HoopsWorld.com : Six Reasons Why Toronto Makes the Playoffs

[Craiger]

By the way, the attempt here is to get better insight in to your (Craiger's) thoughts and opinions to better inform the thoughts and opinions I already have. Personally, I think that is kind of open-minded on my part and showing some objectivity. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure a Wikipedia link could show that to be the case.

The links were for your information. You are quick to accuse others of being closed minded or bias, while claiming your own open mindedness and objectivity. .

[Craiger]

And you question my open- mindedness and objectivity?

So let me get this straight:

You are calling the article a puff piece because he uses a variety of stats to support his position but yet you don't actually give specifics on what you are in disagreement over?


Also, please tell me how am I misrepresenting your position instead of passing the buck. Please give actual specifics on why the Raptors will not make the playoffs. Brotherston wrote an article on why the Raptors will make the playoffs. Instead of calling it a puff piece and taking jabs at me (even when I originally agreed with one of your points) could you tell us why you don't think the Raptors will make the playoffs with something more specific than 'not everything will go right for the team'? Using that 'simpleton logic' one could easily counter that not everything will go wrong.

Oh please I already stated how the stats were inconsistent. Go back and read. I'm not going to breakdown his entire article because you want me to or simply won't research how yourself.

You were the one who responded to me remember? The one who made assumptions. I'm not "passing the buck".

Oh and I never said the Raptors will not make the playoffs. Nor did I say everything will go wrong. Straw men again.

[mcHAPPY]

And you question my open- mindedness and objectivity?

So let me get this straight:

You are calling the article a puff piece because he uses a variety of stats to support his position but yet you don't actually give specifics on what you are in disagreement over?


Also, please tell me how am I misrepresenting your position instead of passing the buck. Please give actual specifics on why the Raptors will not make the playoffs. Brotherston wrote an article on why the Raptors will make the playoffs. Instead of calling it a puff piece and taking jabs at me (even when I originally agreed with one of your points) could you tell us why you don't think the Raptors will make the playoffs with something more specific than 'not everything will go right for the team'? Using that 'simpleton logic' one could easily counter that not everything will go wrong.

By the way, the attempt here is to get better insight in to your (Craiger's) thoughts and opinions to better inform the thoughts and opinions I already have. Personally, I think that is kind of open-minded on my part and showing some objectivity. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure a Wikipedia link could show that to be the case.

[mcHAPPY]

And your 'open minded' thinking, or 'objectivity' shows up again.

And just so we are clear about this it isn't a puff peice simply because its 'optimistic'. Its a puff peice because its parroting, it numbers without consistency, and its simpelton logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias


(PS. I ignored your questions because they were straw men)

And you question my open- mindedness and objectivity?

So let me get this straight:

You are calling the article a puff piece because he uses a variety of stats to support his position but yet you don't actually give specifics on what you are in disagreement over?


Also, please tell me how am I misrepresenting your position instead of passing the buck. Please give actual specifics on why the Raptors will not make the playoffs. Brotherston wrote an article on why the Raptors will make the playoffs. Instead of calling it a puff piece and taking jabs at me (even when I originally agreed with one of your points) could you tell us why you don't think the Raptors will make the playoffs with something more specific than 'not everything will go right for the team'? Using that 'simpleton logic' one could easily counter that not everything will go wrong.

[Craiger]

Your post called Brotherston's article a 'puff piece' for what I have assumed to be his optimism on this upcoming season where the team appears to be better, will have more time with Casey, and has addressed weaknesses.

I asked what was wrong with the opinion as from your history of posts it seems anything with optimism comes with a rebuttal from yourself (much like anything with negativity often meets a rebuttal from me).

I then agreed with your statement of everything having to go right for the Raptors is not going to happen.


You came back with what I would call garbage. It did not address any question I asked you and was 100% petty. The second reply was the same - you ignored the same questions. As always, a pleasant exchange that refuses to concretely address anything of optimism currently happening in RaptorLand with specific comments or ideas.

And your 'open minded' thinking, or 'objectivity' shows up again.

And just so we are clear about this it isn't a puff peice simply because its 'optimistic'. Its a puff peice because its parroting, it numbers without consistency, and its simpelton logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias


(PS. I ignored your questions because they were straw men)

[mcHAPPY]

Your right, I'm a hypocrite. I can always rely on you to try and discredit someone else by open mindedly labelling them as bias.

I'm glad you THINK your objective. Repeat it enough times and it may well become true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

Your post called Brotherston's article a 'puff piece' for what I have assumed to be his optimism on this upcoming season where the team appears to be better, will have more time with Casey, and has addressed weaknesses.

I asked what was wrong with the opinion as from your history of posts it seems anything with optimism comes with a rebuttal from yourself (much like anything with negativity often meets a rebuttal from me).

I then agreed with your statement of everything having to go right for the Raptors is not going to happen.


You came back with what I would call garbage. It did not address any question I asked you and was 100% petty. The second reply was the same - you ignored the same questions. As always, a pleasant exchange that refuses to concretely address anything of optimism currently happening in RaptorLand with specific comments or ideas.

[Craiger]

Right.... Brotherston is not a journalist nor is Simmons and if you ever read (any off season report) or watch (draft night?) Hollinger, it is hard to not see him as biased. The only less objective view point I can think of is SheridanHoops.com.

So outside of that, do you not agree the Raptors are better on paper than last season? That more practice time and a less hectic game schedule should help Casey get his teachings and game tactics ingrained? Have Raptor weaknesses not been addressed?

Say what you will about me Craiger but at least I am objective. In your haste to attempt to discredit me, you don't seem to realize my last paragraph essentially agrees with your post.

I only have one question for you: hypocrite much?

Your right, I'm a hypocrite. I can always rely on you to try and discredit someone else by open mindedly labelling them as bias.

I'm glad you THINK your objective. Repeat it enough times and it may well become true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

[mcHAPPY]

In my search to find something from John Hollinger that was positive on the Raptors, I had to go back to September 30th, 2008. Clearly Colangelo and the Raptors made him look like an idiot in hindsight heading in to the 2008-2009 season. Now the bias is definitely understood and even appreciated.

Biggest Strength: Interior defense
It sounds crazy to be saying this about a Raptors team, but if O'Neal is even remotely healthy it will be true. His defense hasn't received a lot of attention so I'm not sure casual fans understand what a force he is at that end -- he not only block shots, rebounds and takes charges, but he's tough enough to guard the opponent's top post threat every night. Those attributes will be immensely helpful to Bosh, as he often was an undersized center in previous Raptors lineups.

Instead, he can be the active, perimeter-focused guy who guards the lesser of the opponent's frontcourt threats and can make plays from the weak side with his quickness and length. Those who watched the U.S. Olympic team saw what a force he can be in that role.

In addition, don't forget about small forward Jamario Moon, another long high-flier who blocks shots like a big man. Between he, Bosh and O'Neal the Raps should be among the league leaders in shot blocks and defensive rebounding, even with relatively little help from the frontcourt off the pine.

Outlook
In projecting Toronto's record, it's important to note that they had the performance of a 52-win team a year ago, even though they only won 41 games, and that they could have won even more had they not sabotaged themselves by keeping Bargnani in the rotation.

The trade for O'Neal offers another potential bright spot. While Calderon can take over most of the minutes that Ford played a year ago, O'Neal fills in a large defensive void and, if healthy, should greatly improve Toronto at this end. That's the rub, of course -- I projected him to average 27 minutes a game, including injury time-outs, and even that may have been optimistic.

Additionally, the bench seems nowhere near as strong as the unit from a year ago. Toronto finds itself counting on players like Ukic, Kapono and Bargnani, and based on their numbers from a season ago that's a scary proposition indeed. It's possible Bargnani surprises us with a breakout year, but the odds of the other two doing so are remote.

Add it all up and you have a sleeper in the East, but one whose lack of depth and injury-prone frontcourt make it unlikely to pile up a huge regular-season victory total. They may very well win a round in the playoffs, but they're not quite ready to move into the conference's upper crust yet.

Prediction: 47-35, 3rd in Atlantic Division, T-5th in Eastern Conference

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/traini...rsForecast0809

To Hollinger's credit, nothing (outside of hiring Dwane Casey) has turned out as planned or hoped for the Raptors in the last 4 years so why should they start now? Afterall, according to Hollinger the pick for Lowry to Houston is a guaranteed lottery pick from Toronto.

I do hope his forecast of the 2012-13 Raptors is as accurate as his 2008-2009 forecast.

[mcHAPPY]

This coming from a guy who calls writers who aren't positive on the Raptors biased (Hollinger) or 'not journalists' (Simmons) .

Too each their own I guess.

Right.... Brotherston is not a journalist nor is Simmons and if you ever read (any off season report) or watch (draft night?) Hollinger, it is hard to not see him as biased. The only less objective view point I can think of is SheridanHoops.com.

So outside of that, do you not agree the Raptors are better on paper than last season? That more practice time and a less hectic game schedule should help Casey get his teachings and game tactics ingrained? Have Raptor weaknesses not been addressed?

Say what you will about me Craiger but at least I am objective. In your haste to attempt to discredit me, you don't seem to realize my last paragraph essentially agrees with your post.

I only have one question for you: hypocrite much?

[Craiger]

So what is the problem? He is a columnist giving an opinion.

I agree the piece is very optimistic but what is wrong with that? Has the roster not improved on paper? Won't more practice and teaching by Casey have improvements given what they were able to accomplish in a short period of time? Have weaknesses in the team not been addressed?
The only issue I see with the piece is the reality that not everything is going to go the Raps way this season. Not every player is going to improve, there will be injuries along the way as well as conflicts, and there will be slumps or bad games by key players.... but they are (or should) also be givens.

This coming from a guy who calls writers who aren't positive on the Raptors biased (Hollinger) or 'not journalists' (Simmons) .

Too each their own I guess.

[mcHAPPY]

He at times adjusts for pace, sometimes per 36 and other times just raw numbers - which ofcourse can make a significant difference. His numbers aren't wrong, they just aren't normalized.


But anyways, if you've read Brotherson before, its his Doug Smith without connections approach to the team that I'm assuming makes people question his writing. They are puff peices.

In this article he is basically saying if the Raptors improve in every aspect of basketball, the teams rookies can come in and contribute, and health and chemistry don't have a negative impact on the team (which was simply parroting Colangelo's statement the paragraph above), they'll make the playoffs.

Well that can apply to nearly every team in the league though.

So what is the problem? He is a columnist giving an opinion.

I agree the piece is very optimistic but what is wrong with that? Has the roster not improved on paper? Won't more practice and teaching by Casey have improvements given what they were able to accomplish in a short period of time? Have weaknesses in the team not been addressed?

The only issue I see with the piece is the reality that not everything is going to go the Raps way this season. Not every player is going to improve, there will be injuries along the way as well as conflicts, and there will be slumps or bad games by key players.... but they are (or should) also be givens.

[Puffer]

Thanks for the explanation.

[Craiger]

Just wondering if the points he made are somehow invalid because of who he is? I don't read hoopsworld, so I don't know anything about this guy. Were the numbers he was quoting wrong?

He at times adjusts for pace, sometimes per 36 and other times just raw numbers - which ofcourse can make a significant difference. His numbers aren't wrong, they just aren't normalized.


But anyways, if you've read Brotherson before, its his Doug Smith without connections approach to the team that I'm assuming makes people question his writing. They are puff peices.

In this article he is basically saying if the Raptors improve in every aspect of basketball, the teams rookies can come in and contribute, and health and chemistry don't have a negative impact on the team (which was simply parroting Colangelo's statement the paragraph above), they'll make the playoffs.

Well that can apply to nearly every team in the league though.

[skywalker]

I had a dream last night that Bargnani had his best season ever lol

[Puffer]

Hey...Stephen!...Stephen!?

How much are they paying you!?

Just wondering if the points he made are somehow invalid because of who he is? I don't read hoopsworld, so I don't know anything about this guy. Were the numbers he was quoting wrong?