Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Precious Achiuwa

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

  • G__Deane
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    Fair enough! When I stumble across another issue that remains from a large sample last season, and is continuing into this one, and is so easily remedied and would have such a large impact on our success, I'll work that in too.
    LOL every one-issue candidate doesn't think there are other issues, that's the very definition
    I really wish you'd ask Nick/Masai/Bobby why they aren't persuing such an obvious easy fix that would have such a large impact on winning....

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    G__Deane wrote: View Post

    This has gone down a series of rabbit holes. The whole thing started with the fact that you mention the same opinion far too often (Precious should start, Gary would be better on the bench, Nurse is making a mistake, we get it) and work it into comments even when it's off topic.

    In the spirit of recent elections, be more than a one issue candidate. jmo
    Fair enough! When I stumble across another issue that remains from a large sample last season, and is continuing into this one, and is so easily remedied and would have such a large impact on our success, I'll work that in too.

    Leave a comment:


  • G__Deane
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    I mean, I feel like I brought up this stuff last year too, and in years past. Do I need to put a disclaimer on every post? There's a certain assumption posting on a fan board that obviously the team itself will have more information than we do. I don't understand the need to rehash this every single year.

    I absolutely 100% think they should be playing the lineups that help them win on the court the most. That's the job. And frankly, winning cures basically everything and keeps everyone happy. In any case, I'll keep pointing out when they are not doing so, since the play on the court and them winning is my primary concern as a fan of the team, even if there might be reasons they are not doing it.
    This has gone down a series of rabbit holes. The whole thing started with the fact that you mention the same opinion far too often (Precious should start, Gary would be better on the bench, Nurse is making a mistake, we get it) and work it into comments even when it's off topic.

    In the spirit of recent elections, be more than a one issue candidate. jmo

    Leave a comment:


  • LJ2
    replied
    planetmars wrote: View Post

    It's been only 5 games, but Pascal has a net rating of -2.8 with Gary and +21.1 with Precious.

    Last season, it was closer.. with Gary +4.7 and with Precious +4.2.


    Boucher is his favourite teammate though. +9.9 last year, and +33.3 this year (in only 2 games).

    Will be interesting to see how it unfolds after 25+ games.
    Just 5 games this season, but all of last season as well. He wants Gary's ability to spread the floor so Siakam/Barnes can work in the midrange and that's been part of the plan since last season. Nurse has said on two different interviews (at least), that it is a point of emphasis for them to put more pressure at the front of the rim this season. They need shooters to unclog the paint so Siakam and Barnes can do that.

    I honestly don't care if they trade Gary, but I'd rather see them upgrade that spot with another shooter than fill it with a big that mucks up the middle.

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    LJ2 wrote: View Post

    I just think Nick see's a bad fit with having 3 "bigs" on the floor at the same time. Just too cramped around the basket for Pascal to freely do his thing. When Gary is there the threat of having another shooter on the floor helps spread out the D for Siakam and Barnes to operate in the paint.
    It's been only 5 games, but Pascal has a net rating of -2.8 with Gary and +21.1 with Precious.

    Last season, it was closer.. with Gary +4.7 and with Precious +4.2.


    Boucher is his favourite teammate though. +9.9 last year, and +33.3 this year (in only 2 games).

    Will be interesting to see how it unfolds after 25+ games.

    Leave a comment:


  • LJ2
    replied
    saints91 wrote: View Post
    It’s also possible that Nick sees more developmental opportunities for Precious with the second group. Precious would be a distant 5th option with the starters. With the bench he gets to spread his wings a bit.

    Gary will get his with any lineup he’s in.
    I just think Nick see's a bad fit with having 3 "bigs" on the floor at the same time. Just too cramped around the basket for Pascal to freely do his thing. When Gary is there the threat of having another shooter on the floor helps spread out the D for Siakam and Barnes to operate in the paint.

    Leave a comment:


  • saints91
    replied
    It’s also possible that Nick sees more developmental opportunities for Precious with the second group. Precious would be a distant 5th option with the starters. With the bench he gets to spread his wings a bit.

    Gary will get his with any lineup he’s in.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    G__Deane wrote: View Post

    To be fair, you just (finally) pointed out that Nick might know better or have different reasons rather (plus access to 100X the data that we do) than the last hundred times saying that you knew better based on the fan test and limited data, period

    It's all good.
    I mean, I feel like I brought up this stuff last year too, and in years past. Do I need to put a disclaimer on every post? There's a certain assumption posting on a fan board that obviously the team itself will have more information than we do. I don't understand the need to rehash this every single year.

    I absolutely 100% think they should be playing the lineups that help them win on the court the most. That's the job. And frankly, winning cures basically everything and keeps everyone happy. In any case, I'll keep pointing out when they are not doing so, since the play on the court and them winning is my primary concern as a fan of the team, even if there might be reasons they are not doing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • G__Deane
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    I mean, I agree! I've been saying this.

    But the data I have access to is also the product I get to enjoy as a fan. So ultimately is kind of all I care about in this context. Me want to see dino team win. I can see when they don't. And I'll keep pointing out when they don't, and why I think that might be.
    To be fair, you just (finally) pointed out that Nick might know better or have different reasons rather (plus access to 100X the data that we do) than the last hundred times saying that you knew better based on the fan test and limited data, period

    It's all good.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    G__Deane wrote: View Post

    I would suggest that it appears that you are making decisions based on all the data you have access to and Nick/Masai/Bobby and the very large coaching staff have a lot more data to access (his reasons). Cheers.
    I mean, I agree! I've been saying this.

    But the data I have access to is also the product I get to enjoy as a fan. So ultimately is kind of all I care about in this context. Me want to see dino team win. I can see when they don't. And I'll keep pointing out when they don't, and why I think that might be.

    Leave a comment:


  • G__Deane
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    Obviously he has his reasons. They might be good ones. They might be bad ones. The very best NBA coaches still do things wrong sometimes - quite possibly even intentionally and for good reason. All I can comment on is on-court success, which is only one of many factors I'm sure Nick et al are considering. And that's why I'm not exactly out for Nick's head here, I'm rarely saying Nick is making a mistake, just that I wish they would start the right players instead of the wrong ones because all I get to experience is the on-court product.
    I would suggest that it appears that you are making decisions based on all the data you have access to and Nick/Masai/Bobby and the very large coaching staff have a lot more data to access (his reasons). Cheers.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    G__Deane wrote: View Post

    I asked in the other thread and as you've pointed out, it's not a small sample size.
    So why do you think a top 5 professional NBA Coach with a top NBA Management team in Bobby and Masai (not to mention 10 other Coaches on his staff) hasn't come to the conclusion that you think is so obvious?

    Are they just stubborn? Oblivious? Incompetant?
    Or do they know more than most forum posters?
    Are there any other examples or wilful dereliction of duty?

    I'm actually curious.
    Obviously he has his reasons. They might be good ones. They might be bad ones. The very best NBA coaches still do things wrong sometimes - quite possibly even intentionally and for good reason. All I can comment on is on-court success, which is only one of many factors I'm sure Nick et al are considering. And that's why I'm not exactly out for Nick's head here, I'm rarely saying Nick is making a mistake, just that I wish they would start the right players instead of the wrong ones because all I get to experience is the on-court product.

    Leave a comment:


  • G__Deane
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    I mean, unless those lineups end up dramatically more successful than they have been, Nick should arrive at the conclusion to make a switch eventually. So it's not really failure from Trent or anyone else that would drive that, just no giant leaps of dramatic success. My order of priorities: 1) giant leaps of dramatic success for my favourite team, and then 2) my favourite team realizing they have better options to create their own success without needing to rely on said giant leaps that are so rare.

    Gary had a great shooting performance and played very much the way I want him to play, and I wanted to point that out because it was great! It didn't change the fact that the starters got CAVED which I didn't even bother to bring up, nor that he is perfectly capable of having performances like that off the bench, which would be far more helpful to the team than him having performances like that and still playing in lineups that lose their minutes.
    I asked in the other thread and as you've pointed out, it's not a small sample size.
    So why do you think a top 5 professional NBA Coach with a top NBA Management team in Bobby and Masai (not to mention 10 other Coaches on his staff) hasn't come to the conclusion that you think is so obvious?

    Are they just stubborn? Oblivious? Incompetant?
    Or do they know more than most forum posters?
    Are there any other examples or wilful dereliction of duty?

    I'm actually curious.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Claw Reborn
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post

    I mean, unless those lineups end up dramatically more successful than they have been, Nick should arrive at the conclusion to make a switch eventually. So it's not really failure from Trent or anyone else that would drive that, just no giant leaps of dramatic success. My order of priorities: 1) giant leaps of dramatic success for my favourite team, and then 2) my favourite team realizing they have better options to create their own success without needing to rely on said giant leaps that are so rare.

    Gary had a great shooting performance and played very much the way I want him to play, and I wanted to point that out because it was great! It didn't change the fact that the starters got CAVED which I didn't even bother to bring up, nor that he is perfectly capable of having performances like that off the bench, which would be far more helpful to the team than him having performances like that and still playing in lineups that lose their minutes.
    Holy Cow…I have no doubt that you think of yourself having basketball knowledge that is above the rest, even implying that Nick Nurse should reconsider lol. But for once, try to bring down yourself to the level of the masses so you can see what is going on in reality.

    This is you: the only way theory will work is for the Raptors to lose a significant number of games PRIMARILY CAUSED by Gary Trent failure to fit with the rest of the starters.

    This is Nick Nurse: that is when I will change course

    Simplistic terms

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    The Claw Reborn wrote: View Post

    Let’s be honest here…Nick Nurse is not changing his starting rotation soon. The only way you validate your stance is for Trent to fail and basically shoving into this coach throat that you were so right all along. We can move on because you are not fooling me with some of your goodie two shoes performance in the game thread about Trent. He had a great game and on to the next one, waiting for him to crash land so you can once again reinsert your campaign that he has to be coming off the bench and Precious to start.
    I mean, unless those lineups end up dramatically more successful than they have been, Nick should arrive at the conclusion to make a switch eventually. So it's not really failure from Trent or anyone else that would drive that, just no giant leaps of dramatic success. My order of priorities: 1) giant leaps of dramatic success for my favourite team, and then 2) my favourite team realizing they have better options to create their own success without needing to rely on said giant leaps that are so rare.

    Gary had a great shooting performance and played very much the way I want him to play, and I wanted to point that out because it was great! It didn't change the fact that the starters got CAVED which I didn't even bother to bring up, nor that he is perfectly capable of having performances like that off the bench, which would be far more helpful to the team than him having performances like that and still playing in lineups that lose their minutes.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X