#FireCasey

[JawsGT]

I too think that this team has overachieved. Had anyone suggested prior to the season that we would be 31-15 at this point and on pace for 55.3 wins then I may have laughed at them, but been ecstatic nonetheless as it would be exceeded my expectations. I think most here would probably agree with that.

However, after watching the games I can't seem to explain how this is happening. It's been very confusing for me. And although I have a better understanding now of what they are doing on the court as opposed to 30-40 games back, I still don't get it. McHappy's concerns, and others, are quite valid. The way we play doesn't seem to be a good recipe for success. It's working, to an extent, but how far can it take us with the current roster? The ceiling, I imagine, is much lower than other systems being showcased around the league.

I like the progression the team has made, but not sure I like how it's been achieved. And I think this team can continue to improve. In a way, I think the early success this season has elevated many fans expectations of this team. I don't feel I am one of them. Second round appearance is all I expect. I do not expect this team to be able to beat the Bulls or Cavs in a 7 game series, and now you can include the Hawks. I would think this regardless of the coach or early season success. Incremental steps for growth of the club. That's realistic. We need to temper our expectations because we are probably further along our development than many would have thought and at the same time the way we play probably has a lower ceiling than the combined capability of the roster.

[Bendit]

I assume this is a reaction to great offensive play by the Raptors (last night). Anytime a team has 29 assists, shoots 50% from 3pts on 17-34 and 7 players in double figs. ....that is a very pleasing sight nevermind the W. The concern is always how sustainable is this...do we have the personnel playing the GSW game (which is what that was). Conventional wisdom is that only high percentage jumpshooting by a team is not the way to go (it doent last)...but mix it in with lots of assists/passing along with passable defense and I'll take it for this team. Was last night an opponent not defending well enough....we shall see...but I sense a return from the malaise of earlier portion of January.

[stooley]

It's a battle between the emotional vs the rational

I've been one of the most rational people in the room.

The Raptors offensive rating in the regular season was 112.7.
The Raptors offensive rating in the playoffs was 108.2.

The Raptors points per game in the regular season was 101.3.
The Raptors PPG in the playoffs was 96.1.

The Raptors OffRTG was average in the playoffs (108.2) - 8th of 16 teams.
The Ratpors DefRTG was also average (110.0) - 8th of 16.


If you take out game three where they scored 115 points the numbers get much uglier - and closer to the truth.


**The full season numbers also take in to account the ugly Gay start to season. So the drop off in the playoffs was even more disturbing.

Could you link this? I was trying to find these numbers at work today and was having a tough time. Bball reference seems to have an ortg right around 109 for our regular season as well.

103
83
115
87
98
100
87


47.8%
38.5%
53.3%
41.3%
46.3%
47.4%
39.4%



Which numbers stand out as extremes relative to the others?
Which numbers are well above average?
Which numbers are well above mean?

It's not really an outlier if its just 15% above average though. It's not like we scored 150 one game or something. You'd be hard pressed to find statisticians using such a narrow range for an outlier.

1.5 times the interquartile range, outside of the interquartile range is a pretty standard number. Our interquartile range is 87-100, and that's with a kind of stupidly small sample, erring on the low side, so 115 is pretty comfortable in there.

[Mindlessness]

Had anyone suggested prior to the season that we would be 31-15 at this point and on pace for 55.3 wins.... I still don't get it. McHappy's concerns, and others, are quite valid. The way we play doesn't seem to be a good recipe for success. It's working, to an extent, but how far can it take us with the current roster? The ceiling, I imagine, is much lower than other systems being showcased around the league.

This is kind of a point, isn't it? If the team's playing so badly systems-wise, but winning games at a fantastic rate, wouldn't changing to a better system, I dunno, improve the team evermore?

[stooley]

This is kind of a point, isn't it? If the team's playing so badly systems-wise, but winning games at a fantastic rate, wouldn't changing to a better system, I dunno, improve the team evermore?

Maybe. It may also be that our system isn't as bad as alot of people here make it out to be.

[raptors999]

Maybe. It may also be that our system isn't as bad as alot of people here make it out to be.

Systems sucks, beating up on crap teams. In February schedule gets really hard making the West Coast trip look like a blip.

[stooley]

Systems sucks, beating up on crap teams. In February schedule gets really hard making the West Coast trip look like a blip.

great insight. thanks for that.

[raptors999]

great insight. thanks for that.

That are pages of posts detailing problem as well as articles now. What's the point of going back into detail after every win against poor teams.

[stooley]

That are pages of posts detailing problem as well as articles now. What's the point of going back into detail after every win against poor teams.

Eh... Nevermind. I don't know why I bother

[mcHAPPY]

I've been one of the most rational people in the room.



Could you link this? I was trying to find these numbers at work today and was having a tough time. Bball reference seems to have an ortg right around 109 for our regular season as well.



It's not really an outlier if its just 15% above average though. It's not like we scored 150 one game or something. You'd be hard pressed to find statisticians using such a narrow range for an outlier.

1.5 times the interquartile range, outside of the interquartile range is a pretty standard number. Our interquartile range is 87-100, and that's with a kind of stupidly small sample, erring on the low side, so 115 is pretty comfortable in there.

All the numbers came from basketball reference 2013-14 regular season and 2014 playoffs.

The eFG% post gay trade and this season reference made to Chr1st1an came from stats.nba.com

15% isn't much of a variance but in context of basketball, an extra 19 points is significant especially in a small sample size, in my opinion.

[SamMitchells]

Sam Mitchell: Thank you for noticing my math is shitty. Lol. I think this roster is a 48 to 50 win team.

Hehe . Thought I was tripping out !

[stooley]

All the numbers came from basketball reference 2013-14 regular season and 2014 playoffs.

The eFG% post gay trade and this season reference made to Chr1st1an came from stats.nba.com

15% isn't much of a variance but in context of basketball, an extra 19 points is significant especially in a small sample size, in my opinion.

We can disagree on the outlier thing. It would be a lot easier for the sake of argument if we included it though (just for finding stats and stuff). If it's unclear too, it's probably safer just to include all the data.

bball reference here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2014.html
gives us an ORTG of 108.8 on the regular season.

and here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1.html#BRK-TOR
an ORTG of 109.2 for the playoffs.

And since our ORtg and DRtg were 10th to end the year, I feel like 8th in the playoffs is kind of expected.

I may be reading those stats wrong, but it seems pretty consistent (which is actually kind of unexpected just given the nature of the 'test').

[JawsGT]

This is kind of a point, isn't it? If the team's playing so badly systems-wise, but winning games at a fantastic rate, wouldn't changing to a better system, I dunno, improve the team evermore?

Yeah exactly. I almost find it tough to criticize because the team is winning. I'm no basketball guru by any stretch of the imagination, but it freakin blows my mind that we are winning at such a high rate with below average defense. Our defense was pretty solid last season after the Gay trade and was the foundation of the success of the team. But this season the philosophy seems to have changed, or at least the execution of the philosophy, and we are winning mostly due to our offense. I just never envisioned this team as being capable of being a top offence. And then when I try to pick a part the offence, it becomes even more confusing. ISO heavy just doesn't seem like it can succeed in today's league, but here we are winning alot of games with this style. So, yeah, you wonder if the team employed a different approach, would they be even better, or is this actually the way to play to maximize success with this roster?

[golden]

Maybe. It may also be that our system isn't as bad as alot of people here make it out to be.

This system itself can work when there's ball movement, off-ball movement and a mixture of plays. HORNS is more than flexible enough to accommodate cuts, catch & shoots, PnRs, etc... We've seen that over and over. It's when it devolves into the much discussed guard-heavy ISOs that it becomes easy to defend.

One article was suggesting that Casey is allowing DD, Lowry, Lou and GV to decide the play call, so perhaps we should be focusing on the decision making of those guys within the system, or that Casey needs to be reigning them in a bit more.

[stooley]

This system itself can work when there's ball movement, off-ball movement and a mixture of plays. HORNS is more than flexible enough to accommodate cuts, catch & shoots, PnRs, etc... We've seen that over and over. It's when it devolves into the much discussed guard-heavy ISOs that it becomes easy to defend.

One article was suggesting that Casey is allowing DD, Lowry, Lou and GV to decide the play call, so perhaps we should be focusing on the decision making of those guys within the system, or that Casey needs to be reigning them in a bit more.

Well said and I totally agree.
I really enjoy reading a lot of your posts and think you offer pretty good insight with a level head.