Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who's going to be the new head coach of the Toronto Raptors?

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

  • G____Deane wrote: View Post

    I think you're always optimistic of this team incl Fred and Pascal but your wildly optimistic of this team without Fred and Pascal while adding some young talent that even you said won't be contributing for a few years. How is "low 30's, high 20" wins is in any way a winning environment? And the "already here young talent" would be stepping well back from today's "winning" environment
    Simons and Little are ready to contribute now.

    Cole Anthony is ready to contribute now.

    Replacing Pascal and Fred with those 3 and two lotto picks we're not gonna be much worse (if worse at all since we'd have shooters and spacing finally).

    I also believe Scottie and OG would both become 20+ PPG guys if we remove Fred and Pascal. Maybe not if Simons is scoring 21 PPG like he did in Portland.

    Comment


    • G____Deane wrote: View Post

      I think you're always optimistic of this team incl Fred and Pascal but your wildly optimistic of this team without Fred and Pascal while adding some young talent that even you said won't be contributing for a few years. How is "low 30's, high 20" wins is in any way a winning environment? And the "already here young talent" would be stepping well back from today's "winning" environment
      I don't think they'll be that low in wins, that's a floor for them. More likely they can be in the high 30s range, and if young guys like Scottie have leaps in them could be .500-ish right away, if they get better luck than this year (where they were like a 45 win team by point differential, never mind after the Jak acquisition).

      My point is: they will aim for that ceiling where they will have some meaningful games to at least chase a playin or playoff spot late in the season, hence the competitive development environment. But if all goes wrong, I still don't see them truly bottoming out to keep their pick.
      twitter.com/dhackett1565

      Comment


      • Primer wrote: View Post

        Simons and Little are ready to contribute now.

        Cole Anthony is ready to contribute now.

        Replacing Pascal and Fred with those 3 and two lotto picks we're not gonna be much worse (if worse at all since we'd have shooters and spacing finally).

        I also believe Scottie and OG would both become 20+ PPG guys if we remove Fred and Pascal. Maybe not if Simons is scoring 21 PPG like he did in Portland.
        I think we'd be worse. But we aren't starting from 41 wins as a true talent mark. We had a 45 win pythagorean win point differential, a 53 win point differential after the Jak trade. Get average luck and keep Jak and even a steep drop off means only a small dip in wins.
        twitter.com/dhackett1565

        Comment


        • DanH wrote: View Post

          I think we'd be worse. But we aren't starting from 41 wins as a true talent mark. We had a 45 win pythagorean win point differential, a 53 win point differential after the Jak trade. Get average luck and keep Jak and even a steep drop off means only a small dip in wins.
          How do you account for Jak's perceived production without Fred and Pascal? He had a -10.1 net rating with the Spurs for example. And that was in 46 games. It was basically flipped when he became a Raptor but he was playing with much better players.

          Comment


          • planetmars wrote: View Post

            How do you account for Jak's perceived production without Fred and Pascal? He had a -10.1 net rating with the Spurs for example. And that was in 46 games. It was basically flipped when he became a Raptor but he was playing with much better players.
            This is a stretch. Yes, Jak had a bad net rating on a truly terrible team, one that is way worse than the Raptors could dream of being next year.

            Good players can put up bad seasons when they are on a team that doesn't want to win. That will not describe the Raptors next year.
            twitter.com/dhackett1565

            Comment


            • DanH wrote: View Post

              This is a stretch. Yes, Jak had a bad net rating on a truly terrible team, one that is way worse than the Raptors could dream of being next year.

              Good players can put up bad seasons when they are on a team that doesn't want to win. That will not describe the Raptors next year.
              So you're just convincing yourself that they won't be terrible, when they could easily be terrible. You're convincing yourself it won't happen for no real reason other than a hunch basically.

              Comment


              • planetmars wrote: View Post

                How do you account for Jak's perceived production without Fred and Pascal? He had a -10.1 net rating with the Spurs for example. And that was in 46 games. It was basically flipped when he became a Raptor but he was playing with much better players.
                Almost like Net Rating is a dumb stat to compare players because it's entirely dependent on the rest of their team and what lineups they play in.

                Hence why your "losing players" and "winning players" arguments are dumb.

                Poeltl didn't magically become a better player when he got to the Raptors, he was on a better team playing in better lineups and that's what net rating shows.

                Comment


                • Primer wrote: View Post

                  Almost like Net Rating is a dumb stat to compare players because it's entirely dependent on the rest of their team and what lineups they play in.

                  Hence why your "losing players" and "winning players" arguments are dumb.

                  Poeltl didn't magically become a better player when he got to the Raptors, he was on a better team playing in better lineups and that's what net rating shows.
                  Yeah Poetl became a much better player when he got to play with Pascal and Fred. And not so much when he wasn't. Glad we're on the same page.

                  Comment


                  • DanH wrote: View Post
                    To be clear, I think it is far more likely we bring everybody back than we tear it down.

                    But if we trade Pascal and Fred, it's not to tank and try to get down into those top 6 picks. It's to add your rebuild talent through that trade immediately, and then do other stuff with the roster (like keeping OG, Trent, Jak, etc) to try to still be pretty good, so your newly added and already here young talent can develop in a winning environment.
                    This is a total 360 from your earlier stance that if we trade Siakam and VanVleet, this team would be worse.

                    But what do I know with the the numerous evolution of your constant change of point of views

                    Planetmars wasted a whole segment of back and forth debates with you when all along you have the same opinion than him just a few months ago.

                    Lol.

                    Comment


                    • The Claw Reborn wrote: View Post

                      This is a total 360 from your earlier stance that if we trade Siakam and VanVleet, this team would be worse.

                      But what do I know with the the numerous evolution of your constant change of point of views

                      Planetmars wasted a whole segment of back and forth debates with you when all along you have the same opinion than him just a few months ago.

                      Lol.
                      What? I've been consistent in saying we would be worse if we trade them. If we keep them I'd expect a return to 50 win -ish sort of seasons, with Poeltl in the fold. Without them they should be below .500, but near it, depending on what they get back.
                      twitter.com/dhackett1565

                      Comment


                      • planetmars wrote: View Post

                        So you're just convincing yourself that they won't be terrible, when they could easily be terrible. You're convincing yourself it won't happen for no real reason other than a hunch basically.
                        I think I've actually laid out some pretty clear reasons why I think what I think, but you can feel free to ignore all that and call it a hunch if it makes you feel better.
                        twitter.com/dhackett1565

                        Comment


                        • DanH wrote: View Post

                          I think I've actually laid out some pretty clear reasons why I think what I think, but you can feel free to ignore all that and call it a hunch if it makes you feel better.
                          Didn't you use a 45 win pythagorean point differential and then bumped it to 53 win.. all based on the guys we had on the floor, yet didn't take into account that Poeltl was pretty terrible when he wasn't playing with Pascal and Fred. Thus spiking that pythagorean differential downwards if we had the Spurs version of Jak (playing with inferior players) instead of the positive version we got (when playing with far superior players). You also didn't really take into account how much Pascal and Fred were the main drivers of that point differential knowing they will be swapped with negative players.

                          You didn't take any of that into account and are confident they will be okay.. not terrible, but okay. You are basically making up numbers to suit your narrative and would likely blame coaching failures if they didn't get to the win total you think they should have gotten to, instead of admitting you are making stuff up like the rest of us. Which is why I stand by my hunch statement above.

                          Comment


                          • DanH wrote: View Post

                            What? I've been consistent in saying we would be worse if we trade them. If we keep them I'd expect a return to 50 win -ish sort of seasons, with Poeltl in the fold. Without them they should be below .500, but near it, depending on what they get back.
                            lots of future forecast that means absolutely nothing.

                            Comment


                            • planetmars wrote: View Post

                              Didn't you use a 45 win pythagorean point differential and then bumped it to 53 win.. all based on the guys we had on the floor, yet didn't take into account that Poeltl was pretty terrible when he wasn't playing with Pascal and Fred. Thus spiking that pythagorean differential downwards if we had the Spurs version of Jak (playing with inferior players) instead of the positive version we got (when playing with far superior players). You also didn't really take into account how much Pascal and Fred were the main drivers of that point differential knowing they will be swapped with negative players.

                              You didn't take any of that into account and are confident they will be okay.. not terrible, but okay. You are basically making up numbers to suit your narrative and would likely blame coaching failures if they didn't get to the win total you think they should have gotten to, instead of admitting you are making stuff up like the rest of us. Which is why I stand by my hunch statement above.
                              Actually, I'm the only one not making up numbers. You are the one making up numbers for Jak here without Fred and Pascal, and assuming that Jak's effectiveness here will be identical to his effectiveness in SA, even though his effectiveness in SA for that half season was a wild outlier to the rest of his career. Heck, I'd have quoted Jak's +13 net rating when he was on the court here without Fred or Pascal, but it's a tiny sample and I thought it would be silly to do so, but the bar you are setting here is way lower than that so I shouldn't have tried to be so reasonable.

                              I very much took into account that the team will be worse without Fred and Pascal. Hence the subtracting 15+ wins from the totals. I'm just starting from a more realistic total than the suppressed one our record showed. If you accept the point differential for what it was (and it is fair to critique it based on strength of schedule, but there are enough games played there that it wouldn't be a huge impact), we're not starting from a .500 team, we are starting from a team with ~50 win talent level, so when you remove two quality players like that you will absolutely be much worse, but you will be much worse than 50 wins, not that same amount worse than .500. So, yeah, if we are adding literal 0 win players when removing Fred and Pascal (unlikely), and all the young players make zero improvements in their games, sure, we will be 15-20 wins worse, because those two guys are very valuable. But that still puts us low to mid 30s in wins. Getting another 10+ wins lopped off will be difficult - or at least require a LOT of "bad" luck.
                              twitter.com/dhackett1565

                              Comment


                              • The Claw Reborn wrote: View Post

                                lots of future forecast that means absolutely nothing.
                                Yeah, newsflash, none of us can tell the future. I'm just laying out my thinking - that I think they'll be real good if they run it back, and much worse than real good if they lose talents like Fred and Pascal, but also not nearly bad enough to keep our pick reliably. None of which is inconsistent with my stance re: how important Pascal and Fred are to our team, which is what you accused me of.
                                twitter.com/dhackett1565

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X