Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Game #49: Toronto Raptors 104 - Phoenix Suns 97

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

  • DanH
    replied
    Katman wrote: View Post
    Maybe its something simple like the starters score enough, the bench won't with Scola.
    Well, we don't know for certain, since the main 3 bench guys (outside of PP, so Joseph, BB and Ross) have played only 19 minutes together with Scola, but in those 19 minutes they have a 115 ORTG and a 75 DRTG, good for +40. Crazy good even in a small sample.

    Then you look at the two man combinations with those guys (these all have much, much larger samples than that 19 minute lineup).

    Scola-Joseph: +7.6 net rating, 105.1 ORTG
    Scola-Ross: +2.2, 105.4
    Scola-Biyombo: -1.4, 104.7

    All solid offensive scores. And look at his numbers with the starters.

    Scola-Lowry: -1.0 net rating, 104.2 ORTG
    Scola-DD: -0.7, 104.9
    Scola-JV: -2.1, 103.9

    Every starter pairing with Scola is worse than their bench counterpart's pairing with Scola, both in net rating and in offensive rating.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldSkoolCool
    replied
    Katman wrote: View Post
    Maybe its something simple like the starters score enough, the bench won't with Scola.
    The CoJo-Ross-Scola trio in preseason was astronomically good

    Leave a comment:


  • Katman
    replied
    3inthekeon wrote: View Post
    The Patterson-Scola flip in the starting lineup seems to make sense to many here, one would think it would have come up in the beat reporters conversations with Casey. Has anyone heard or read Casey's explanation as to why he's continuing to keep Scola with JV other than "continuity"?
    Maybe its something simple like the starters score enough, the bench won't with Scola.

    Leave a comment:


  • ogi
    replied
    KeonClark wrote: View Post
    "He's got that old man at the ymca game"
    We need a Casey soundboard

    Leave a comment:


  • KeonClark
    replied
    3inthekeon wrote: View Post
    The Patterson-Scola flip in the starting lineup seems to make sense to many here, one would think it would have come up in the beat reporters conversations with Casey. Has anyone heard or read Casey's explanation as to why he's continuing to keep Scola with JV other than "continuity"?
    "He's got that old man at the ymca game"

    Leave a comment:


  • KHD
    replied
    3inthekeon wrote: View Post
    The Patterson-Scola flip in the starting lineup seems to make sense to many here, one would think it would have come up in the beat reporters conversations with Casey. Has anyone heard or read Casey's explanation as to why he's continuing to keep Scola with JV other than "continuity"?
    well, he doesn't make adjustments (his words). just keep pounding the rock.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3inthekeon
    replied
    The Patterson-Scola flip in the starting lineup seems to make sense to many here, one would think it would have come up in the beat reporters conversations with Casey. Has anyone heard or read Casey's explanation as to why he's continuing to keep Scola with JV other than "continuity"?

    Leave a comment:


  • CalgaryRapsFan
    replied
    In fairness to Casey, this season seems eerily familiar to the 2006-2007 Raptors who unexpectedly won the Atlantic Division crown, largely due to their bench play.

    That team's starting lineup (Rasho, Bosh, Garbo, Parker and Ford) only had to keep the game close, and then the bench brigade (Calderon, Mo-Pete, Bargnani, Graham, Jones/Dixon/Humphries) would provide a huge boost against the opposition's 2nd unit.

    In crunch time, there would usually be a mix of starters/backups on the court (Bargnani, Bosh, Mo-Pete, Parker and Ford), providing a balance of on-ball defense and shooting.


    I've been one of those fans trumpeting the 'start Patterson for better balance' recommendation since the preseason, but I understand Casey's hesitancy to change things, given the team's success (especially winning 12 of their last 13 games).

    I just hope that should the time come when the team struggles for a stretch, whether it's during the regular season or come playoff time (when 2nd units don't have the same ability to impact games), he proves to be more adaptable than he has in the past.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jclaw
    replied
    For all the suggestions that Casey should switch up starter/bench roles. consider this. Down his #1 and # 2 ideal starters at SF, he had a choice to mix up the roles and start Ross (a past career starter) or start a rookie. And not just a rookie, a second round pick from this year's draft who has barely played in the NBA. Casey, who has shown his distaste for rooks in the past, went with that instead of making new role cards. I think he's riding this group til Carroll comes back. Come hell or high water.

    Leave a comment:


  • jimmie
    replied
    Barolt wrote: View Post
    If there's no historical precedent for a team winning in the playoffs off a lackluster starting lineup and dominant bench, that's a mountain of data that says we can't succeed in the playoffs on our current formula.
    And yet... I don't see the numbers. Are you sure you're not just assuming this is the case? I'm sure you can find some numbers to support your case, you seem to be pretty good at that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barolt
    replied
    jimmie wrote: View Post
    Well, then, in the absence of any data to the contrary, I'll ride it out with my rose-coloured glasses and believe that significantly different circumstances may very well result in a different outcome.
    If there's no historical precedent for a team winning in the playoffs off a lackluster starting lineup and dominant bench, that's a mountain of data that says we can't succeed in the playoffs on our current formula.

    Leave a comment:


  • jimmie
    replied
    Barolt wrote: View Post
    ou can win in the regular season off a terrible starting lineup and a dominant bench. I'm not sure there's any historical precedent for a team winning in the playoffs off that same formula.
    Well, then, in the absence of any data to the contrary, I'll ride it out with my rose-coloured glasses and believe that significantly different circumstances may very well result in a different outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barolt
    replied
    jimmie wrote: View Post
    I asked you to define failure and success. This team is playing winning basketball on a regular-enough basis to have the 5th best record in the league, trailing the Cavs for 1st in the East. They've done it without their starting lineup for most of the season, for what that's worth to your stats (Carroll and JV), and have shown no signs of a dropoff if you don't get caught up in 2-game trends.

    Yes, a ton of bad things could happen to derail what is, so far, an excellent season: injury to another key player, a bad trade that doesn't work out, MLSE sells the franchise... but right now, arguing that this team has major problems is kind of glass-empty.
    Indicators of future success are equally as important as indicators of current success, if last season taught us anything.

    You can win in the regular season off a terrible starting lineup and a dominant bench. I'm not sure there's any historical precedent for a team winning in the playoffs off that same formula.

    Leave a comment:


  • jimmie
    replied
    Barolt wrote: View Post
    "failure" is a lineup that gets outscored whenever it's out on the court, that has a negative net rating in every iteration all season.

    The team is a success, the starting lineup is a failure.

    http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612...T_RATING&dir=1

    There's our lineups that have played 100 minutes. Look at that and tell me our starting lineups are working.
    I asked you to define failure and success. This team is playing winning basketball on a regular-enough basis to have the 5th best record in the league, trailing the Cavs for 1st in the East. They've done it without their starting lineup for most of the season, for what that's worth to your stats (Carroll and JV), and have shown no signs of a dropoff if you don't get caught up in 2-game trends.

    Yes, a ton of bad things could happen to derail what is, so far, an excellent season: injury to another key player, a bad trade that doesn't work out, MLSE sells the franchise... but right now, arguing that this team has major problems is kind of glass-empty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barolt
    replied
    jimmie wrote: View Post
    Can you please define "failure" and "success" for me?

    This team is not a failure right now, it's a resounding success. It's not the same team as last year -- not the same roster, not the same defensive system, an evolving offensive system. So forgive me if I don't share your irrational fear that a different team playing a different way is going to achieve the same result 12 months later.
    "failure" is a lineup that gets outscored whenever it's out on the court, that has a negative net rating in every iteration all season.

    The team is a success, the starting lineup is a failure.

    http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612...T_RATING&dir=1

    There's our lineups that have played 100 minutes. Look at that and tell me our starting lineups are working.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X