Everything Bruno Caboclo

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I think a lot of what the argument comes down to is personal opinion over the best way to develop young talent - and this isn't just limited to basketball.

One side prefers to be put into the action, like being thrown into the deep end to learn how to swim; pressure motivates. The other side prefers to develop behind the scenes, waiting to put that practice into action; avoid crumbling under pressure. Yes, I'm sure I'm oversimplifying both sides a little.

Part of it has to do with personality types. Part of it has to do with risk/reward preferences. Part of it has to do with priorities (ie: win now VS rebuilding). Part of it has to do with competing pressures from above.

I get the argument from both sides. The biggest thing for me is that if a coach is going to play a young player in live game action (not just garbage time), I worry that a player who plays afraid (constantly looking over his shoulder and worried about making a mistake, for fear of being benched for the rest of the game) isn't focused on making the most of the opportunity.

To me, making a player play afraid is a bigger risk for stunting long-term individual development than the risk of having the player crumble under pressure as a youngster thrown into the fire, without ever opening him up to potentially have the pressure motivate him to be his best. Either don't play the youngster at all (ie: use practice and D-league) or let him learn from his mistakes (ie: let him show that he understands the mistakes he's making and has the ability to adapt, within the same game, running the same plays against the same opponent).

[stooley]

I get the argument from both sides. The biggest thing for me is that if a coach is going to play a young player in live game action (not just garbage time), I worry that a player who plays afraid (constantly looking over his shoulder and worried about making a mistake, for fear of being benched for the rest of the game) isn't focused on making the most of the opportunity.

To me, making a player play afraid is a bigger risk for stunting long-term individual development than the risk of having the player crumble under pressure as a youngster thrown into the fire, without ever opening him up to potentially have the pressure motivate him to be his best. Either don't play the youngster at all (ie: use practice and D-league) or let him learn from his mistakes (ie: let him show that he understands the mistakes he's making and has the ability to adapt, within the same game, running the same plays against the same opponent).

Now I'm just going off of complete speculation here, but it's possible that the mistakes that receive the most punishment are the ones related to discipline and focus.

So lazy defense or careless dribbling or passing might deserve a pull, but missing a smart shot might not.

[white men can't jump]

The issue isn't just development, it's accountability. It does not send a good message to give some guys a longer leash than others just because of random factors like age or talent. Why should a star player not be held accountable? Why should a vet not be held accountable? With the Raps the frustration has been especially with the latter issue.

It's nice in theory to say that since a guy is a vet, you want to use him in crunch time because you expect him to make less mistakes than a youngster. However if that vet has repeatedly proven that he's both ineffective, and far more mistake-prone than a "good" vet should be, why not bench his ass and at least let the young guy get some experience?

This is why a lot of us keep coming back to Salmons. A vet who wasn't in future plans, and for the last 2+ months of the season was arguably the worst player getting floor time on our whole team....But he still found himself in the game so often in the 4th quarter. Who did it benefit? Certainly not the team when he's making awful decisions and unable to produce on either end. At least playing a youngster like Ross would have the chance of accelerating development in those situations (even if it doesn't, at least there's the chance).

It also sends a bad message that can damage the kid's confidence, or possibly even trust in his coach (I think Casey is good with relationships though, so the first worries me more) if someone clearly worse is getting minutes. I had a lot less problems with late-game situations where Casey would roll out DeMar, GV and Lowry, as at least those guys all provided value on the court. The message is pretty firmly "you're not gonna play until you can do better than one of these guys", which is the right kind of standard to set, as opposed to have a guy think it's just randomly because he's young and there's nothing he can do about it.

[stooley]

It's nice in theory to say that since a guy is a vet, you want to use him in crunch time because you expect him to make less mistakes than a youngster. However if that vet has repeatedly proven that he's both ineffective, and far more mistake-prone than a "good" vet should be, why not bench his ass and at least let the young guy get some experience?

This is why a lot of us keep coming back to Salmons. A vet who wasn't in future plans, and for the last 2+ months of the season was arguably the worst player getting floor time on our whole team....But he still found himself in the game so often in the 4th quarter. Who did it benefit? Certainly not the team when he's making awful decisions and unable to produce on either end. At least playing a youngster like Ross would have the chance of accelerating development in those situations (even if it doesn't, at least there's the chance).

Well, I'm not sure if this caused it, but the Raptors were one of the best fourth quarter teams in the league last year, weren't they?

So if that has anything to do with Casey's coaching then the rest of the argument doesn't really apply.

[white men can't jump]

Well, I'm not sure if this caused it, but the Raptors were one of the best fourth quarter teams in the league last year, weren't they?

So if that has anything to do with Casey's coaching then the rest of the argument doesn't really apply.

They were also one of the worst close-game teams in crunch time. So there's that too.

*I would argue a lot of our success in 4th quarters was because Amir-2Pat-DeMar-Lowry (I'd guess our most frequent combo late in games) formed a really strong unit. The best we could usually hope from Salmons was that he would at least play some D and not do terrible things on O. And without real evidence, I also feel like as the season wore on, Greivis would supplant Salmons fairly often, giving us a very strong offensive unit with only one really weak defensive player.

[stooley]

They were also one of the worst close-game teams in crunch time. So there's that too.

I dunno, nba.com has them as 9th best performance in crunch time.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamClutc...&sortOrder=DES

[stooley]

I would argue a lot of our success in 4th quarters was because Amir-2Pat-DeMar-Lowry (I'd guess our most frequent combo late in games) formed a really strong unit. The best we could usually hope from Salmons was that he would at least play some D and not do terrible things on O. And without real evidence, I also feel like as the season wore on, Greivis would supplant Salmons fairly often, giving us a very strong offensive unit with only one really weak defensive player.

Maybe, maybe not.

But that's not really much to go on to say that accountability within the team is an issue.

[white men can't jump]

I dunno, nba.com has them as 9th best performance in crunch time.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamClutc...&sortOrder=DES

That is flawed though. You're ranking by +/-, which in no way helps describe what happens situationally, nor does it represent results. In the end, the best stat for performance is the most basic, Ws and Ls.

The Raptors were a very good fourth-quarter team a year ago, outscoring opponents by 195 points in that final frame, easily the biggest edge they had in any quarter. But when it came to close games, the Raptors were vulnerable. In game decided by five points or less the Raptors were 7-14. In games decided by three or less they were 3-8. In seven overtime games, the Raptors managed just one win against six losses.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/16...in-crunch-time

Those are horrible numbers for a team that won 48 games (and outpaced that post-trade). They did some good things late in games (especially defensively), but were an awful offensive team, and clearly had issues finding ways to win tight games.

*It's definitely hard to tell what impact exactly the juggling of vets vs. kids had on this, but watching enough games there were more than a few situations where the vet clearly failed in exactly the role Casey trusted him to fill because he's a vet. This can be more a problem of actual talent available, or just a coach not doing good enough with the xs and os to make things easy (or players really failing miserably to execute a decent plan). However it was certainly extremely frustrating having to watch a vet fail way too many times while a youngster gets far fewer chances.

[chico]

This label is based on years of observations going back to his time in Minnesota. And you are the one coloring it with your own perceptions, by suggesting his critics think it's an "infantile" bias and that he is being tagged "a fool".

I like Casey in general. I don't think he's a fool at all. My only problem with the way he develops kids is that he is far too focused on short term results over long term ones.

Every time he avoided playing JV in the fourth quarter just pushed back the timetable for when JV would be ready for those situations. Giving opportunities to journeyman vets in situations where we were clearly rebuilding simply devalues the time we have young players under contract.

And there are confidence issues too. Casey's short leash can have a significant impact on players' confidence; young guys are so worried about making mistakes that they overthink the game and lose their natural flow.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/b...51&src=desktop

Saying that critics of Casey are calling him infantile/a fool is an oversimplistic straw man.

"Saying that critics of Casey are calling him infantile/a fool is an oversimplistic straw man."

Not at all. No straw men present. That terminology is simply my summarization and characterization of the oft repeated rhetoric surrounding Casey's handling of the kids. Some of the "opinions" has been repeated so often, even as certainty, by various posters that it has become reality to some.

However, you do provide some fine examples of what I speak. I would venture to say you speak to an awful lot of certainty of subjects you know nothing about: coach's short-term vs long-term priorities, devaluing young players under contract (yeah, while starting the only 2 sophs starting in the playoffs), young players' confidence and psyche (who you know from TV and he deals with in person every day).

Hey, if that's what turns your crank, carry on, but it is a public forum and you may encounter the odd poster that will question your declarations, based on your scant information and expertise that you seem to think is far greater than reality.

SVG talking about player development at 30:45

Thank you for that. According to many posters, not only does Casey not get it, but SVG doesn't know what he's talking about either. We got some brilliant basketball minds around, but they're not employed in the NBA.

Now I'm just going off of complete speculation here, but it's possible that the mistakes that receive the most punishment are the ones related to discipline and focus.

So lazy defense or careless dribbling or passing might deserve a pull, but missing a smart shot might not.

Well, I'm not sure if this caused it, but the Raptors were one of the best fourth quarter teams in the league last year, weren't they?

So if that has anything to do with Casey's coaching then the rest of the argument doesn't really apply.

Yes. So many still hung up on Salmons terrible shooting down the stretch, but it was his DEFENSE that got him 4th quarter minutes. Defense that TRoss wasn't providing, perhaps lacking the focus that was the minimum standard set for him? He'll learn a lot more from that than rewarding him with playing time he didn't earn. Who cares whether Salmons was being held to the same standard? He was going to be gone, while Ross is being developed for the future. And let's not pretend Ross is too dumb to understand the distinction.

[white men can't jump]

Maybe, maybe not.

But that's not really much to go on to say that accountability within the team is an issue.

I honestly think a lot of that is management doing an excellent job (even going back to BC) in gauging character. Raps have not had a lot of inflated egos or boneheads in their locker room. And I did give credit to Casey for his "relationship" skills, which definitely helps, as guys still trust him despite the times when maybe they'd want more minutes. Again, I'm more worried it will affect the player's own self-confidence rather than have a truly corrosive impact on team chemistry.

[white men can't jump]

I dunno, nba.com has them as 9th best performance in crunch time.

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamClutc...&sortOrder=DES

And just to offer a different perspective using a within-team clutch ranking...I still don't like +/- very much, but here you go.

http://stats.nba.com/leaguePlayerClu...&sortOrder=DES

The way this list looks would seem to support more the "talent helps you win" angle over "vets help you win".

In case the link fails or anyone's just plain lazy, the basic +/- ranking in clutch for the Raps:
-Greivis (1.7)
-Jonas (1.6)
-Amir (1.4)
-DeMar (0.9)
-Lowry (0.7)
-Ross (0.6)
-Patterson (0.4)
-Novak (0.0)
-Nando (-0.3)
-Salmons (-0.9)
-Fields (-1.3)
-Hayes (-1.6)
-Hansbrough (-2.5)
-Buycks (-5.5)

[MACK11]

The issue isn't just development, it's accountability. It does not send a good message to give some guys a longer leash than others just because of random factors like age or talent. Why should a star player not be held accountable? Why should a vet not be held accountable? With the Raps the frustration has been especially with the latter issue.

It's nice in theory to say that since a guy is a vet, you want to use him in crunch time because you expect him to make less mistakes than a youngster. However if that vet has repeatedly proven that he's both ineffective, and far more mistake-prone than a "good" vet should be, why not bench his ass and at least let the young guy get some experience?

This is why a lot of us keep coming back to Salmons. A vet who wasn't in future plans, and for the last 2+ months of the season was arguably the worst player getting floor time on our whole team....But he still found himself in the game so often in the 4th quarter. Who did it benefit? Certainly not the team when he's making awful decisions and unable to produce on either end. At least playing a youngster like Ross would have the chance of accelerating development in those situations (even if it doesn't, at least there's the chance).

It also sends a bad message that can damage the kid's confidence, or possibly even trust in his coach (I think Casey is good with relationships though, so the first worries me more) if someone clearly worse is getting minutes. I had a lot less problems with late-game situations where Casey would roll out DeMar, GV and Lowry, as at least those guys all provided value on the court. The message is pretty firmly "you're not gonna play until you can do better than one of these guys", which is the right kind of standard to set, as opposed to have a guy think it's just randomly because he's young and there's nothing he can do about it.

+100000

This is exactly why a lot of us are frustrated with the development. We're not saying play a young guy 35min per game but to give him a shorter leash just because of age is ridiculous

[Chr1s1anL]

You guys have to think of what Casey holds players accountable for. If I had to guess its D. If that's the case than him playing his vets over the young guys is fair.

[white men can't jump]

You guys have to think of what Casey holds players accountable for. If I had to guess its D. If that's the case than him playing his vets over the young guys is fair.

Well, D is hard to measure, and there's certainly no stat I like very much, but using nba's stats page and sorting for DRTG in the clutch, the evidence isn't very good in that respect.

http://stats.nba.com/leaguePlayerClu...erMode=PerGame

Again:
-Greivis (86.1)
-Jonas (88.8)
-Pat (95.3)
-Amir (95.9)
-DeMar (95.9)
-Lowry (97.1)
-Ross (100.0)
-Salmons (106.8)
-Fields (108.7)
-Hansbrough (116.3)
-Hayes (118.8)
-Nando (119.3)
-Novak (132.5)
-Buycks (137.6)

[MixxAOR]

Casey dropped Salmons minutes every month.

Dec. - 26.5 min
Jan. - 23 min
Feb. - 22 min
March - 17.4 min
April - 18.7 min
Playoffs - 12.8 min