Are we tanking or is Casey just stupid? Why is JV getting backup minutes?

[Axel]

After 5 games, looking at individual players' Offensive Rating : Defensive Rating ratio.

These players are at no worse than 1:1, meaning in an overall sense they're playing winning basketball:

Johnson         137:105
Lowry           116:106
Hansbrough      127:103
Valanciunas     106:101
Fields          120:106
Ross            104:104

These players are playing losing basketball:

Gay             86:102
Derozan         103:106
Augustin        70:108

Raptors as a team (rounded up): 104:105

ORTG and DRTG means points scored/allowed per 100 possessions. Some players were not included due to insufficient playing time.

Nice post, but you don't need numbers to recognize that Gay, DD and Augustin are the losers right now.

[japetas]

From Toronto game against Charlotte, It looks like DeMar is ignoring JV after Valanciunas sets a screen, two players attacking DD but he desperately searching for anyone else but Jonas. Maybe DD doesn't want JV to succeed, because after that DeRozan would become like Chris Bosh aka third wheel (on offence, and with 0 D) Or maybe he's just that bad in court vision?

[Craiger]

After 5 games, looking at individual players' Offensive Rating : Defensive Rating ratio.

These players are at no worse than 1:1, meaning in an overall sense they're playing winning basketball:

Johnson         137:105
Lowry           116:106
Hansbrough      127:103
Valanciunas     106:101
Fields          120:106
Ross            104:104

These players are playing losing basketball:

Gay             86:102
Derozan         103:106
Augustin        70:108

Raptors as a team (rounded up): 104:105

ORTG and DRTG means points scored/allowed per 100 possessions. Some players were not included due to insufficient playing time.

BBref's individual ORTG and DRTG are calculated differently. Unless I'm mistaken, DRTG is points given up per 100 while player is on the floor, but ORTG is points produced per 100 possessions (not necessarily how many pts the team scored while they are on the floor, but how many pts a player himself would have produced per 100 possessions).

I think 82games.com (not updated yet) and NBA.com offer a more 'fair' way to compare just those two, since it offers both numbers as pts per100 while on the floor

On NBA.com they offer (just looking at guys above 15 min)

Amir - 110.6:96.3
Demar - 104.0:101.2
Fields - 103.7:102.7
Ross - 109.4:98.3

Everyone else is a negative.

[Craiger]

There's also a discrepancy in team ORTG/DRTG. I'm not sure why, and I don't have time to investigate. Having said that, on nba.com, they have the Raps generating more points per 100 as a team than they allow, which is a bit illogical, since they are a losing team that has given up more actual points than they scored -- 94-95 ppg. Basketball-reference reflects that in their team ORTG/DRTG, which I listed above.

The formula BR supposedly uses is listed here, and if anyone has the time, they can plug the numbers in and evaluate the results. Also, I have asked BR questions from time to time and they do respond. If someone wants to take the time to ask about this, I'd be interested in the answer.

I have looked at the BR stat for years and many teams and players, and it seems to me to be useful in identifying the truly productive players from the ones that are just occupying space. In sum, I trust those results more than nba.com.

If I'm not mistaken (and again I could be wrong here) its because NBA.com's is the precise counting, while BBallRef is averaged (approximated).

Not questioning the usefullness of BBallRef either. I actually imagine using their ratings would be better at predicting what would/should happen (relative to each player), as opposed to NBA.com which would be better at explaining what did/has been happening (ie. its a truer +/- rating, but a truer +/- rating needs larger sample sizes to predict the future), if that makes any sense.

[brothersteve]

The subtlest of tanks

we have seen this before - too many times...

[peanutwoozle]

we have seen this before - too many times...

and I may be the only anti-tanker here, but that's ok, I'm not jumping ship, I am just sick of tanking, just ask Sacramento fans what tanking has done for them.

[planetmars]

and I may be the only anti-tanker here, but that's ok, I'm not jumping ship, I am just sick of tanking, just ask Sacramento fans what tanking has done for them.

The problem is that the Raptors have also had some really putrid general managers running the team since their inception. If there was good management of the team then tanking could work. It's easy to get impatient with all the losing over the years, but this team that we have now is an utter mess. Patching it will not help (plus they are up against the tax level so they don't have the luxury of cap space to improve even if they wanted to). It needs to be blown up. If blowing it up means getting high draft picks then I'm on board since we now have a new general manager that I have faith in (well unless he screws the pooch as well).

[peanutwoozle]

The problem is that the Raptors have also had some really putrid general managers running the team since their inception. If there was good management of the team then tanking could work. It's easy to get impatient with all the losing over the years, but this team that we have now is an utter mess. Patching it will not help (plus they are up against the tax level so they don't have the luxury of cap space to improve even if they wanted to). It needs to be blown up. If blowing it up means getting high draft picks then I'm on board since we now have a new general manager that I have faith in (well unless he screws the pooch as well).

The other problem I can see is that there is a lot of luck involved, what if we strike out every year for the next 10 years, are you then going to say it was worth it?

[mcHAPPY]

and I may be the only anti-tanker here, but that's ok, I'm not jumping ship, I am just sick of tanking, just ask Sacramento fans what tanking has done for them.

You should probably ask them these two questions instead:

1) What has horrible ownership done for them?

2) What has horrible management done for them?

[isaacthompson]

The other problem I can see is that there is a lot of luck involved, what if we strike out every year for the next 10 years, are you then going to say it was worth it?

Well that's the risk that you take in tank-mode. It's just this year, a tank would be a lot less risky with the amount of talent in this draft.

[peanutwoozle]

Well that's the risk that you take in tank-mode. It's just this year, a tank would be a lot less risky with the amount of talent in this draft.

It's a revolving door situation if you ask me.

[mcHAPPY]

It's a revolving door situation if you ask me.

Have you seen the roster turnover the last 8 years in Toronto?

What exactly is the difference other than getting a shot at drafting the top talent entering the league?

[planetmars]

The other problem I can see is that there is a lot of luck involved, what if we strike out every year for the next 10 years, are you then going to say it was worth it?

Who said 10 years? The key is that you need a management team that you can trust or else it's not even worth it. Milwaukee, Sacramento, Toronto, Atlanta (before trading Joe Johnson) have all been terribly managed the last 10 years. Toronto finally has a new GM that I personally would like to put some faith in (unless he proves me wrong).

The team constructed right now is badly put together. Pieces don't mesh from the coach down. You also need a GM/scouting team that knows how to draft and that has experience in it. I thought Bryan was a decent drafter as well but he just didn't know how to put a team together. From my perspective he was always trying to create a flawed system. Plugging in a rookie into a flawed system like that is just prone to failure in my opinion.

Besides, a rookie contract is a very highly valuable commodity in the NBA. The second most valuable commodity next to a super star contract. So even if you draft a 'bust'.. if your manager realizes that sooner then later they can be shipped off for other pieces/talent. Rookie contracts are cheap.. they create flexibility and lots of it (a coveted/tradeable asset that is not using up tones of cap space) are a dream to most GM's in a league where tax penalties are pretty extreme. Houston could not have gotten Harden if they didn't have all those picks.

The only reason I am okay with 'tanking' is so that we can blow up this team. If MU is able to trade away most of its core and create a better system that also has cap flexibility, without losing a single game then I'm on board. I just don't see that happening without losing a lot of games though.

[peanutwoozle]

Have you seen the roster turnover the last 8 years in Toronto?

What exactly is the difference other than getting a shot at drafting the top talent entering the league?

With the amount of teams tanking and only 4 playoff spots (IMO) locked in, there is a chance we can get in, gain some ground on other teams below us, and maybe FAs will start to see some potential with this team (there's a better chance at that than winning a top 3 pick), and also, even if we get a top 3 pick, FAs would prefer to go to a team that gained some ground on us instead. Also, if we tank for Wiggins, our current players, like JV, will get cranky, how do you think he would feel about someone telling him to play poorly or if he found out that management was trying to lose? Let's say we do get Wiggins, even he is not enough to attract Free Agents, why would FAs want to come to a team where management just tells them to lose? It just creates a bad rapport between management and players (that's a huge part of the reason there has been roster turnover the last 8 years), which with the Raps, it is already very very very bad, we don't need it to get worse.

[peanutwoozle]

Who said 10 years? The key is that you need a management team that you can trust or else it's not even worth it. Milwaukee, Sacramento, Toronto, Atlanta (before trading Joe Johnson) have all been terribly managed the last 10 years. Toronto finally has a new GM that I personally would like to put some faith in (unless he proves me wrong).

The team constructed right now is badly put together. Pieces don't mesh from the coach down. You also need a GM/scouting team that knows how to draft and that has experience in it. I thought Bryan was a decent drafter as well but he just didn't know how to put a team together. From my perspective he was always trying to create a flawed system. Plugging in a rookie into a flawed system like that is just prone to failure in my opinion.

Besides, a rookie contract is a very highly valuable commodity in the NBA. The second most valuable commodity next to a super star contract. So even if you draft a 'bust'.. if your manager realizes that sooner then later they can be shipped off for other pieces/talent. Rookie contracts are cheap.. they create flexibility and lots of it (a coveted/tradeable asset that is not using up tones of cap space) are a dream to most GM's in a league where tax penalties are pretty extreme. Houston could not have gotten Harden if they didn't have all those picks.

The only reason I am okay with 'tanking' is so that we can blow up this team. If MU is able to trade away most of its core and create a better system that also has cap flexibility, without losing a single game then I'm on board. I just don't see that happening without losing a lot of games though.

You need more luck than anything. That is the main reason why it worked for OKC. I don't like counting on luck to be on our side anymore in the draft either.

On your second point, then we should get rid of that nincompoop of a head coach first to see if that does anything (to me, that should be the first step right now, because anyone who quits when his team is down by 2 with 20 seconds left should be fired immediately)

you only get a rookie contract for 4 years, after that, you better be willing to pay up, and we'll be a tax team again in no time in case you have forgotten.

I hope you don't mean you are willing to settle for Mourning and the two Williams's for the return in the trades for our pieces though, because if you are, I am going to barf.