaylen Brown.
Of course, RJ's D isn't close to either Boston player's D right now.

and that same age, Jaylen Brown was just starting to break out(20.3ppg|6.4ppg); to become an all-star the following year.
RJ is on the same path.

[tsherkin]

and that same age, Jaylen Brown was just starting to break out(20.3ppg|6.4ppg); to become an all-star the following year.
RJ is on the same path.

Worth mentioning that Brown continues to struggle with his efficiency. He defends extremely well, which is a larger part of his contribution. Unsurprisingly, he shoots too many 3s when he shouldn't really be doing that, and it dings him. 2023 aside, however, he has also elevated his offensive play during the playoffs, which has helped offset the RS stuff. And he doesn't overshoot, fits himself rather nicely into Boston's overall scheme. Solid player.

Not a hot comparison for Barrett because he is considerably more adept with the ball and a far better shooter, FT% notwithstanding. That said, he also struggles with his efficiency and is definitely not the guy you want shouldering a huge scoring burden, so they do have that in common. On the other hand, I don't think I've seen a situation where Brown has looked the way RJ has alongside Scottie, and he's had the luxury of playing alongside Tatum for years, coupled to other very potent breadth of offensive support in Boston's lineup. So there is that to consider in Barrett's favor as well.

[Got Nuffin]

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.

You forgot that the starting 5 on our champion team were all decent 2 way players. It's like you are arguing Demar is a better nba player than Danny Green is, but I'm not sure if we would still win a champion if we had Demar instead of Green

I think with less offensive load Barrett would also be an ok defender. Look how terrible a defender Siakam became when he became our top option. FVV also went from elite defence to not defending anyone ever as his offensive role increased.

To me Gradey Dick is a bigger worry on defence than Barrett, who actually does have the physical tools to be competitive.


Fwiw. I think we would have been able to cover Demar defensively on that championship team - it’s his hold or dribble the ball for half the shot clock before taking a contested mid ranger style of play that we may not have been able to overcome. Barrett does not play like that.

[ash_k]

and that same age, Jaylen Brown was just starting to break out(20.3ppg|6.4ppg); to become an all-star the following year.
RJ is on the same path.

Worth mentioning that Brown continues to struggle with his efficiency. He defends extremely well, which is a larger part of his contribution. Unsurprisingly, he shoots too many 3s when he shouldn't really be doing that, and it dings him. 2023 aside, however, he has also elevated his offensive play during the playoffs, which has helped offset the RS stuff. And he doesn't overshoot, fits himself rather nicely into Boston's overall scheme. Solid player.

Not a hot comparison for Barrett because he is considerably more adept with the ball and a far better shooter, FT% notwithstanding. That said, he also struggles with his efficiency and is definitely not the guy you want shouldering a huge scoring burden, so they do have that in common. On the other hand, I don't think I've seen a situation where Brown has looked the way RJ has alongside Scottie, and he's had the luxury of playing alongside Tatum for years, coupled to other very potent breadth of offensive support in Boston's lineup. So there is that to consider in Barrett's favor as well.

Many of us predicted he will lead us in scoring, but predicting something like 26.2ppg|7.8rbs|4.2ast| 54.3 FG%|83.3 FT%|37.9 3P% ?!next to another all-Star is something else.
Those numbers are undeniable then he was at 20+pts|6+pts|6+pts with Scottie and NBA greats only(Jokic, Giannis, LeBron, Luka). Just undeniable.
Some guys on here have to stop overthinking it. We have an unbelievable player next to Scottie, literally just scratching the surface like Jaylen Brown at the same age.
Too bad with all those injuries, even RJ is not "100%" (shoulder and that left knee)

[tsherkin]

Many of us predicted he will lead us in scoring, but predicting something like 26.2ppg|7.8rbs|4.2ast| 54.3 FG%|83.3 FT%|37.9 3P% ?!next to another all-Star is something else.

Yeah. I mean, you shoot enough, you score a bunch. Following along with Jaylen, Brown in 2023 when he scored that much was spot-on league-average efficiency, bombing away from 3 over 7 times per game at 33.5% and 20.6 FGA/g overall. It wasn't the most stunning offensive performance ever. +1.5 O-BPM, +0.1 O-EPM, and as a secondary option, you know? In 2004, that would have actually been pretty remarkable stuff, but it was less remarkable in the contemporary offensive environment. Boston got away with it because the rest of the team was excellent from 3 and because they were (including Brown) very good at finishing shots inside the arc, of course. Talent breadth and depth were, then as now, immense for them and how they deployed themselves.

Those numbers are undeniable then he was at 20+pts|6+pts|6+pts with Scottie and NBA greats only(Jokic, Giannis, LeBron, Luka). Just undeniable.
Some guys on here have to stop overthinking it. We have an unbelievable player next to Scottie, literally just scratching the surface like Jaylen Brown at the same age.

"Unbelievable" is pushing it too much. We have a young guy with good potential, but again, comparing him to Jaylen isn't particularly wise because Brown has a bunch of different skills which RJ does not. This is the sort of comment which ends up having me discuss RJ's flaws more than his positive potential in these threads, you know?

RJ's gonna be what RJ's gonna be. He's young, he can get to the rim well. He's a good off-ball slasher. He rebounds pretty well, he's shown some improvement as a passer. He can stick it from the right corner. He works very well off of Scottie, and ideally Scottie will be healthy for us going forward and we can develop Quick and Gradey and use them to open things up with their shooting, so that RJ can do this thing inside.

I think we're better off not projecting too much from him, and just enjoying what he brings without the burden of expectation. If he gets better, great. If he stays doing something like what we've seen, great. If it's somewhere in the middle, great. But getting too fanciful and popping off about NBA greats and stuff is not really the path.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Right now he's 23rd in ppg. There's 5 players ahead of him that are a year or more younger. There's 7 players ahead of him that are also not their team's franchise player (and almost all of them have been 1st options and multi-year all-stars). Whatever he is, he is in good standing.

[Indeed]

Right now he's 23rd in ppg. There's 5 players ahead of him that are a year or more younger. There's 7 players ahead of him that are also not their team's franchise player (and almost all of them have been 1st options and multi-year all-stars). Whatever he is, he is in good standing.

Indeed, and as long as he is not a max contract and paid reasonable, I think we can manage it.
We need someone in this role anyway.

The question is, is he contributing to his salary expectation (18%)?
If he is, he should not be the problem, and can easily be traded if we no longer see the fit.

[tsherkin]

Right now he's 23rd in ppg. There's 5 players ahead of him that are a year or more younger. There's 7 players ahead of him that are also not their team's franchise player (and almost all of them have been 1st options and multi-year all-stars). Whatever he is, he is in good standing.

Setting aside RJ specifically for a moment, scoring volume has to stop being any kind of yardstick for player evaluation. It doesn't mean much beyond opportunity to shoot.

[PushDaRock]

Right now he's 23rd in ppg. There's 5 players ahead of him that are a year or more younger. There's 7 players ahead of him that are also not their team's franchise player (and almost all of them have been 1st options and multi-year all-stars). Whatever he is, he is in good standing.

Setting aside RJ specifically for a moment, scoring volume has to stop being any kind of yardstick for player evaluation. It doesn't mean much beyond opportunity to shoot.

I don't think you can say it doesn't matter at all. The vast majority of "efficient" players would have their efficiency fall off a cliff if they increased their USG rates to the high 20's or 30's. It shows something to be able to score on high volume at a semi respectable efficiency level which isn't something most NBA players can do. RJ is at 55% TS this year which is just 1-2% lower than league average at his position.

[tsherkin]

I don't think you can say it doesn't matter at all. The vast majority of "efficient" players would have their efficiency fall off a cliff if they increased their USG rates to the high 20's or 30's. It shows something to be able to score on high volume at a semi respectable efficiency level which isn't something most NBA players can do. RJ is at 55% TS this year which is just 1-2% lower than league average at his position.

You understand that 2% below league average is very, very bad, right?

[PushDaRock]

I don't think you can say it doesn't matter at all. The vast majority of "efficient" players would have their efficiency fall off a cliff if they increased their USG rates to the high 20's or 30's. It shows something to be able to score on high volume at a semi respectable efficiency level which isn't something most NBA players can do. RJ is at 55% TS this year which is just 1-2% lower than league average at his position.

You understand that 2% below league average is very, very bad, right?

If you consider 2% under league average "very very bad", what's considered just bad? What's considered good?

RJ's TS% as a Raptor is 58.7% which is above league average, is that considered good?

[tsherkin]

If you consider 2% under league average "very very bad", what's considered just bad?

It isn't some radical claim that if you're scoring under league average, it's bad. This isn't news.

What's considered good?

Above league average is decent. +2% and better is generally a pretty good marker for "good."

Naturally, there are contextual factors, right? There's some tolerance for team quality depressing individual efficiency.

RJ's TS% as a Raptor is 58.7% which is above league average, is that considered good?

His efficiency was excellent with us last year. It has not been this year, which is more in line with his career averages. But that discussion has been hashed out many times already and also involves roster context and all that.

League-average scoring in volume isn't especially good, no. Slightly-above league-average scoring isn't terribly remarkable either, but in Barrett's case, the raw average escapes the very large distance between the two performances, right? We have been using him quite differently this year and it hasn't really gone well (as expected) when he hasn't had Scottie on the floor. Which is fine, we just need to have Scottie on the floor and not push his volume too much, sure. But it's not like they're comparable samples which move fluidly into one another.

[ATLTimekeeper]

If RJ was just responsible for scoring the ball maybe there'd be half a point there, but he's been running the point for a lot of the season. His scoring efficiency can be below average if he's distributing. We saw a very effective starting unit with Poeltl-Ochai-Gradey-RJ and Mitchell.

[PushDaRock]

If you consider 2% under league average "very very bad", what's considered just bad?

It isn't some radical claim that if you're scoring under league average, it's bad. This isn't news.

What's considered good?

Above league average is decent. +2% and better is generally a pretty good marker for "good."

Naturally, there are contextual factors, right? There's some tolerance for team quality depressing individual efficiency.

RJ's TS% as a Raptor is 58.7% which is above league average, is that considered good?

His efficiency was excellent with us last year. It has not been this year, which is more in line with his career averages. But that discussion has been hashed out many times already and also involves roster context and all that.

League-average scoring in volume isn't especially good, no. Slightly-above league-average scoring isn't terribly remarkable either, but in Barrett's case, the raw average escapes the very large distance between the two performances, right? We have been using him quite differently this year and it hasn't really gone well (as expected) when he hasn't had Scottie on the floor. Which is fine, we just need to have Scottie on the floor and not push his volume too much, sure. But it's not like they're comparable samples which move fluidly into one another.

When you say 2% under league average is "very very bad", I don't think that leaves much room for bad. So, does that make league average also bad since you need to be above league average to be decent?

So, factoring in our team quality, you're not giving RJ some tolerance being 2% under league average and he's still "very very bad" this season?

[mademan]

If you consider 2% under league average "very very bad", what's considered just bad?

It isn't some radical claim that if you're scoring under league average, it's bad. This isn't news.

What's considered good?

Above league average is decent. +2% and better is generally a pretty good marker for "good."

Naturally, there are contextual factors, right? There's some tolerance for team quality depressing individual efficiency.

RJ's TS% as a Raptor is 58.7% which is above league average, is that considered good?

His efficiency was excellent with us last year. It has not been this year, which is more in line with his career averages. But that discussion has been hashed out many times already and also involves roster context and all that.

League-average scoring in volume isn't especially good, no. Slightly-above league-average scoring isn't terribly remarkable either, but in Barrett's case, the raw average escapes the very large distance between the two performances, right? We have been using him quite differently this year and it hasn't really gone well (as expected) when he hasn't had Scottie on the floor. Which is fine, we just need to have Scottie on the floor and not push his volume too much, sure. But it's not like they're comparable samples which move fluidly into one another.

When you say 2% under league average is "very very bad", I don't think that leaves much room for bad. So, does that make league average also bad since you need to be above league average to be decent?

So, factoring in our team quality, you're not giving RJ some tolerance being 2% under league average and he's still "very very bad" this season?

League average at volume is bad.

[tsherkin]

When you say 2% under league average is "very very bad", I don't think that leaves much room for bad. So, does that make league
average also bad since you need to be above league average to be decent?

League average is mediocre, most especially when you're doing it in volume. And the lower your volume, the less tolerance there is for bleh efficiency, because you're cherry-picking shots.

So, factoring in our team quality, you're not giving RJ some tolerance being 2% under league average and he's still "very very bad" this season?

Are you trying to irritate me? You know that isn't what I'm trying to do. I have like a dozen posts ITT speaking to that exact point and directly remarking on how contextual factors are helping RJ this season. I have commented many times on how we should be patient with RJ, orbiting the idea of us overextending him as a volume.

Pay attention, or don't engage.

[tsherkin]

If RJ was just responsible for scoring the ball maybe there'd be half a point there, but he's been running the point for a lot of the season. His scoring efficiency can be below average if he's distributing. We saw a very effective starting unit with Poeltl-Ochai-Gradey-RJ and Mitchell.

Yes, there is MORE tolerance for weaker efficiency if you mitigate volume and are a focal playmaker, that's true. That matters less and less when you lack efficient options around you, of course. And is more for 6' PGs than 6'6 guys like Barrett.

That said, league average from him if he isn't taking 19 shots a game and IS providing quality playmaking would be better. Not ideal, but certainly palatable, that's true. That's sort of the Trae Young maneuver, so to speak, although it does present its own limitations.