Casey: "We Have To Participate In The Trend Of Going Small At The End of Games"

[Axel]

Casey: "We Have To Participate In The Trend Of Going Small At The End of Games"

Maybe you should read Vantage Sports once in a while.

"On the other end, the Raptors are one of the best offensive teams in the league, a large part of that being due to their success cutting without the ball, as further explained here by Josh Gutchess."

I'll take their word over yours, since these people are actually paid by NBA teams for their info.

http://www.vantagesports.com/story/V...D196/undefined

Full quote reads

"On the other end, the Raptors are one of the best offensive teams in the league, a large part of that being due to their success cutting without the ball, as further explained here by Josh Gutchess. Their offense moves and flows very well, particularly when most of their starting unit is on the court, and it will have to be at its best to defeat the Warriors, who possess a Points Allowed per Shot mark of 0.86, the lowest figure in the league."

The Raptors offence flows very well? Pretty sure that doesn't sound like the Raptors at all.

Plus the link you quoted, doesn't actually lead to any explanation.

[JimiCliff]

Maybe you should read Vantage Sports once in a while.

"On the other end, the Raptors are one of the best offensive teams in the league, a large part of that being due to their success cutting without the ball, as further explained here by Josh Gutchess."

I'll take their word over yours, since these people are actually paid by NBA teams for their info.

http://www.vantagesports.com/story/V...D196/undefined

Well, the Raps sure as hell weren't cutting without the ball when Lou was running his ridiculous end-of-period isos. Ditto for when Demar would set up shop on the perimeter. Just because they may be having 'success cutting without the ball' doesn't mean that it's happening all the time, and doesn't mean that all players are put in a position to participate.

[3inthekeon]

Full quote reads

"On the other end, the Raptors are one of the best offensive teams in the league, a large part of that being due to their success cutting without the ball, as further explained here by Josh Gutchess. Their offense moves and flows very well, particularly when most of their starting unit is on the court, and it will have to be at its best to defeat the Warriors, who possess a Points Allowed per Shot mark of 0.86, the lowest figure in the league."

The Raptors offence flows very well? Pretty sure that doesn't sound like the Raptors at all.

Plus the link you quoted, doesn't actually lead to any explanation.

These people analyse over 16000 events per game, so they do see things we don't, That said, I agree the flow got worse as the year went on (this was from game 33). Also DD being out for half the season to that point also impacted the offence with less ISO play. Yeah, the link doesn't work, - they don't seem to archive much free material. I did read the story at the time. The Raptors did cut, although less than most teams, but were highly effective on their cutting.

Which brings me back to the original point. Despite the Raptors cutting effectively at the time,

Unfortunately for the Raptors, Valanciunas isn’t much of a passer, as he averages of 0.75 Assist+ per 100 Chances, one of the very lowest numbers in the league. As such, it is unlikely that Toronto will be able, or willing, to initiate a great deal of offense from their big man.

[psrs1]

Maybe you should read Vantage Sports once in a while.

"On the other end, the Raptors are one of the best offensive teams in the league, a large part of that being due to their success cutting without the ball, as further explained here by Josh Gutchess."

I'll take their word over yours, since these people are actually paid by NBA teams for their info.

http://www.vantagesports.com/story/V...D196/undefined

Did he watch the Wizards series? Is this analysis based pre or post Jan 2 OT loss at Portland?

[3inthekeon]

Did he watch the Wizards series? Is this analysis based pre or post Jan 2 OT loss at Portland?

Read my post above

[psrs1]

Read my post above

I did. I just think we give these media/stats guys too much credit. Most posters know more of what goes on than these so called analysts.

[golden]

These people analyse over 16000 events per game, so they do see things we don't, That said, I agree the flow got worse as the year went on (this was from game 33). Also DD being out for half the season to that point also impacted the offence with less ISO play. Yeah, the link doesn't work, - they don't seem to archive much free material. I did read the story at the time. The Raptors did cut, although less than most teams, but were highly effective on their cutting.

Which brings me back to the original point. Despite the Raptors cutting effectively at the time,

Like Axel said, anybody who thinks that last season's Raptors offense "flowed very well" is immediately discrediting themselves as an authority on the topic. He must be confusing efficiency with aesthetics. The offense was brutally efficient at times, designed to take contested mid-range shots and get to the FT line to compensate for poor FG%. It was not designed to maximize man-movement + ball movement for open shots, even going back to the previous seasons and Nets playoff series. Agreed that it did get a lot worse with Lou.

Secondly, I'm not even sure how to assess whether or not a cutter is available to JV in the post, other than by watching a lot of Raptor games and looking for those particular instances. I'm going by eye-test and seeing a lot of clear-outs and stagnant off-ball movement when JV goes into the post.

So basically, are you (and Josh Gutchess) trying to say that when JV goes into the post, the Raptors are flashing cutters into the lane all the time, but JV is always missing them? I'd like to see more video evidence on that.

[3inthekeon]

Like Axel said, anybody who thinks that last season's Raptors offense "flowed very well" is immediately discrediting themselves as an authority on the topic. He must be confusing efficiency with aesthetics. The offense was brutally efficient at times, designed to take contested mid-range shots and get to the FT line to compensate for poor FG%. It was not designed to maximize man-movement + ball movement for open shots, even going back to the previous seasons and Nets playoff series. Agreed that it did get a lot worse with Lou.

Secondly, I'm not even sure how to assess whether or not a cutter is available to JV in the post, other than by watching a lot of Raptor games and looking for those particular instances. I'm going by eye-test and seeing a lot of clear-outs and stagnant off-ball movement when JV goes into the post.

So basically, are you (and Josh Gutchess) trying to say that when JV goes into the post, the Raptors are flashing cutters into the lane all the time, but JV is always missing them? I'd like to see more video evidence on that.

As I said before, this was from game 33 last year - the offence was much better then . I agree as the season wore on "flowing well" was not a term anyone would use for the Raptors offence.

The cutting is a chicken/egg thing. If you accept the fact JV is not a good passer at this stage of his career, and he was not finding cutters,, or able to accurately get the ball to cutters, what's the point of cutting? Because yeah, as the season went on JV was given the ball in the post and people cleared out, save for an outlet if/when he got doubled.

So rarely ran cutters for anybody is not true, rarely ran cutters for JV I totally agree with.

[Axel]

As I said before, this was from game 33 last year - the offence was much better then . I agree as the season wore on "flowing well" was not a term anyone would use for the Raptors offence.

The cutting is a chicken/egg thing. If you accept the fact JV is not a good passer at this stage of his career, and he was not finding cutters,, or able to accurately get the ball to cutters, what's the point of cutting? Because yeah, as the season went on JV was given the ball in the post and people cleared out, save for an outlet if/when he got doubled.

So rarely ran cutters for anybody is not true, rarely ran cutters for JV I totally agree with.

I'm not sure chicken/egg logic really applies here.

You have a young talented post scorer who, statistically isn't adept at passing to cutters, so to develop his passing you stop sending cutters? Sounds like Casey logic to me but clearly that isn't real justification.

When the opportunities dry up, how is he supposed to develop that part of his game? Same logic applies to not being ready to play 4th quarters. #FireCasey

[golden]

As I said before, this was from game 33 last year - the offence was much better then . I agree as the season wore on "flowing well" was not a term anyone would use for the Raptors offence.

The cutting is a chicken/egg thing. If you accept the fact JV is not a good passer at this stage of his career, and he was not finding cutters,, or able to accurately get the ball to cutters, what's the point of cutting? Because yeah, as the season went on JV was given the ball in the post and people cleared out, save for an outlet if/when he got doubled.

So rarely ran cutters for anybody is not true, rarely ran cutters for JV I totally agree with.

If you have a full clock, you should always run your offense, for no other reason than to get the opposition defense out of position and expending energy, which hurts them when they go back on offense. Even Casey himself stated that the Raps offense was a likely cause for the decline in defense because the stagnant ISO style led to easy transition buckets for the opposition. You also run your offense to distract opposing defenses away from the ball handler, i.e., make them think twice about helping off their man. It's the same reason why you add floor spacing 3-pt threats around a low post scorer.

Another reason you run cutters for JV is to have him become comfortable recognizing situations to pass the ball. Even if he ends up just taking it to the basket 95% of the time, there is really no downside to running cutters as a decoy.

IMO, Casey is overly concerned with turnovers and values protection of the ball over ball movement & and man movement. Almost to the point where he won't even allow the opportunity for turnovers by making those players available to receive passes in the flow of a (non-ISO) offense. Worst part is that this team has shown that they can move the ball beautifully when they really want to do it.

[S.R.]

I remember when the Raps were working with Bosh and later DeRozan on their ability to deal with double teams. When you have a guy with offensive potential whom other teams are going to adjust their defenses for, you make specific strategic adjustments yourself to help your guys succeed and you coach him through this new skill development. Bosh initially sucked pretty bad when he got double-teamed.

They should be doing the same thing for Jonas re: passing out of the post. I don't have stats, but find any YouTube highlights of Jonas and watch the play the Raps are running. They did have a couple pet plays running screens to get him open, but the vast majority were (as has been mentioned) really traditional and static clear-out post-ups. I spent about 15 minutes on this and didn't see any off-ball action run at all while Jonas had the ball. His only option was to kick it back out to the entry passer.

Jonas isn't a very good passer and will never be great, but it's really weird to sit a young guy with potential or stop running him plays because he has a skill that needs work. Is DeMar supposed to stop shooting threes because he sucks at it? Did they tell him to stop dribbling the ball when his handle was weak?

[psrs1]

If you have a full clock, you should always run your offense, for no other reason than to get the opposition defense out of position and expending energy, which hurts them when they go back on offense. Even Casey himself stated that the Raps offense was a likely cause for the decline in defense because the stagnant ISO style led to easy transition buckets for the opposition. You also run your offense to distract opposing defenses away from the ball handler, i.e., make them think twice about helping off their man. It's the same reason why you add floor spacing 3-pt threats around a low post scorer.

Another reason you run cutters for JV is to have him become comfortable recognizing situations to pass the ball. Even if he ends up just taking it to the basket 95% of the time, there is really no downside to running cutters as a decoy.

IMO, Casey is overly concerned with turnovers and values protection of the ball over ball movement & and man movement. Almost to the point where he won't even allow the opportunity for turnovers by making those players available to receive passes in the flow of a (non-ISO) offense. Worst part is that this team has shown that they can move the ball beautifully when they really want to do it.

They were 37-17 until they went to ISO heavy offensive sets.

[JawsGT]

I'm going out on a limb here and will say that JV is a better passer than the stats show and many here believe him to be. Passing out of the post just isn't a skill that the team has prioritized for JV to learn at this point. I will also say that he is not as good in the post as the stats suggest. He does not get enough attention from the defense to allow for the development of great passing skills. IMO, he needs more time and touches in the post to really make an accurate judgement on his abilities. If he becomes a more consistent post presence (throughout the game, arguably just a lack of touches and court time), we will really know more about his effectiveness there, as will opposing defences. And if his effectiveness is maintained, then he will demand doubles on a regular basis, and therefore will get plenty more opportunities to flash hsi passing skills, or show that he is weak in this area.

[Scraptor]

Here are some actual stats on how much we cut:

18th in the league in cutting frequency (Spurs and Warriors 2nd and 3rd overall)
5th in points per possession on cuts
http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/cut...ason&sort=Time

We might be successful when we do it, but we don't do it often. And basically every time JV got the ball in the post, the rest of the players stopped moving. Same thing happened when DD got to iso his man in the mid-range. Everyone (including the other team) knew a shot was going up.

[DogeLover1234]

An offense with effective cuts is not necessarily an offence with many cuts. When the team moved the ball around they looked pretty good if memory serves, i imagine the problem was that they didnt move the ball often.