Everything Patrick Patterson

[DanH]

Didn't the bad things in the playoffs have more to do with Lowry and DD being largely useless than 2Pat starting or not?

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying about 2Pat, Nogueira and Ross don't offer the same things he does. It's hard to put a label on exactly what that actually is though, as we saw from the interviews where the players and staff were asked what 2Pat's best skill is.

No, the bad things in the playoffs had a lot to do with Scola starting. What with him having a team worst -19 net rating.

I agree they don't offer the same things. I'm saying we have no idea how valuable those things are to the bench, as we never see the bench operate without him in any meaningful sample. And we have no idea how much more or less valuable those things would be from him if he was starting, as we have no meaningful sample for that either, somehow, over the past couple seasons.

[Lupe]

No, the bad things in the playoffs had a lot to do with Scola starting. What with him having a team worst -19 net rating.

I agree they don't offer the same things. I'm saying we have no idea how valuable those things are to the bench, as we never see the bench operate without him in any meaningful sample. And we have no idea how much more or less valuable those things would be from him if he was starting, as we have no meaningful sample for that either, somehow, over the past couple seasons.

So... Lowry and DD were playing that poorly because Scola was starting? Ok, that's just flat out wrong. Scola isn't the reason we struggled against Indiana. We struggled because DeMar and Lowry were playing horribly. Both of them had true shooting percentages in the low 40s, shooting 30% from the field and 16% from 3, double digit negative net ratings. But somehow the reason we struggled is because Scola started. Not really any coherent logic in that suggestion whatsoever.

And to your latter points, exactly, you have no idea. Maybe the coaching staff has a better idea, so this idea that Patterson needs to start isn't necessarily a good one or correct.

[Scraptor]

I don't know why you need to break a butterfly on a wheel on this one. Last year, there was likely some initial rationale that made sense to the staff and Scola started and they kept winning and it just was what it was.

I think this year Casey initially did it for logistical reasons and to put Patterson in his comfort zone but, at this point when you have Siakam playing 4 or 5 minutes, it's hard to see any rationale at all other than they probably don't want to pull the kid entirely and smash his confidence when they really want to reward him for taking on an impossible task as a rookie and playing pretty well for a stretch. I suspect they were hoping to buy themselves enough time until Sullinger got back and they could start him but the clock has run out on Siakam and they're going to need to make a move.

Siakam's Razor

[WJF]

Any update on Patrick's injury from last night?

[rocwell]

Any update on Patrick's injury from last night?

Nothing yet. Let's hope it's not serious. We need him.

Patterson is 8th in NBA in +/-, part of each of best 5 Raptors 5-man units. Team's best defender. Any absence would be rough for Toronto.

— Ryan Wolstat (@WolstatSun) December 30, 2016

[The Great One]

If he's out for a long period of time we're fucked. Patterson is the 3rd most important player on the team and easily the best big man on the team.

[KeonClark]

He's mostly the 3rd most important player because his backup isn't even nba standards yet, sorry pascal. Our depth is inanely good for "next man up" for everybody except patterson.

[DanH]

So... Lowry and DD were playing that poorly because Scola was starting? Ok, that's just flat out wrong. Scola isn't the reason we struggled against Indiana. We struggled because DeMar and Lowry were playing horribly. Both of them had true shooting percentages in the low 40s, shooting 30% from the field and 16% from 3, double digit negative net ratings. But somehow the reason we struggled is because Scola started. Not really any coherent logic in that suggestion whatsoever.

And to your latter points, exactly, you have no idea. Maybe the coaching staff has a better idea, so this idea that Patterson needs to start isn't necessarily a good one or correct.

Believe it or not, the team can play well when Lowry and DeMar are struggling - as evidence, I present the entire playoff run when Scola was off the floor and DD and Lowry still struggled and the team did well. I'm sure it was a coincidence that the team only struggled with Scola on the floor, just like all season long.

[Puffer]

"...I'm sure it was a coincidence that the team only struggled with Scola on the floor, just like all season long."

You forgot to use the sarcasm indicator.

[Lupe]

Believe it or not, the team can play well when Lowry and DeMar are struggling - as evidence, I present the entire playoff run when Scola was off the floor and DD and Lowry still struggled and the team did well. I'm sure it was a coincidence that the team only struggled with Scola on the floor, just like all season long.

So let me just clarify here. You think scola is the primary reason that Demar and Lowry as well as the team struggled to beat Indiana?

[DanH]

So let me just clarify here. You think scola is the primary reason that Demar and Lowry as well as the team struggled to beat Indiana?

The team. I couldn't care less how individual players play if the team wins. DeRozan struggled primarily because of Paul George and sudden-onset tunnel vision, and Lowry struggled (shooting) because of his elbow, in all likelihood, with a dash of extra pressure because DD was struggling so much. But the team is deep and talented and was fine even with those struggles against lesser competition like the Pacers. And yet the team was terrible all through the playoffs with Scola on the floor, and very good when he wasn't.

[Apollo]

@ESPNNBA @ESPNSteinLine #raptors with Patrick Patterson: 24-16. Without: 9-8.

— Earl Bingham (@Earl_Of_State) February 19, 2017

[KHD]

@ESPNNBA @ESPNSteinLine #raptors with Patrick Patterson: 24-16. Without: 9-8.

— Earl Bingham (@Earl_Of_State) February 19, 2017

how much of this is Patterson specifically and how much is the fact that his only replacements are Pascal Siakam or a bunch of centers?

[Apollo]

Who knows? I'm just sharing an interesting tweet.

[KHD]

Who knows? I'm just sharing an interesting tweet.

yeah, just putting the question out.

Considering Patterson may well be gone next year we'll hopefully be able to figure out why our team is so terrible without him.