Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Casey pull the reins in on Derozan isolation's down the stretch?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JimiCliff
    replied
    Raptor Jesus wrote: View Post
    I don't know that it has to. It's a take on what I see on the court, hear in interviews and read in print.

    The fact Hansbro had the ball late strikes as a reaction to the defence, the development of the play or it could even be as simple as 'they are loading up on X look inside see if we can catch them napping'.

    To OP's original question, its important to know what you have in a player and what you don't. I doubt the intention was to test ISOs reliability as a close out strategy.
    Right, but you were claiming that they're putting future development before winning now. If that's the case, there's no way they give Handsbro that play - in fact, there's no way he'd even be in the game; it'd be Val in there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raptor Jesus
    replied
    JimiCliff wrote: View Post
    So where does the Handsbrough play call on the second-last possession fit in with this thinking?
    I don't know that it has to. It's a take on what I see on the court, hear in interviews and read in print.

    The fact Hansbro had the ball late strikes as a reaction to the defence, the development of the play or it could even be as simple as 'they are loading up on X look inside see if we can catch them napping'.

    To OP's original question, its important to know what you have in a player and what you don't. I doubt the intention was to test ISOs reliability as a close out strategy.

    Leave a comment:


  • white men can't jump
    replied
    JimiCliff wrote: View Post
    My guess is that it was a "They'll never suspect this!" type play call.
    Yeah...nor should they....

    Leave a comment:


  • JimiCliff
    replied
    My guess is that it was a "They'll never suspect this!" type play call.

    Leave a comment:


  • isaacthompson
    replied
    white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    You don't draw up a play with the goal being to get a whistle. It was just an iso for Hansbrough. That's it. You can factor in "maybe Tyler draws a foul", but your goal has to be "how can we get a bucket?"
    I know, just thinking of possible rationales... after all, it's Casey we're talking about here.

    Leave a comment:


  • white men can't jump
    replied
    isaacthompson wrote: View Post
    The only possible thing I can think of concerning that play is trying to draw a foul. Hansbrough's first on the team in free throws per field goal attempt.
    You don't draw up a play with the goal being to get a whistle. It was just an iso for Hansbrough. That's it. You can factor in "maybe Tyler draws a foul", but your goal has to be "how can we get a bucket?"

    Leave a comment:


  • isaacthompson
    replied
    JimiCliff wrote: View Post
    So where does the Handsbrough play call on the second-last position fit in with this thinking?
    The only possible thing I can think of concerning that play is trying to draw a foul. Hansbrough's first on the team in free throws per field goal attempt.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimiCliff
    replied
    Raptor Jesus wrote: View Post
    Casey now strikes me as a willy old man that is taking his mandate 'to show improvement' to heart. And much to our chagrin is willing to burn close games (after huge comebacks to meaningful opponents ~ Bulls, Blazers) to teach his 'go to guy' the types of defence, and opposition he'll face(should he be able to take that next step) in the future.
    jimmie wrote: View Post
    Putting the ball in DD's hands = 'developing the team", not simply a poor coaching decision. I bet even Casey would concede that Lowry probably should have had the ball down the stretch there -- if the W was the main goal -- but I'm not sure Ws are the main goal, either for Casey or for Ujiri.
    So where does the Handsbrough play call on the second-last possession fit in with this thinking?
    Last edited by JimiCliff; Thu Feb 20, 2014, 09:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • special1
    replied
    *crickets*

    Talk about over-reacting to one play. Just relax guys. We played hard and came up short at the end. It happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • salmon
    replied
    shhhhhhhhhhh, we only want development for JV and Ross, and are very fine with losses if they get time fucking up over and over. DeMar is what he was and will never get better, so Casey is an idiot for putting the all star in a position to learn.

    Leave a comment:


  • jimmie
    replied
    Raptor Jesus wrote: View Post
    Casey now strikes me as a willy old man that is taking his mandate 'to show improvement' to heart. And much to our chagrin is willing to burn close games (after huge comebacks to meaningful opponents ~ Bulls, Blazers) to teach his 'go to guy' the types of defence, and opposition he'll face(should he be able to take that next step) in the future.
    100%.

    Putting the ball in DD's hands = 'developing the team", not simply a poor coaching decision. I bet even Casey would concede that Lowry probably should have had the ball down the stretch there -- if the W was the main goal -- but I'm not sure Ws are the main goal, either for Casey or for Ujiri.

    Face it -- right now, there are absolutely no guarantees that Lowry is a Raptor next year. The odds are probably against it, though I personally have come around and hope he stays. But status quo is that DD is Toronto's alpha dog -- for the rest of this year and until/unless someone else comes in to usurp him. That might be Lowry, if he stays. But, given the context of the 2014 Raptors, which is and always has been "patience" and "team development" and "see what we've got" (vs. "let's go balls-out to win this year"; the unexpected success is a side benefit, but I don't think it has markedly changed Ujiri's approach), giving DD the ball in the crunch -- like other teams also do with their alpha dogs -- is the natural coaching decision, both to let him develop and to see what they've really got in him.

    I could be wrong, but I agree 100% with the quote above. I (still) think fans are putting way too much blame on Casey for these kind of 'strategic' decisions. I wouldn't blame either Demar or Casey for the loss; they both did what they needed to do, and came up short. It happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raptor Jesus
    replied
    Bosh; gone.
    Bargnani; gone.
    Triano; gone.

    I have returned.

    No doubt that ISO was pathetic. Play call. Execution. Everything about it was amateur. DD's inability to bail out a team, in the final seconds when put in the least likely position to succeed, is well documented. But it brings to mind one of Casey's other puzzling quirks. His seeming inability to call a functional timeout. This ISO call smacks of his not-so run stopping timeouts. Up until Decembers' resurgence his timeouts followed no particular cause effect relationship with the on court action.

    When I finally saw that he could infact call a timeout to quell a spurt or a run, it forced me to consider that he was actively calling worthless timeouts. It's just too far fetched to fathom that his entire coaching career he was incapable and that the jettison of Rudy suddenly spurred that development in his coaching ability.

    Casey now strikes me as a willy old man that is taking his mandate 'to show improvement' to heart. And much to our chagrin is willing to burn close games (after huge comebacks to meaningful opponents ~ Bulls, Blazers) to teach his 'go to guy' the types of defence, and opposition he'll face(should he be able to take that next step) in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • KeonClark
    replied
    Absolutely mind boggling, and I predicted it. Looked over at my girlfriend and said, "they'll give the ball to derozan and he'll fuck it up." Ludicrous stuff, you run plays all season to get "the best shot available", then at the end you go "ok, everyone stand around while demar goes 1 on 5". Casey goes mental at the end of every game, it started with bargnani, then gay, now demar is "our guy". It lacks any and all logic that we choose zero play, zero screen, zero movement for the final play down 1. Lol zero. Out of all the ups and downs in the year, this is the hardest thing to swallow yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    JimiCliff wrote: View Post
    I hate isos at the end of games, by anyone. The numbers just don't back the play up.

    Look at this:

    http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamClutc...&sortOrder=DES

    Last minute of the game, game within three points. Both the Spurs and the Heat, teams that run actual plays in clutch time, not just isos, are right around 50% from the field (which is insane!). The next closest contender is GS, at 40%. The majority of contending teams are 35% or worse. OKC, a team known for having the supposed best closer in the game, and a team that runs isos essentially exclusively in crunch, is at 25%.
    Wow

    Interesting post

    Leave a comment:


  • slaw
    replied
    Nilanka wrote: View Post
    Besides, this is less about DeRozan, and more about Casey being an idiot.
    Yes, exactly.

    I cannot find the article but I did read something about two years which tried to map out the success rate of isolation plays at the end of games and it was about 25% vs. 40-60% for plays involving combinations of passes and screens. This seems obvious.

    I think a lot of this though comes down to a combination of ego and control. A coach wants to ensure his best player takes the last shot (remember the outrage earlier in the year when Amir ended up with the open three?) and if you run a bunch of screens and make a pile of passes, then the chances are the guy shooting won't be your first choice. Coaches dont' want to answer those questions so they just put it on their player.

    There is also an ego thing of "my guy can beat your guy". The combination of these factors is strong.....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X