Is the D-League a Viable Way to Develop Young Players?

[DanH]

And these 5 minutes per game that you have saved here are going to make a significant enough difference in the development arc of Delon Wright to offset whatever downturn the team might have from Lowry playing less?

Huh? I'm not inserting Delon Wright into the rotation on a regular basis. Others are. I'm just arguing that there is no need to have DD and Lowry play together a lot, so that shouldn't be a factor in the ability to insert anyone in the rotation, nor a defence for the unacceptable number of minutes they play.

[Barolt]

Ok... but none of them DO so are all of these coaches insane or is there some other factor in play here?

Well, the Warriors don't because they try to blow teams out of the water early and give Steph/Klay fourth quarters off.

The Thunder have been the subject of a lot of criticism for how they handle their rotations and how bad they are when Durant and Westbrook both sit.

The Hornets, in Lin, have an extremely capable backup point guard.

The Trailblazers fall off quite a bit whenever Lillard isn't on the floor, as McCollum isn't a fantastic shot creator or distributor.

The truth is, every team is different.

In our case: Lowry without DeMar is 115.4 ORTG
DeMar without Lowry is 106.2 ORTG
with both is 112.1 ORTG
without both is 102.4 ORTG

So offensively Lowry is the lynchpin of our offense, but Lowry without DeMar is better than both, and DeMar without Lowry is better than neither. So staggering is the best solution because we don't have those 'without both' minutes, and Lowry without DeMar has been our best offense anyways.

Defensively:

with both: 108.5 DRtg
without both: 106.9 DRTG
Lowry without DeMar: 97.0 DRTG
DeMar without Lowry: 107.9 DRTG

So here, anytime DeMar is on the floor it's a problem, but Lowry without DeMar is the best defensive group, so we're better off keeping them split up to maximize those minutes especially with there being no substantive difference between with both, without both, and DeMar without Lowry.

[CNinja26]

Some D League minutes is better than nothing. What's the alternative if the Raptors didn't have the 905? That our rooks would be bench warmers?

You can't honestly expect significant minutes for ROOKIES on a CONTENDING team? I can see rookies getting a ton of run on developing teams, but the Raps are not in this scenario. Plus, why would Casey compromise getting sure wins when he's playing for a contract extension? It's not easy to hold a head coaching job in the NBA these days. If I were in his shoes, I sure as hell would be doing the same damn thing. Rookies can wait...Delon Wright minutes isn't worth a multi-million dollar salary for next year.

And to be fair, this Raptors team is still learning how to do the right things. They still get confused on defense, they still make mistakes offensively, they do have trouble holding leads (and potential garbage time minutes for rooks), etc. The more minutes our core group of guys play together, the better off we're going to be.

[JWash]

Huh? I'm not inserting Delon Wright into the rotation on a regular basis. Others are. I'm just arguing that there is no need to have DD and Lowry play together a lot, so that shouldn't be a factor in the ability to insert anyone in the rotation, nor a defence for the unacceptable number of minutes they play.

But it does factor in because they eat up 70 minutes at the 1-2-3 spots per game.

And the thread is about developing young players, so I was talking about DD-Lowry in that context, (i.e. how will Delon get into the rotation)...

[DanH]

But it does factor in because they eat up 70 minutes at the 1-2-3 spots per game.

And the thread is about developing young players, so I was talking about DD-Lowry in that context, (i.e. how will Delon get into the rotation)...

Sure, that's fine. As I said, I think Delon could get in part time, once every three games or so against inferior opponents, no problem at all. In which case the "70 minutes" they eat up are actually more like 75, 75, 50 (a little below 70 average) in individual games.

Still, that 70 minutes can be lower if you don't care how much they play together. Which was kind of the point.

[JWash]

Sure, that's fine. As I said, I think Delon could get in part time, once every three games or so against inferior opponents, no problem at all. In which case the "70 minutes" they eat up are actually more like 75, 75, 50 (a little below 70 average) in individual games.

Still, that 70 minutes can be lower if you don't care how much they play together. Which was kind of the point.

Even right now you're recommending 67. That's not much lower.

Honestly this really seems extremely nitpicky.

[DanH]

Even right now you're recommending 67. That's not much lower.

Honestly this really seems extremely nitpicky.

Recommending 67? Let's say I'm settling for it. Obviously something like 70-70-50 is better.

But taking my approach, the average minutes per game are largely irrelevant, because in one game of three there is a big hole for real playing time. The young'uns pick up 15 solid minutes as backups every three games and are otherwise in the D-League.

Point being that them averaging about 70 minutes leaves very little time for real extended stretches of play for Wright/Powell if every game is approached with the same rotation. And as you say, a small reduction in minutes for the main guys will not clear that much extra time for Wright/Powell. Which is why my proposal works better.

[OldSkoolCool]

Some D League minutes is better than nothing. What's the alternative if the Raptors didn't have the 905? That our rooks would be bench warmers?

You can't honestly expect significant minutes for ROOKIES on a CONTENDING team? I can see rookies getting a ton of run on developing teams, but the Raps are not in this scenario. Plus, why would Casey compromise getting sure wins when he's playing for a contract extension? It's not easy to hold a head coaching job in the NBA these days. If I were in his shoes, I sure as hell would be doing the same damn thing. Rookies can wait...Delon Wright minutes isn't worth a multi-million dollar salary for next year.

And to be fair, this Raptors team is still learning how to do the right things. They still get confused on defense, they still make mistakes offensively, they do have trouble holding leads (and potential garbage time minutes for rooks), etc. The more minutes our core group of guys play together, the better off we're going to be.

Whether or not we are a contending team, we should ALWAYS be developing players, and that means at least some NBA playing time

[JWash]

Recommending 67? Let's say I'm settling for it. Obviously something like 70-70-50 is better.

But taking my approach, the average minutes per game are largely irrelevant, because in one game of three there is a big hole for real playing time. The young'uns pick up 15 solid minutes as backups every three games and are otherwise in the D-League.

Point being that them averaging about 70 minutes leaves very little time for real extended stretches of play for Wright/Powell if every game is approached with the same rotation. And as you say, a small reduction in minutes for the main guys will not clear that much extra time for Wright/Powell. Which is why my proposal works better.

That 70-70-50 idea is insane.

[DanH]

That 70-70-50 idea is insane.

If you say so.

[JWash]

If you say so.

Do you have any precedent for it for players playing in their prime? Playing 35 minutes per game for 2 games then 25 the next as a pattern?

[DanH]

Do you have any precedent for it for players playing in their prime? Playing 35 minutes per game for 2 games then 25 the next as a pattern?

Nope. Probably hasn't been done before. Of course, neither has what the Warriors or Spurs are doing this year.

No one having done it before is not a great reason not to do something.

[Axel]

Even right now you're recommending 67. That's not much lower.

Honestly this really seems extremely nitpicky.

You call it nit picky, others might call it detail oriented. Considering the stakes and the level of talent, detail oriented is a good thing.

[Apollo]

Apples and Oranges

One thing people keep missing when comparing the Raptors to those other teams near the top of the standings is that those other teams are better than the Raptors... Arguably A LOT better than the Raptors. The Raptors have needed to play Lowry and DeRozan heavy minutes to get to where they are. Now they're starting to talk and act on give those two guys rest games, which is smart.

You can't compare the Raptors to the Spurs or Warriors though. Clearly those two teams are a lot better. Better players, better chemistry, better systems, better coaches... The only thing Toronto beats them in is better looking women.

[JWash]

You call it nit picky, others might call it detail oriented. Considering the stakes and the level of talent, detail oriented is a good thing.

Well I'm calling it nitpicky because I feel it is meaningless and wouldn't achieve anything. If I thought it would, then I would've referred to it as detail oriented.