our 9 losses

[Abbas]

in our 9 losses we lost by an average of 5.7pts if we exclude the heat game we lost by an average of 3.9pts

vs Warriors L112-109
vs Nuggets L106-105
vs Suns L107-102
@ Jazz L93-89
@ Warriors L115-110
@ Kings L107-101
vs Knicks L111-109
@ Heat L96-76
@ Magic L92-87

One thing to point out, in losses:
Ross - FG: 13.0% 3P: 15.4%
Patterson - FG: 28.6% 3P: 25.9%

[raptors999]

in our 9 losses we lost by an average of 5.7pts if we exclude the heat game we lost by an average of 3.9pts

vs Warriors L112-109
vs NuggetsL106-105
vs SunsL107-102
@ JazzL93-89
@ WarriorsL115-110
@ KingsL107-101
vs KnicksL111-109
@ HeatL96-76
@ MagicL92-87

One thing to point out, in losses:
Ross - FG: 13.0% 3P: 15.4%
Patterson - FG: 28.6% 3P: 25.9%

Nuggets, Knicks, Orlando and Suns were upsets depending on whether the Raptors are top 4 or not. 4 upsets out of 21 isnt good.

[tDotted]

Casey + close game = loss.

Basic Raptor mathematics.

[raptors999]

Casey + close game = loss.

Basic Raptor mathematics.

Biggest take away with no blow outs is that the roster can run with almost anyone but is saddled by a terrible coach who fucks up late close games. Would-be nice to have timeout left in close games instead of burning them to inbound or make pointless subs while taking game tyng FT

[raptors999]

Casey + close game = loss.

Basic Raptor mathematics.

Biggest take away with no blow outs is that the roster can run with almost anyone but is saddled by a terrible coach who fucks up late close games. Would-be nice to have timeout left in close games instead of burning them to inbound or make pointless subs while taking game tyng FT

[octothorp]

Heh, I ran exactly this calculation last night (margin of losses when removing the Miami game).

I think there are some conclusions you can make from clutch stats:

We're sixth in the league in clutch minutes played, at 50. Of those, 38 minutes behind or tied, and only 17 minutes ahead or tied. So yeah, a lot of clutch minutes, but a lot of trying to catch up and falling short.

Our normal pace is 96.8, sixth slowest in the league. Our clutch pace when leading is around 100, 18th in league. But our clutch pace when trailing is 113, 3rd fastest in the league. Obviously, it's by necessity that we play faster when trailing and trying to catch up. But our net efficiency is an awful -12 when trailing. In other words, we are not good at playing at a fast pace, and the team is absolutely shooting themselves in the foot by accelerating the pace more than they need to. We actually have a pretty good net rating (+7) when we're leading in the clutch, so playing a bit faster is than regular pace is fine. But playing at that super-fast catchup pace is awful.

(You want to now what Golden State's net efficiency is when trailing in clutch minutes? 117! Take a moment to let that sink in... 117 is a great offensive efficiency number; their offensive efficiency MINUS their defensive efficiency is 117.)

You can further break down our clutch numbers and, surprise surprise, 5 of the top 6 players in terms of TS% in the clutch are our bigs. Obviously small sample size is an issue here. And again, non-surprising news, while most of the bigs have okay usage numbers when the team is tied or leading, their usage drops off dramatically when we're trailing. (Bebe is the one exception to this, with his extremely small, recent sample size).

Maybe something we need to do is find a way to play a high-paced tempo that still tries to create good looks for our bigs.

TL;DR version: When we're trailing in close games, we play a fast pace, guard-heavy offence, and we suck at it. When we're ahead in close games, we play closer to our regular pace and our regular offensive distribution with a decent dose of bigs usage, and we're pretty good at it.

[Jangles]

Wonder how these numbers look for our wins

[Mr.Z]

So basically, if Ross or 2Pat made just one more shot per game each which would still leave them with terrible percentages, we may have won a few more games


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk