Vs Elite/Playoff teams with and w/out DD

[GLF]

Mostly at home, fully healthy, against weaker competition VS mostly away, missing 1/2 players, against stronger competition

Obviously the team is better with DeRozan. Despite any criticisms he may have, he's definitely a good player that can positively contribute to the Raptors.

However, to simply attribute the records to him alone, is extremely simplistic and just inviting an unnecessary argument.

May the Raps have been able to win an extra game or two with an extra starter/all-star in the lineup, who is greatly experienced in DC's complex defensive system? Sure. Adding any other body changes the entire dynamic of each game.

Does DeRozan's presence automatically guarantee they beat Cleveland (with a focused LBJ out for revenge), Chicago, Portland, GSW or Phoenix (hottest team in the league at the end of a long road trip)? Not a chance in the world.

Any thread that speaks in absolutes and tries to paint any potential argument as illogical, unfair or stupid from the outset, is just asking for trouble.

Very good point.

[bryan colangelo]

This is just silliness.

The most important piece of information is the chicago games. Raps are effed with or without vs Bulls.
Great bigs + great coach = toast dinos

Most teams are effed against the Bulls at full health. Same with the Warriors.

[iblastoff]

But again, wouldn't it be more fair, to now go through all of Atlanta's games and find any and all games they've played against opponents with Injured Players? Gotta be fair with the dishing out of Asterisks, no?

it would be totally fair. but im too lazy to do that. if this thread were fully about the hawks maybe i could dive in. but we KNOW for sure there are asterisks in the aforementioned raptors games.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

But I don't think that's what he's doing here with this thread. I think its certainly worth noting our Records with and without Demar. And then taking that further to Playoff Teams only makes sense.

As I've said, until someone goes through and applies Asterisks to all of our competition, and then does a thorough analysis of each teams "Real Wins" vs "Fake Wins", and then we can more accurately put together an "Asterisk Power Ranking" ... until then though, its ridiculous, and stupid, and unfair to only speak like we're the only team that faces teams missing players.

I'm not taking it to the game-by-game level and don't really care what the records are.

Watching LBJ during the games against Toronto, was like watching two totally different players. Cleveland has been a Jekyll & Hyde team all season. At least in the first rematch, nobody was going to make a difference in the outcome.

Atlanta and Phoenix have also been completely different teams compared to the start of the season. You can't just ignore that. I'm not saying that it matters more than DeRozan's absence, but it's still a significant factor that needs to be considered.

You also can't sit there and honestly suggest that those two sets of games are equal on paper going in, both due to the matchup and location.

It has nothing to do with fake/real wins or asterisks. I also don't think anybody has suggested that having DeRozan doesn't make the Raptors a better team. However, improving the team and changing the outcome of a game - let alone series of games - is an entirely different story. DeRozan is a good player that knows the system, but he's not an LBJ or Durant.

That's not even getting into the whole issue of what happens to certain performances if DeRozan had played. There were several games where JV, Ross, Lou and GV were consensus picks for the Raptors' 3-stars... do they still get the opportunity to contribute the way they did, with DeRozan dropped in as the #1b option? Who knows.

I think it's just crazy to suggest that DeRozan alone would turn multiple losses into wins, as though it's a foregone conclusion, especially against top-tier competition on a grueling road trip.

[3inthekeon]

Most teams are effed against the Bulls at full health. Same with the Warriors.

Will they ever be at FULL health? Chronic issues + age + Thibs hard riding style would suggest rarely.

BTW Jazz blew out the Bulls in Chicago last night. Bulls did win in Utah but were trailing with 30 seconds to go.

[iblastoff]

Will they ever be at FULL health? Chronic issues + age + Thibs hard riding style would suggest rarely.

BTW Jazz blew out the Bulls in Chicago last night. Bulls did win in Utah but were trailing with 30 seconds to go.

ehh i just chalk it to a HORRIBLE shooting night for chicago. its not like utah are defensive monsters. i think they're literally one rank above us right now in defense at 21. and at least they kept utah under a 100 points.

meanwhile, sacramento just blew out OKC too.

[Joey]

It has nothing to do with fake/real wins or asterisks.

It is to some, clearly. But agree that it shouldn't be.

I also don't think anybody has suggested that having DeRozan doesn't make the Raptors a better team.

It certainly has been insinuated that Demar would affect the team negatively upon his return with "Hero ball" and "ball stopping" etc. So while it hasn't been said that "He doesn't make the Raptors better" it has been said that "he would likely make us worse", or something to that effect.

However, improving the team and changing the outcome of a game - let alone series of games - is an entirely different story.

I agree they are separate, but not necessarily Mutually Exclusive of one another. One could very obviously affect the other.
To say definitively that Demar Would Not have changed the Loss to a Win is just as silly as saying he definitively Would have changed it. That's why you play the games.

[Joey]

ehh i just chalk it to a HORRIBLE shooting night for chicago.

But why don't the Raptors ever get this benefit of the doubt from you?

We've certainly had some horrible shooting nights, when generally we are quite good.

[iblastoff]

But why don't the Raptors ever get this benefit of the doubt from you?

We've certainly had some horrible shooting nights, when generally we are quite good.

im not sure what you mean. that we've had horrible shooting nights? definitely. but that doesnt mean our defense has to be absolutely horrific at the same time. wait im not sure what point we're talking about here?

[Joey]

im not sure what you mean. that we've had horrible shooting nights? definitely. but that doesnt mean our defense has to be absolutely horrific at the same time. wait im not sure what point we're talking about here?

Sorry, should have clarified... Why when Chicago loses to Utah its "meh, they just had a horrible shooting night, [they're still awesome]", but if we were to lose to Utah, or LA, or whatever, its generally much more negative. Not necessarily just talking about you, but just in general, and this segued nicely into it.

Good teams have off nights. I completely agree with you. But I can think of at least a few games where the outcome felt more that, than the "we suck at this, and this sucks, and we suck at this too" I heard around here.

[Cody73]

Ignore this post. Please. I'm a idiot who messed up.

[MixxAOR]

Sorry, should have clarified... Why when Chicago loses to Utah its "meh, they just had a horrible shooting night, [they're still awesome]", but if we were to lose to Utah, or LA, or whatever, its generally much more negative.

Good teams have off nights. I completely agree with you. But I can think of at least a few games where the outcome felt more that, than the "we suck at this, and this sucks, and we suck at this too" I heard around here.

Bulls earned that reputation. We know this Bulls team for years basically. Raptors don't have luxury.

[Joey]

Bulls earned that reputation. We know this Bulls team for years basically. Raptors don't have luxury.

Fair point. But we've been one of the best teams in the League for almost (or over?) a full calendar year now .. isn't that worth anything? Lol

[CalgaryRapsFan]

It is to some, clearly. But agree that it shouldn't be.

Agreed. I think the asterisk debate (ie: the Memphis game for me is one where I look forward to their next game when both teams are fully healthy) is a different discussion altogether.

It certainly has been insinuated that Demar would affect the team negatively upon his return with "Hero ball" and "ball stopping" etc. So while it hasn't been said that "He doesn't make the Raptors better" it has been said that "he would likely make us worse", or something to that effect.

I'm not a fan of him when he does go 'hero ball', but nor am I a fan of Lou or GV or Lowry when they do. I think hero ball hurts the team period. I also don't think that DeRozan ever relies solely on hero ball, as he's done a pretty good job overall this season of playing within the team. Regardless of how he's playing offensively, I still think the team is better with him than without him. He knows the defensive system, lets the backups be backups and draws the attention of the opposition; that all helps even when he is in hero ball mode.

I agree they are separate, but not necessarily Mutually Exclusive of one another. One could very obviously affect the other.
To say definitively that Demar Would Not have changed the Loss to a Win is just as silly as saying he definitively Would have changed it. That's why you play the games.

I think too many people are looking at the games and simply implying that adding DeRozan's PPG to the Raptors' ledger, along with the statistical differences in defensive ratings when he's in the lineups, is enough to change the outcomes. I just think there's a lot more to factor in when trying to determine whether or not his presence would have changed the outcome of the games. As you said, that's why they play the games.

However, looking at 7 games with him VS 7 games without him as 'proof' of anything, is way too simplistic. The opposition was different, literally and figuratively. Home VS away makes a big difference in the NBA, especially when the road games are on a long western swing (not just for the Raptors, but all eastern teams). The only way such a comparison would have any meaning at all, is if the same 7 games were played both with and without DeRozan, with that being the only difference - same teams, same rosters, same amount of rest and travel prior to the games, same matchups leading up to the games, same sickness/injuries/wear and tear to all players, same refs, same crowd, same everything... otherwise the comparison is far too subjective to mean anything.

[3inthekeon]

Sorry, should have clarified... Why when Chicago loses to Utah its "meh, they just had a horrible shooting night, [they're still awesome]", but if we were to lose to Utah, or LA, or whatever, its generally much more negative. Not necessarily just talking about you, but just in general, and this segued nicely into it.

Good teams have off nights. I completely agree with you. But I can think of at least a few games where the outcome felt more that, than the "we suck at this, and this sucks, and we suck at this too" I heard around here.

Don't forget the Casey is an idiot posts after losses. Those are always pleasurable reading.