Moderators: DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX, 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford
mtcan wrote:Ya...I was watching him closely guarding Kawhi today...and to RJ's credit...he moved his feet and Kahwi had to hook his arm around onto RJ and drew the offensive foul..
mtcan wrote:Ell Curry wrote:mtcan wrote:But we probably don't win without him doing what he did? Right.
Eh, not sure.
No RJ's 33 minutes = 11 minutes more for the next 3 perimeter guys up.
11 more minutes from Quickley (even plus/minus, shot well, double the assist rate with no turnovers but 3 less rebounds than RJ if you equal their minutes), going from 17 to 28 minutes.
Agbaji (+12, made every shot) up to 31 from 20.
Brown (+7, same rebound rate, lower assist rate but no TOs, no steals though and RJ got 3) up to 28 minutes.
Kawhi and Harden struggled to score. If you wanna credit RJ with either of those and say Brown/Agbaji/Quickley couldn't have produced that, then yeah.
It's a clumsy way to look at it, but the math is just always tough for RJ. He's an innings eater with a passable ERA. That kind of guy. I haven't watched baseball in 20 years, but uh, Tim Wakefield?
20 points is still 20 points.
pingpongrac wrote:Even if Barrett has a good or great game, his detractors are going to point to a bad turnover or defensive breakdown as evidence that he's not a winning player while his TS% is always a major talking point too. His inefficiency this season is generally driven by two things: a very high workload and playing with a lot of inexperience in the early parts of the season without Scottie/IQ as well as a very low free throw percentage (5% below his career average) on decently high volume. He obviously has flaws, but he has been playing at an all-star level since we've acquired him and he's still pretty young while we've seen some noticeable improvements in the 13 months he's been here. It's wild to me that a lot of people that are so down on RJ as a top 2/3 option have been so high on Scottie as a potential offensive hub when their numbers and impact have been very similar this season with the edge going RJ.
Barrett: 23/7/6 per36 on 55 TS% / +0.6 O-EPM, +3.4 O on/off
Scottie: 21/8/7 per36 on 54 TS% / +0.5 O-EPM, -4.4 O on/off
Scottie is the superior building block going forward because he is also a very good defender, but we shouldn't be so quick to give up on Barrett because he doesn't have as much potential. RJ is also being paid ~27M for the remainder of his contract which is outside of the top 50, so it's not like he has a bad contract either yet there are still some people acting like he's overpaid and/or a terrible contract.
Scase wrote:mtcan wrote:Ell Curry wrote:
Eh, not sure.
No RJ's 33 minutes = 11 minutes more for the next 3 perimeter guys up.
11 more minutes from Quickley (even plus/minus, shot well, double the assist rate with no turnovers but 3 less rebounds than RJ if you equal their minutes), going from 17 to 28 minutes.
Agbaji (+12, made every shot) up to 31 from 20.
Brown (+7, same rebound rate, lower assist rate but no TOs, no steals though and RJ got 3) up to 28 minutes.
Kawhi and Harden struggled to score. If you wanna credit RJ with either of those and say Brown/Agbaji/Quickley couldn't have produced that, then yeah.
It's a clumsy way to look at it, but the math is just always tough for RJ. He's an innings eater with a passable ERA. That kind of guy. I haven't watched baseball in 20 years, but uh, Tim Wakefield?
20 points is still 20 points.
You were a DD fan weren't you?
mtcan wrote:Scase wrote:mtcan wrote:20 points is still 20 points.
You were a DD fan weren't you?
We won the game. RJ scored 20 points and assisted on 7 field goals in a win...so for me to say that he had a good game...so what?
mtcan wrote:Scase wrote:mtcan wrote:20 points is still 20 points.
You were a DD fan weren't you?
We won the game. RJ scored 20 points and assisted on 7 field goals in a win...so for me to say that he had a good game...so what?
RoteSchroder wrote:More like #3. He's already shown that he can be efficient with more of an off-ball role. 20 PPG at 58 TS% is fine..especially if he can maintain it in the playoffs as a #3 guy, where the efficiency of some players, including stars, tend to go down. If he can improve his FT%, which should be doable, then even better. He's also currently doing this in a shared #1 role, as Barnes doesn't always take over offensively.
Being close to average defensively is also fine. It's not like he's Gradey Dick.
The "salary space" he eats up is less than $30 M, which is actually a really good deal considering you have guys like Bruce Brown making 23 M.
The team as is, is able to consistently beat weak teams and has a shot at mediocre teams. We have a small sample size of near 0.500 ball last year when the team was fully healthy. Then we have a sample size of competitive games with RJ when the team was completely depleted and playing G-leaguers. Now that we're almost fully healthy, we are 8-2 in our last 10 games, where we benched both Boucher/Olynyk in one of our losses..both of whom provide spacing and play at our weakest position.
You replace some of the mediocre players with an actual two way all-star to this roster or a superstar and the team easily wins 50+ with RJ as a #3.
Team salary is at 164 M, 22nd in the league. If you want to match the pay roll of several contenders, you can add about 25 M to that. Take out Bruce Brown and Boucher/Olynyk and you're left with ~$60 M dollars to work with in a theoretical scenario. You can work out numerous hypotheticals where RJ is a #3 and the team is a contender.
mtcan wrote:Scase wrote:mtcan wrote:20 points is still 20 points.
You were a DD fan weren't you?
We won the game. RJ scored 20 points and assisted on 7 field goals in a win...so for me to say that he had a good game...so what?
tsherkin wrote:mtcan wrote:Scase wrote:You were a DD fan weren't you?
We won the game. RJ scored 20 points and assisted on 7 field goals in a win...so for me to say that he had a good game...so what?
I think the divide here is that you believe us discussing the issues with his scoring is equivalent to saying he didn't do anything well at all. That is not the case.
mtcan wrote:tsherkin wrote:mtcan wrote:We won the game. RJ scored 20 points and assisted on 7 field goals in a win...so for me to say that he had a good game...so what?
I think the divide here is that you believe us discussing the issues with his scoring is equivalent to saying he didn't do anything well at all. That is not the case.
Frankly...I don't care.
tsherkin wrote:mtcan wrote:tsherkin wrote:
I think the divide here is that you believe us discussing the issues with his scoring is equivalent to saying he didn't do anything well at all. That is not the case.
Frankly...I don't care.
If you aren't going to pay proper attention to what is said, than any response of yours is a waste of time
tsherkin wrote:mtcan wrote:Scase wrote:You were a DD fan weren't you?
We won the game. RJ scored 20 points and assisted on 7 field goals in a win...so for me to say that he had a good game...so what?
I think the divide here is that you believe us discussing the issues with his scoring is equivalent to saying he didn't do anything well at all. That is not the case.
deck wrote:I think the divide is that some folks are watching the game and commenting on how he played rather than needlessly repeating the same thing over and over.
Pointing out he was 9-21 isn't particularly insightful.
More useful would be to discuss how many of those missed shots came in a 4 minute span at the end of the second half that included several misses going for rebounds in traffic, and a 3pt heave from more than half court to end the half. Would also be more useful to discuss that zero free throws was likely due to several missed / no-calls.
9-21 was not an important factor in the outcome of this game.
20 pts 7 assists, 6 rebounds and 2 steals...ya that guy is 6th man material. lolololol
tserkin wrote:Understanding the context of the comment does help with appreciating why it was made. You should return to that, IMHO.
deck wrote: I understand fully the context of your post. It wasn't terribly profound.
Ell Curry wrote:RoteSchroder wrote:More like #3. He's already shown that he can be efficient with more of an off-ball role. 20 PPG at 58 TS% is fine..especially if he can maintain it in the playoffs as a #3 guy, where the efficiency of some players, including stars, tend to go down. If he can improve his FT%, which should be doable, then even better. He's also currently doing this in a shared #1 role, as Barnes doesn't always take over offensively.
Being close to average defensively is also fine. It's not like he's Gradey Dick.
The "salary space" he eats up is less than $30 M, which is actually a really good deal considering you have guys like Bruce Brown making 23 M.
The team as is, is able to consistently beat weak teams and has a shot at mediocre teams. We have a small sample size of near 0.500 ball last year when the team was fully healthy. Then we have a sample size of competitive games with RJ when the team was completely depleted and playing G-leaguers. Now that we're almost fully healthy, we are 8-2 in our last 10 games, where we benched both Boucher/Olynyk in one of our losses..both of whom provide spacing and play at our weakest position.
You replace some of the mediocre players with an actual two way all-star to this roster or a superstar and the team easily wins 50+ with RJ as a #3.
Team salary is at 164 M, 22nd in the league. If you want to match the pay roll of several contenders, you can add about 25 M to that. Take out Bruce Brown and Boucher/Olynyk and you're left with ~$60 M dollars to work with in a theoretical scenario. You can work out numerous hypotheticals where RJ is a #3 and the team is a contender.
I don't really agree, but well argued.
I think the problem is that if we add a "two way all-star or a superstar" then RJ isn't the reason we're winning 50+. It's that guy and Barnes. And you want to surround those guys with guys who are better floor spacers and shooters than RJ. Unless that superstar is a low-volume hyper efficient scorer who is great on D.
So I dunno, prime Gobert and no Poeltl in the deal? That sorta works. Not Jason Kidd, because when he was great he couldn't shoot. Hard to think of stars who fit that well. I guess a prime Paul George type, and you throw out Poeltl-Barnes-George-Barrett-Quickley. Is that a better starting 5 than Poeltl-Barnes-George-Agbaji-Quickley? More playmaking, which helps with George and Quickley being average passers for their position, but also teams are daring RJ to catch and shoot from 3 like 8 times a night, right? And the team looks worse on defence.
I do think RJ's passing is portable. And he's been better lately as a #2 type for Canada and the Raptors than he was on the Knicks. Good signs for him. But the more talent you get, I think it's mostly diminishing returns, apart from the passing and the elimination of bad shots to take him from below average efficiency to average efficiency. And I don't think he makes his teammates better on D at all, and he doesn't really on O when he doesn't have the ball or late in the shot clock.
We're talking about adding a star; Fox, Luka, AD traded in the last 24 hours.
If we added Fox we want more shooting and D than Poeltl-Barnes-Barrett-Quickley-Fox.
Luka? Same thing with a Poeltl-Barnes-Barrett-Luka-Quickley lineup. Obvious move there is to trade RJ for a 3+D guy to hit 40% on Luka passes and space the floor. It's even possible Barnes gets dealt in that scenario. They made the finals with great 3pt shooting around Luka and a center.
AD, a totally different player? same thing! Poeltl-AD-Barnes-Barrett-Quickley lineup can't shoot. You could argue moving Barnes for a shooter makes as much sense in that case as moving RJ, and he has more value, though. More of an anti-Scottie take than a pro-RJ one, here.
Basically, unless we add a guy (and I do think Ace Bailey profiles as this type of guy) who is a low assist, 3+D star or a top 5. I don't think RJ fits well here in the long-term.
Quickley on the other hand, fits really nicely in the Luka lineup and the AD one. The Fox one less so, it's small on D, but he's also the only shooter in that lineup, teams would collapse to an insane degree without him and you'd have a Magic on O situation (their D is title good already, forget their ages, it's the O that's why even fully healthy, nobody is picking them to beat the Celtics, Cavs or Knicks) without the elite defence.
Quickley should - at least in theory - be a portable, complimentary guy; Not bad for a PG on defence (not great, but he's not Lillard or Trae either) and a high volume, very good 3pt shooter. Doesn't need the ball to help his team on O (spacing) and it's just easier to find a good SF defender than a good PG one since defenders benefit from size, and you can play bigger guys around a shooter than a non-shooter, since you already have some of the shooting/spacing covered.
Look at the title team:
Gasol, above average shooter and great defender for his position
Ibaka, above average shooter and good defender for his position
Siakam, most like RJ, but he was very, very good on D early in his career when we won.
Kawhi, arguably the greatest 3+D player of all time
OG, missed the playoffs but was good when we went like 19-5 or something without Kawhi, great 3+D credentials
Danny Green, arguably the greatest 3+D role player of all time
Norm, 40% from 3, solid defender
Van Vleet, great from 3, good defender
Lowry, great from 3, very good defender
We've already got Poeltl and Barnes not being good shooters from outside and Dick not being a good defender as big deficits in the 3+D department. You can't cheat on too many of these things, it adds up. The Celtics starters are all good 3+D guys. The Thunder same thing except Hartenstein, who is a 7 footer. The Cavs are a bit low on defence in the backcourt and shooting in the frontcourt, but Garland is a 50/40/90 type guy and Mitchell is a much better shooter than RJ. Barnes and Poeltl aren't Mobley and Allen on D, even though Barnes is very good. Mobley is special, and Allen is solidly better on that end than Poeltl. Really, their version of RJ is Levert and he's their 6th man, not their starter, and he's tied for their 5th highest paid guy. Those are the 3 best teams in the league.
RoteSchroder wrote:1) I wouldn’t say it’s an absolute necessity to keep RJ, I just think it’s fine to build with him. I would say the same about Scottie.
2) There are several ways to build a team. The championship Raptors were a bit like Boston now, lots of two way players. There are also plenty of championship teams with average/poor defenders as key players.
3) Offensively, I would say Scottie is a bit more like DD than RJ is.
5) Based on #3, are Scottie and IQ top 5-10 in the league at any important aspect of the game? Not rhetorical, but I can’t think of any at the moment.
I think the mistake is considering IQ and Poeltl as a part of the long-term starting line-up. Poeltl can eventually be moved to a back-up role if we keep him, but ideally you pair Scottie with a defensive C who can shoot (e.g. there has been decent chemistry with Boucher/Olynyk). Either replace IQ or get a PoA defender between him and RJ (e.g. a developed Edgecombe)
tsherkin wrote:Poltl seems fine as a starting player, presuming sufficient talent elsewhere in the lineup. If he could hit a three, it would be nice, but teams are able to get away without a spacer 5 if everything else works well.