PG: Raptors lose again in low scoring effort

[tsherkin]

Something simple like having Scottie post up at the top of the key can change things.

He becomes the hub instead of Yak. We know he can shoot from there so teams have to respect it. He can pass out to IQ, BI and RJ for C&S if a double comes from the perimeter. If the C comes over to help, he is tall enough to feed Yak.

It's certainly worth a try for several possessions per game, I agree.

And it doesn't need to be every possession like this. They can run plays between Yak and RJ where Barnes is a corner shooter but also can look to make cuts.

Exactly. Mix and match what he's doing, especially as we start to have other options. RJ, Quick, Ingram, each of these guys has some degree of ability as a playmaker which we can exploit, but while spreading it out so we aren't over-reliant on any individual. Rotating around, getting guys different looks, keeping the D guessing some.

Personally, starting next year, I don't care who scores as long as we start using guys to their strengths way more and win games. That should be the goal.

Agreed.

The current 5 starters might cannibalize each othets stats a little across the board. RJ and Barnes might not be 20 point guys after adding a healthy IQ and a possible 20 from BI. But if they become more efficient due to better shot selection, playing to strengths and exploiting advantages, who cares if it results in wins. It's nice to have a full lineup of 5 that can be your leading scorer on any given night. No superstar, but lots of scoring depth.

I don't think we need them to all be 20+ ppg guys. We don't have a superstar, so funneling EVERYTHING through one guy doesn't make a ton of sense. We definitely need more distribution. And we can look to BI, when he's there, for those "must have basket" type situations because he's a quality creator and shooter.

[Tripod]

Something simple like having Scottie post up at the top of the key can change things.

He becomes the hub instead of Yak. We know he can shoot from there so teams have to respect it. He can pass out to IQ, BI and RJ for C&S if a double comes from the perimeter. If the C comes over to help, he is tall enough to feed Yak.

It's certainly worth a try for several possessions per game, I agree.

And it doesn't need to be every possession like this. They can run plays between Yak and RJ where Barnes is a corner shooter but also can look to make cuts.

Exactly. Mix and match what he's doing, especially as we start to have other options. RJ, Quick, Ingram, each of these guys has some degree of ability as a playmaker which we can exploit, but while spreading it out so we aren't over-reliant on any individual. Rotating around, getting guys different looks, keeping the D guessing some.

Personally, starting next year, I don't care who scores as long as we start using guys to their strengths way more and win games. That should be the goal.

Agreed.

The current 5 starters might cannibalize each othets stats a little across the board. RJ and Barnes might not be 20 point guys after adding a healthy IQ and a possible 20 from BI. But if they become more efficient due to better shot selection, playing to strengths and exploiting advantages, who cares if it results in wins. It's nice to have a full lineup of 5 that can be your leading scorer on any given night. No superstar, but lots of scoring depth.

I don't think we need them to all be 20+ ppg guys. We don't have a superstar, so funneling EVERYTHING through one guy doesn't make a ton of sense. We definitely need more distribution. And we can look to BI, when he's there, for those "must have basket" type situations because he's a quality creator and shooter.

Yup...we are on the same page.

With no "star", no one should be the go to guy. We need to look at a game by game basis and see which of our guys can exploit their matchup.

I know I used this example before but the Memphis game was a perfect example.

Yak on Edey...we can't exploit that
IQ on Ja...nope, can't exploit that either
Barnes on JJJ..nope...JJJ was too big
Gradey in Kennard...meh

But adding Ingram and RJ...now JJJ is likely guarding Ingram. That opens up Barnes to exploit Wells. That's a massive difference compared to having JJJ on him. And having RJ in with Kennard on him, RJ should do the same. Now against another opponent, maybe that advantage is at C, PG or for BI. Options

It's just to show how adding BI...and of course being healthy, can totally change the matchups some of our guys have. They still need to execute, but you increased the odds of success instead of watching Barnes go up against a DPOY.

And I know this always comes back to Barnes, but he does think pass 1st and gets joy from setting up others. He also gets it from playing great defense. We need both of those things too on a nightly basis. Even RJ, he was diled in way more on defense during that win streak. That becomes infectious. Let's hope from day 1 that's how we play because if so, we can win lots of games and be a real pain in the ass to play against.

[tsherkin]

It's just to show how adding BI...and of course being healthy, can totally change the matchups some of our guys have. They still need to execute, but you increased the odds of success instead of watching Barnes go up against a DPOY.

For sure. We'll see what happens. I'm trying to warm up to the idea of Ingram, but I guess in the end it all depends on his availability and the contract extension, right?

And I know this always comes back to Barnes, but he does think pass 1st and gets joy from setting up others. He also gets it from playing great defense. We need both of those things too on a nightly basis. Even RJ, he was diled in way more on defense during that win streak. That becomes infectious. Let's hope from day 1 that's how we play because if so, we can win lots of games and be a real pain in the ass to play against.

Barnes is who he always has been. He matches to a T all of the pre-draft projections of his identity, in essence, and we've just been trying to get blood from a stone for some reason.

[ConSarnit]

His 3pt shooting is bad but that is something we could deal with: maybe more Barnes at C lineups (he's shown some strong rim protection moments this season), getting a stretch 5, etc. The problem is that mostly everything else is sort of bad too. It's tough to play a non-shooting 4 these days unless you have elite backcourt shooting. I just can't think of who Barnes contemporary success story is if his offensive game doesn't come along. I don't think he can play the Draymond role (who was an elite defender and great small ball C but also had Steph and Klay). If Barnes gets supplanted in the pecking order (Ingram, top 5 pick, etc) his value drops because the ball will be in his hands less.

We shall see. Maybe we use him as the set up guy so Ingram doesn't have to create everything for himself, right?

Something simple like having Scottie post up at the top of the key can change things.

He becomes the hub instead of Yak. We know he can shoot from there so teams have to respect it. He can pass out to IQ, BI and RJ for C&S if a double comes from the perimeter. If the C comes over to help, he is tall enough to feed Yak.

And it doesn't need to be every possession like this. They can run plays between Yak and RJ where Barnes is a corner shooter but also can look to make cuts.

In the end we know his strengths all come closer to the basket...with and without the ball...rebounding, passing, scoring, and defense. So get him in there and even if there are tougher matches inside, then we exploit the other positions where we do have an advantage.

Personally, starting next year, I don't care who scores as long as we start using guys to their strengths way more and win games. That should be the goal.

The current 5 starters might cannibalize each othets stats a little across the board. RJ and Barnes might not be 20 point guys after adding a healthy IQ and a possible 20 from BI. But if they become more efficient due to better shot selection, playing to strengths and exploiting advantages, who cares if it results in wins. It's nice to have a full lineup of 5 that can be your leading scorer on any given night. No superstar, but lots of scoring depth.

Need a spacing C or no C for any type of free throw hub offense to work. The current models of success for this type of offense are HOU and SAC and they both use their C’s to initiate as screeners in hand off action or driver/post-up action depending on how they’re being defended. If Poeltl’s defender is camped under the basket that kills most of these options. Very few teams are going to send help on a midrange attempt. Barnes also hasn’t shown enough as a post up threat to draw doubles.

[tsherkin]

Need a spacing C or no C for any type of free throw hub offense to work. The current models of success for this type of offense are HOU and SAC and they both use their C’s to initiate as screeners in hand off action or driver/post-up action depending on how they’re being defended. If Poeltl’s defender is camped under the basket that kills most of these options. Very few teams are going to send help on a midrange attempt. Barnes also hasn’t shown enough as a post up threat to draw doubles.

Not necessarily, but we can also run Scottie at the 5 when Poeltl is taking a breather and run those sets at that time, right?

But theoretically, we can have Yak in the dunker spot with Scottie on the opposite elbow and that wouldn't be the worst thing. If Poeltl's defender comes over, that's a lob or a quick shuffle pass for a dunk. That's how they did it in the old days and it still works now, especially if there are other spacing options opening things up.

[sidsid]

Figured out what the plan is for the Rockets this summer. Swindle the Suns into thinking their Kuzma/Poole duo (Reed/Green) are assets and move them for Beal's deal plus Fred for Booker's deal and their picks back. You then have shooting/star power to go with that defense.

[Tripod]

Need a spacing C or no C for any type of free throw hub offense to work. The current models of success for this type of offense are HOU and SAC and they both use their C’s to initiate as screeners in hand off action or driver/post-up action depending on how they’re being defended. If Poeltl’s defender is camped under the basket that kills most of these options. Very few teams are going to send help on a midrange attempt. Barnes also hasn’t shown enough as a post up threat to draw doubles.

Not necessarily, but we can also run Scottie at the 5 when Poeltl is taking a breather and run those sets at that time, right?

But theoretically, we can have Yak in the dunker spot with Scottie on the opposite elbow and that wouldn't be the worst thing. If Poeltl's defender comes over, that's a lob or a quick shuffle pass for a dunk. That's how they did it in the old days and it still works now, especially if there are other spacing options opening things up.

I was going to respond to him but you summed things up even better.

In the end, we now have way more options to score than we did before. And we needed that. And ultimately, this still isn't the final version of our team but it's one that is poised to jump up the standings next year. Our health likely dictates how far.

[tsherkin]

In the end, we now have way more options to score than we did before. And we needed that. And ultimately, this still isn't the final version of our team but it's one that is poised to jump up the standings next year. Our health likely dictates how far.

Health and what the draft brings us, no doubt.

[deck]

I showed it again in his college sophomore season and in his mid-range shooting in years 2 and beyond, man. Yeah, I the sample size on his 3pt shooting is a little light and he struggled a bit on low volume for a couple seasons before he started shooting it well. But he very clearly had touch on his jumper much earlier and much faster than Barnes, which was the genesis of that whole discussion.

You have not shown this at all. Factually, Barnes has very similar TS at the same age, and on much high usage and volume than Lowry.

Lowry:
Age 20: 56.5%TS 5.6ppg
Age 21: 53.1%TS 9.6ppg
Age 22: 54.7%TS 7.6ppg
Age 23: 53.6%TS 9.1ppg

Barnes:
Age 20: 55.2%TS 15.3ppg
Age 21: 52.4%TS 15.8ppg
Age 22: 56.6%TS 20.5ppg
Age 23: 52.2%TS 20.7ppg

How exactly have you show this apart from pointing to Lowry's college years, which are largely irrelevant?

And come on man, don't say his stats from his rookie year are 'a little light' to be used to quantify his shooting ability. Just say you were wrong.

If you think Scottie just hasn't had the chance to develop his shot and needs more time like Lowry, then we're done talking because there is no saving you at that point.

I did not say this. I have no doubt that Lowry will be a better career 3pt shooter than Barnes.

And then you press forward with the idea that raw MPG is the same as opportunity for production on a team where he was clearly the 3rd option and not the guy looked to for volume scoring. What did you expect was going to happen with established scorers ahead of him on a team whose offense was clicking quite well? Why would they change their approach? Doesn't make any sense.

Lower usage generally leads to higher efficiency. Lowry in Memphis and in Houston was low efficiency on significantly lower usage than Barnes. Barnes was the 4th option in his rookie year, and showed far more than Lowry did in any of his first 4 seasons.

You want to be abrasive and whatever, that's fine. But at least be right. And you're not. Circling back to the start of this, Lowry showed most of what he would eventually become far earlier than Scottie. He was a 27% AST guy as a rookie, he's a 29% AST guy on his career. He had a prime in the 30s. His draw rate in his first full season (year 2) was .588. His FTr from 07 through 2021 was .376, dipping down as he moved into his 30s, but through 2017 (age 30), was a 141 FTr+ guy, because he was elite at drawing fouls with his quickness and his power. That was there from the start.

I guess your definition of abrasive and mine differ slightly. When someone shows factually that I am wrong about something, I admit it. Abrasive to me would be to double down on an incorrect position, selectively quote someone to remove portions of what was said, and then attempt to move the discussion elsewhere, like introducing assist percentage which had nothing to do with the original challenges that were raised. That to me would be abrasive.

Again and again it comes back to that same point: he was much better much faster than Scottie. Opportunity wasn't always there to do more than he did, which is fine, but the framework of physical tools and skills was always there.

This is clearly not true. We acquired Lowry for Gary Forbes and a draft pick that would later become Steven Adams. If Lowry at age 26 had shown so much, why was he acquired for a guy who was out of the league two years later, and a 12th overall pick? Why did we try later to trade him for Raymond Felton? Would you trade Barnes right now for a future 12th overall? lol. Your position is absurd, and not historically accurate.

ArthurVandelay's original position, as I understood it, is that Barnes could end up fulfilling a role similar to Lowry. He wasn't making a direct comparison between Barnes' assist percentages or free throw rates, he was talking more about the role they could both play on a successful team.

My only assertions to you was to first highlight how absurd it was for you to try to use Lowry's rookie season 3pt shooting to rationalize that he was a much better shooter than Barnes, and then secondly to respond to your assertions that Lowry was much further along in his development than Barnes.

[tsherkin]

You have not shown this at all. Factually, Barnes has very similar TS at the same age, and on much high usage and volume than Lowry.

Lowry:
Age 20: 56.5%TS 5.6ppg
Age 21: 53.1%TS 9.6ppg
Age 22: 54.7%TS 7.6ppg
Age 23: 53.6%TS 9.1ppg

Barnes:
Age 20: 55.2%TS 15.3ppg
Age 21: 52.4%TS 15.8ppg
Age 22: 56.6%TS 20.5ppg
Age 23: 52.2%TS 20.7ppg

So for starters, comparing raw TS% across eras a dozen years distant doesn't make a ton of sense.

To whit:

Lowry:

20: +2.4%
21: +0.1%
22: +0.3%
23: -0.7%

Barnes:

20: -1.4%
21: -5.7%
22: -1.4%
23: -5.3%

So from a league-relative perspective, he's been brutal. Lowry was not. Lowry was not amazing, but he had better success scoring efficiently relative to his peers and league environment.

How exactly have you show this apart from pointing to Lowry's college years, which are largely irrelevant?

Reading would be helpful here. We did talk about his shooting ability from 10-23 feet, which has been superior to Barnes from his second season forward. From age 20-23, Lowry has been a 41.4% / 42.2% shooter from 10-16 and 16-23 feet. Barnes has been 38.2 / 37.8%. And Lowry was taking 16% of his shooting volume as those long twos, so this isn't an issue with sample size.

Over that same stretch, he was a 77% FT shooter, but shot 80.1% or better in 3 of those 4 seasons.

And come on man, don't say his stats from his rookie year are 'a little light' to be used to quantify his shooting ability. Just say you were wrong.

I mean, no, I wasn't. His shooting ability is demonstrably superior. His 3pt shooting on low volume was not, but his shooting ability was very, very clearly superior.

Lower usage generally leads to higher efficiency. Lowry in Memphis and in Houston was low efficiency

Mediocre efficiency but better than Barnes relative to his league, yes. But you'll notice as his 3PAr rose, so too did his efficiency. And as his volume increased, so too the impact of his high draw rate and quality FT shooting.

on significantly lower usage than Barnes. Barnes was the 4th option in his rookie year, and showed far more than Lowry did in any of his first 4 seasons.

That is mostly certainly VIOLENTLY inaccurate. Barnes hasn't showed us dick-all as a scoring threat, lol.


I guess your definition of abrasive and mine differ slightly. When someone shows factually that I am wrong about something, I admit it. Abrasive to me would be to double down on an incorrect position, selectively quote someone to remove portions of what was said, and then attempt to move the discussion elsewhere, like introducing assist percentage which had nothing to do with the original challenges that were raised. That to me would be abrasive.

This is clearly not true. We acquired Lowry for Gary Forbes and a draft pick that would later become Steven Adams. If Lowry at age 26 had shown so much, why was he acquired for a guy who was out of the league two years later, and a 12th overall pick? Why did we try later to trade him for Raymond Felton? Would you trade Barnes right now for a future 12th overall? lol. Your position is absurd, and not historically accurate.

This is a non-sequitur to the point made. Houston wasn't looking to expand Lowry's role because they had other pieces in place.

Again, it's not absurd, you're just not processing that Lowry's ability was already there, but his opportunity to take shots wasn't.

ArthurVandelay's original position, as I understood it, is that Barnes could end up fulfilling a role similar to Lowry. He wasn't making a direct comparison between Barnes' assist percentages or free throw rates, he was talking more about the role they could both play on a successful team.

He has subsequently clarified for me, yes.

My only assertions to you was to first highlight how absurd it was for you to try to use Lowry's rookie season 3pt shooting to rationalize that he was a much better shooter than Barnes, and then secondly to respond to your assertions that Lowry was much further along in his development than Barnes.

He was much further along. Very visibly. And there are other components to shooting than just 3P%.

[YogurtProducer]

This is clearly not true. We acquired Lowry for Gary Forbes and a draft pick that would later become Steven Adams. If Lowry at age 26 had shown so much, why was he acquired for a guy who was out of the league two years later, and a 12th overall pick? Why did we try later to trade him for Raymond Felton? Would you trade Barnes right now for a future 12th overall? lol. Your position is absurd, and not historically accurate.

Honestly Lowry and Ingram trade have a lot of parallels in terms of buying low on a 26/27 YO

But there is a lot of context surrounding the HOU -->TOR trade and failed TOR --> NYK trade you are ignoring.

The Houston trade allowed HOU to sign Lin IIRC. So it was a pick AND Lin.
The NYK deal had more than Felton lol. It was for picks as well and was so we could tank.

[deck]

This is clearly not true. We acquired Lowry for Gary Forbes and a draft pick that would later become Steven Adams. If Lowry at age 26 had shown so much, why was he acquired for a guy who was out of the league two years later, and a 12th overall pick? Why did we try later to trade him for Raymond Felton? Would you trade Barnes right now for a future 12th overall? lol. Your position is absurd, and not historically accurate.

Honestly Lowry and Ingram trade have a lot of parallels in terms of buying low on a 26/27 YO

But there is a lot of context surrounding the HOU -->TOR trade and failed TOR --> NYK trade you are ignoring.

The Houston trade allowed HOU to sign Lin IIRC. So it was a pick AND Lin.
The NYK deal had more than Felton lol. It was for picks as well and was so we could tank.

I am merely highlighting that Lowry was not regarded as a high profile prospect when we acquired him. Houston did pursue him, but then moved him shortly after. And the fact that Houston made that move to sign Lin instead, which I was not aware of, actually kind of bolsters the point.

tsherkin is making the claim that Lowry had shown far more at the same age as Barnes right now. I don't think this is historically correct. No one in their right mind would trade Barnes right now for the package Houston accepted for Lowry. It's revisionist history to think otherwise.

[kalel123]

Why y'all arguing Lowry vs Barnes? They are pretty far apart in terms of career trajectory at the same age. Not comparable at all.

[Harry Palmer]

Being a fan of both teams, fwiw, Lowry was considered a headcase/selfish player in Houston, so his trade wasn’t regarded as strictly value for value, but partially an unloading of a problem. That said I don’t think anyone saw him becoming the player he did become.

[bballsparkin]

Being a fan of both teams, fwiw, Lowry was considered a headcase/selfish player in Houston, so his trade wasn’t regarded as strictly value for value, but partially an unloading of a problem. That said I don’t think anyone saw him becoming the player he did become.

Let's be real. He was a bit of a headcase in Toronto too at first hah.