Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Preseason Game #6: Raptors VS Detroit @ 7:30 EST

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

  • Lupe
    replied
    Barolt wrote: View Post
    I'm with Dan here. While Scola's stats looked good, the unit stats for that starting lineup weren't at all impressive offensively, and I think sometimes he put up numbers at the expense of the offense as a whole, while Sullinger might fit better.
    But that's my whole point. Sullinger is similarly slow footed and also doesn't get much respect from beyond the arc (on top of that he can't make them at a reasonable clip, which at least Scola could do). It's very likely that we could see the same issues with the starting lineup performing much more poorly than the DeMar+Bench and Lowry+Bench units.

    Patterson needs to start. I've already accepted that he isn't going to though, and it's going to be annoying watching our team start games slowly most of the year because we're playing a guy with center-speed and a piss-poor 3PT shot with guys who need the exact opposite kind of player alongside them (particularly DeMar and JV).

    Leave a comment:


  • Lupe
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    Fair enough. I would disagree, and would suggest that Scola's contributions were pretty empty anyway, and even if Sully clogs up the paint as much as Scola did (which I doubt), his offensive rebounding should more than make up that difference.
    I mean it's ok to disagree, I'm just looking at it quantitatively. Scola produced more offensive win shares in less minutes and had a better offensive box plus minus. He also shot the ball more efficiently (nearly 5% gap in TS%). And while neither of them gets much respect from the defense from beyond the arc, Scola actually did shoot at a good clip while taking more (40%) while Sullinger only shot 28% and hardly ever spots up in the corners (and even if he did, his percentage from 16-23 feet of 33% doesn't really suggest he'd be amazing from there either). Sullinger is a better offensive rebounder and passer though, but I'm not sure how much value the former is going to have with someone like Valanciunas next to him.

    Just doesn't seem like a good idea offensively at all and I'm expecting to see many of the same problems. Even defensively it could be a big issue, because like I said Sullinger was mostly playing center last year (86% of the time according to basketballreference) and against quicker players who like to stretch the floor he could be somewhat of a liability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barolt
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    Fair enough. I would disagree, and would suggest that Scola's contributions were pretty empty anyway, and even if Sully clogs up the paint as much as Scola did (which I doubt), his offensive rebounding should more than make up that difference.
    I'm with Dan here. While Scola's stats looked good, the unit stats for that starting lineup weren't at all impressive offensively, and I think sometimes he put up numbers at the expense of the offense as a whole, while Sullinger might fit better.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    Lupe wrote: View Post
    Defensively sure. But offensively their production last season wasn't really that different, you could actually argue that Scola was better.
    Fair enough. I would disagree, and would suggest that Scola's contributions were pretty empty anyway, and even if Sully clogs up the paint as much as Scola did (which I doubt), his offensive rebounding should more than make up that difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lupe
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    I agree we should start strong. I disagree that he could possibly be anywhere near as bad as Scola on either end of the floor.
    Defensively sure. But offensively their production last season wasn't really that different, you could actually argue that Scola was better.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    Lupe wrote: View Post
    I think Sullinger starting is going to result in some of the same problems we had with Scola starting last year. Lack of respect for his shot means a more packed paint, and he's not great defensively at the 4 spot (at the 5 he's fine) so we could get burned by quicker, floor-spacing 4s. I just don't want to see the same slow starts as last year, before we wait for DeRozan+Bench or Lowry+Bench lineups to start turning the game around. Let's start strong.
    I agree we should start strong. I disagree that he could possibly be anywhere near as bad as Scola on either end of the floor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lupe
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    Again, though, Patterson should get time with KL, DD and JV regardless of whether he starts, because they will essentially be running a three man big rotation (with spot minutes from BeBe to fill in the extra C minutes). And Sully will spend a lot of time at C. It's kind of a no-lose scenario, there's not much difference between one starting or the other. Very different from last year. So if they want to start Sully, that's fine. If they want to start Pat, great. But there's no reason yet to get upset like there was with Scola.
    I think Sullinger starting is going to result in some of the same problems we had with Scola starting last year. Lack of respect for his shot means a more packed paint, and he's not great defensively at the 4 spot (at the 5 he's fine) so we could get burned by quicker, floor-spacing 4s. I just don't want to see the same slow starts as last year, before we wait for DeRozan+Bench or Lowry+Bench lineups to start turning the game around. Let's start strong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barolt
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    Again, though, Patterson should get time with KL, DD and JV regardless of whether he starts, because they will essentially be running a three man big rotation (with spot minutes from BeBe to fill in the extra C minutes). And Sully will spend a lot of time at C. It's kind of a no-lose scenario, there's not much difference between one starting or the other. Very different from last year. So if they want to start Sully, that's fine. If they want to start Pat, great. But there's no reason yet to get upset like there was with Scola.
    All this being said, Sully is sitting again tonight, and might miss the start of the season, which is starting to be somewhat concerning.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    Lupe wrote: View Post
    I honestly think Patterson should start. Sullinger isn't good enough to have such a huge increase in trade value just by virtue of starting. 2Pat is the better fit in the starting 5, and Sullinger has a better post game so he could actually be a bit of an iso-outlet for the bench unit that 2Pat can't. Patterson and Ross are the only guys on the team that seem to be able to play off DeRozan and Lowry's drives effectively and get in the right positions and knock down shots. Plus having him out there would give more room in driving lanes and space for JV to operate down low.

    He won't start, but he really should. I think one could argue he's the 4th best player on the team. And it's inarguable that he's the best fit with KL-DD-JV.
    Again, though, Patterson should get time with KL, DD and JV regardless of whether he starts, because they will essentially be running a three man big rotation (with spot minutes from BeBe to fill in the extra C minutes). And Sully will spend a lot of time at C. It's kind of a no-lose scenario, there's not much difference between one starting or the other. Very different from last year. So if they want to start Sully, that's fine. If they want to start Pat, great. But there's no reason yet to get upset like there was with Scola.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lupe
    replied
    I honestly think Patterson should start. Sullinger isn't good enough to have such a huge increase in trade value just by virtue of starting. 2Pat is the better fit in the starting 5, and Sullinger has a better post game so he could actually be a bit of an iso-outlet for the bench unit that 2Pat can't. Patterson and Ross are the only guys on the team that seem to be able to play off DeRozan and Lowry's drives effectively and get in the right positions and knock down shots. Plus having him out there would give more room in driving lanes and space for JV to operate down low.

    He won't start, but he really should. I think one could argue he's the 4th best player on the team. And it's inarguable that he's the best fit with KL-DD-JV.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    GLF wrote: View Post
    Yea I haven't really watched Sully to be honest other than a few highlights on youtube which obviously isn't a good judge of anything. I'm glad he has shot around 50 from the corner 3 distance the past few seasons. The likelihood of him all of sudden shooting badly from there is definitely low if that's the case which is good. His rebounding is definitely elite and I saw the difference it made even in the one preseason game he played so that's a very good point you made. Also he's just a lot more versatile on offense than Scola. He can pass, he can post up a bit, he can take people off the dribble at times, he can hit the midrange as you said which is something I forgot. So that should help if he isn't shooting it well I hope. Thanks Dan, I just needed a little reassurance about Sullinger. We definitely don't need the starters to be gang busters. I'm just a bit shocked to hear you say that with how much focus you put on our starting lineup last season when the bench units we had were amazing for the most part. But I get it, Scola was a disaster and even if everything goes wrong with the Sullinger experiment he shouldn't be THAT bad. Thanks again.
    First off, the bench units we had were amazing from December on, when Casey finally woke up to what me and many others were saying - that he had to keep one of DD or KL on the floor at all times. For the first month of the season, he usually kept Carroll or no starter at all out there with the bench, and it was actually a disaster - far worse than the starting lineup ever was. It was only the transitional lineups between bench units and starters that saved the team (ie when Patterson would sub in for Scola, and the team would go on a crazy run, before coughing some of it back up with the bench unit).

    Second, last year it was a question of a) all the time each player spent with each unit, as both played PF and they rarely played the frontcourt together, and b) the obvious fit issues for Scola. The starting lineup had above average to amazing rebounding from the existing 4 starters (Lowry and JV being tremendous rebounders and DD and Carroll being solid for their positions), plenty of primary offence, but lacked shooting and needed a mobile defender to help cover up for JV's growing pains (and general size-induced slowness) and DD's general defensive uselessness. Patterson fits to a tee - poor rebounder, quick defender, good shooter. Scola was a guy who had rarely shot threes (and although he hit at a good rate, still didn't shoot very many for us), moved like he had cement shoes on and was supposed to be a plus rebounder.

    The bench, meanwhile, even if they rolled one of DD or Lowry out there, but especially if they didn't, was in desperate need of primary offence, something Scola can provide in the post, especially considering his playmaking skills from there. And could easily cover up for his defensive deficiencies with guys like Joseph and Biyombo prowling around. And Scola's presumed rebounding ability would be helpful there too - you want Biyombo free to chase shot contests, and Ross is not the sort of wing you can rely on to crash the boards. Patterson helps the bench basically just with spacing, and as we saw early in the year, spacing is essentially of no value if you don't have a primary shot creator on the floor.

    But the main point is that with Scola and Patterson, both would only play PF (with us stacked at C). So we had 48 minutes (if that, considering the potential for Carroll small ball lineups) to split between them. Consider that the starter would typically get 30 MP and the bench player 18 MP (sometimes even more extreme but that's about right for the Raps) - not only because starters are usually better, but because it is really hard to fit 30 MPG for a player coming off the bench; you are fitting 15 minutes per half into the last 18 minutes of that half instead of spread over the entire 24 minutes. Now, which player would you bet on lasting a full season at 30 MPG? The 26 year old, up and coming PF, or the 36 year old, obviously declining PF?

    Although the minutes split ended up going Patterson's way, he was stuck jamming those minutes into the last 3/4's of each half, so he was running 30 MPG on almost no rest each half, which definitely wore on him. We saw his shooting struggle in the playoffs, when he took on an even bigger role and was burnt out to start with (and for long stretches was STILL coming off the bench!).

    That's the difference with Sullinger this year. If we were debating who to play 30 MPG at PF versus who to play 18 MPG at PF, I'd be fighting for Patterson again (although less vehemently because the fit duality with Sully is not as extreme as it was with Scola, considering Biyombo is gone from the bench). But we aren't. Sully will play a lot of backup C minutes. He'll play beside Patterson a lot. So we should see a fairly even split of time between JV-PP, JV-Sully, and Sully-PP frontcourts anyway. No matter who starts on the bench, we'll be pumping all three players close to 30 MPG, so someone is going to be stuck with that problem of squeezing in minutes with less rest - although with a three man interchangeable big rotation, shorter, more frequent rests can help with that.

    In the meantime, an additional thought is that Sully is a prime candidate for a trade later on, and pumping his value up by letting him get "starter" beside his name can only help with that, even if his value will be suppressed by his lack of Bird Rights. Similarly, if we want to keep Patterson next summer, having him start games will only drive his price up on the market. So there is some other value to doing it this way. I wouldn't even consider these factors if we had a situation like Scola where there was an obvious answer, but with these two and the way the big rotation appears to be shaping up, it's basically a toss up and there's no wrong answer.

    Obviously, there may prove to be a wrong answer, and the team can pivot if the JV-Sully or the Sully-PP frontcourts really struggle. But unlike with Scola last year, there's no real reason to expect that to happen. If it does though, you can bet I'll re-evaluate. Unfortunately with the lack of real options behind those three, it will be tough to find other options, unless something as simple as playing one pair against bench units instead of starters helps enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cody73
    replied
    GLF wrote: View Post
    LOL that has been my signature for a while now. Someone made a bet with me and I lost. I completely forgot I still had that up
    The last line makes me chuckle every time.

    I hope Sully is healthy soon. We need to see how he meshes with this squad more than anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • GLF
    replied
    consmap wrote: View Post
    Your new signature is awesome hahaha
    LOL that has been my signature for a while now. Someone made a bet with me and I lost. I completely forgot I still had that up

    Leave a comment:


  • consmap
    replied
    GLF wrote: View Post
    Yea I haven't really watched Sully to be honest other than a few highlights on youtube which obviously isn't a good judge of anything. I'm glad he has shot around 50 from the corner 3 distance the past few seasons. The likelihood of him all of sudden shooting badly from there is definitely low if that's the case which is good. His rebounding is definitely elite and I saw the difference it made even in the one preseason game he played so that's a very good point you made. Also he's just a lot more versatile on offense than Scola. He can pass, he can post up a bit, he can take people off the dribble at times, he can hit the midrange as you said which is something I forgot. So that should help if he isn't shooting it well I hope. Thanks Dan, I just needed a little reassurance about Sullinger. We definitely don't need the starters to be gang busters. I'm just a bit shocked to hear you say that with how much focus you put on our starting lineup last season when the bench units we had were amazing for the most part. But I get it, Scola was a disaster and even if everything goes wrong with the Sullinger experiment he shouldn't be THAT bad. Thanks again.
    Your new signature is awesome hahaha

    Leave a comment:


  • GLF
    replied
    DanH wrote: View Post
    Missed the defence at the 4 comment - if you think Sully is anywhere near as slow and unathletic as Scola was, you either didn't watch Scola very closely or haven't watched enough Sullinger. Whole different ball game there.
    Yea I haven't really watched Sully to be honest other than a few highlights on youtube which obviously isn't a good judge of anything. I'm glad he has shot around 50 from the corner 3 distance the past few seasons. The likelihood of him all of sudden shooting badly from there is definitely low if that's the case which is good. His rebounding is definitely elite and I saw the difference it made even in the one preseason game he played so that's a very good point you made. Also he's just a lot more versatile on offense than Scola. He can pass, he can post up a bit, he can take people off the dribble at times, he can hit the midrange as you said which is something I forgot. So that should help if he isn't shooting it well I hope. Thanks Dan, I just needed a little reassurance about Sullinger. We definitely don't need the starters to be gang busters. I'm just a bit shocked to hear you say that with how much focus you put on our starting lineup last season when the bench units we had were amazing for the most part. But I get it, Scola was a disaster and even if everything goes wrong with the Sullinger experiment he shouldn't be THAT bad. Thanks again.
    Last edited by GLF; Thu Oct 20, 2016, 11:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X