Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Valanciunas

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

  • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
    Alright. I guess none of the other teams in the east are even a remote threat to us except Cleveland then. Should be smooth sailing to the ECF.
    Would have been in the ECF again if Cleveland took the end of the regular season seriously and clinched the 1st seed.

    Comment


    • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
      Alright. I guess none of the other teams in the east are even a remote threat to us except Cleveland then. Should be smooth sailing to the ECF.
      I don't think there's a single poster who has suggested anything like this.

      Comment


      • Celtics, Washington are not trash. But they are not head and shoulders above us to the point it's doomsday for Raptors
        Only one thing matters: We The Champs.

        Comment


        • Boston made the ECF with essentially a team of league average players, now they have a significantly above average player in Hayward. Whereas we've exchange a difference maker in Tucker, for C.J. Miles, an average player. Not saying we should be scared, but I would say we've lost ground. Carroll and Joseph are easily replaced with Powell and Wright.

          We're definitely betting on internal growth.

          Comment


          • Tucker is a good defender but we didn't lose an all star when he left. He is replaceable.

            Comment


            • Quirk wrote: View Post
              Boston made the ECF with essentially a team of league average players, now they have a significantly above average player in Hayward. Whereas we've exchange a difference maker in Tucker, for C.J. Miles, an average player. Not saying we should be scared, but I would say we've lost ground. Carroll and Joseph are easily replaced with Powell and Wright.

              We're definitely betting on internal growth.
              So, IT and Avery Bradley are average players, but PJ Tucker is not?

              Nevermind that the pre-Tucker/Ibaka Raptors would have smacked the Celts around in the playoffs if Pat, DD and Lowry were healthy.
              twitter.com/dhackett1565

              Comment


              • Quirk wrote: View Post
                Boston made the ECF with essentially a team of league average players, now they have a significantly above average player in Hayward. Whereas we've exchange a difference maker in Tucker, for C.J. Miles, an average player. Not saying we should be scared, but I would say we've lost ground. Carroll and Joseph are easily replaced with Powell and Wright.

                We're definitely betting on internal growth.
                This (although I don't agree Boston had average players, Isaiah Thomas is a star player, Horford is borderline all-star and Crowder/Bradley are above average starters). I don't know why people here are so biased in favor or the Raptors that they can't see this.

                I like the Raptors too, but Boston improved their squad this offseason, we at BEST stood pat and I'd argue got worse losing Tucker and 2Pat with no replacements.

                The same people arguing that Poeltl can't start because he "isn't ready" think that our 2nd and 3rd year guys off the bench can make the same contributions as established, experienced players like Tucker and 2Pat. Maybe they can, I'm not saying they can't, but it's very interesting how people just flip-flop on either side of this narrative as they see fit.

                If we added Gordon Hayward this summer we'd be saying that our squad got MUCH MUCH better, even if we lost Tucker and 2Pat. So stop denying it for Boston.

                Comment


                • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
                  This (although I don't agree Boston had average players, Isaiah Thomas is a star player, Horford is borderline all-star and Crowder/Bradley are above average starters). I don't know why people here are so biased in favor or the Raptors that they can't see this.

                  I like the Raptors too, but Boston improved their squad this offseason, we at BEST stood pat and I'd argue got worse losing Tucker and 2Pat with no replacements.

                  The same people arguing that Poeltl can't start because he "isn't ready" think that our 2nd and 3rd year guys off the bench can make the same contributions as established, experienced players like Tucker and 2Pat. Maybe they can, I'm not saying they can't, but it's very interesting how people just flip-flop on either side of this narrative as they see fit.

                  If we added Gordon Hayward this summer we'd be saying that our squad got MUCH MUCH better, even if we lost Tucker and 2Pat. So stop denying it for Boston.
                  Who is flip-flopping? I've been consistent in my stance that Poeltl and Siakam should be perfectly capable of holding their own against bench opposition, specifically in lineups designed to have the bench guys survive while DeRozan or Lowry take advantage of lesser competition, and at the same time have better, more ready players ahead of them on the depth chart who should start over them. Is there any inconsistency at all there?

                  Boston won 53 games last year. If they got much, much better, how many more games should they expect to win? 55+? If the over-under is set at 55.5 wins for them, are you taking the over or the under? I'm taking the under, no question, as I do not think they got much, much better. They may have gotten somewhat better - but not better enough to pick them against the Raptors in a series.
                  twitter.com/dhackett1565

                  Comment


                  • DanH wrote: View Post
                    Who is flip-flopping? I've been consistent in my stance that Poeltl and Siakam should be perfectly capable of holding their own against bench opposition, specifically in lineups designed to have the bench guys survive while DeRozan or Lowry take advantage of lesser competition, and at the same time have better, more ready players ahead of them on the depth chart who should start over them. Is there any inconsistency at all there?

                    Boston won 53 games last year. If they got much, much better, how many more games should they expect to win? 55+? If the over-under is set at 55.5 wins for them, are you taking the over or the under? I'm taking the under, no question, as I do not think they got much, much better. They may have gotten somewhat better - but not better enough to pick them against the Raptors in a series.
                    Meh, not a good argument. They won 53 games but outperformed their expected W-L (48-34) by 5 games. They wouldn't need to win over 55 to show that they improved (although I could see that happening) because their team won more than their ability/performance should have.

                    Raptors were slightly better than Boston last year on paper, the expected W-L and point/PPP differential bears that out. However they have improved while we have taken a step back this summer, so I don't understand the certainty of you and others that we'd beat them in a series. Even last year I wouldn't have been confident given our tendency to drastically under-perform in the playoffs the past 4 years.

                    Comment


                    • Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
                      This (although I don't agree Boston had average players, Isaiah Thomas is a star player, Horford is borderline all-star and Crowder/Bradley are above average starters). I don't know why people here are so biased in favor or the Raptors that they can't see this.

                      I like the Raptors too, but Boston improved their squad this offseason, we at BEST stood pat and I'd argue got worse losing Tucker and 2Pat with no replacements.

                      The same people arguing that Poeltl can't start because he "isn't ready" think that our 2nd and 3rd year guys off the bench can make the same contributions as established, experienced players like Tucker and 2Pat. Maybe they can, I'm not saying they can't, but it's very interesting how people just flip-flop on either side of this narrative as they see fit.

                      If we added Gordon Hayward this summer we'd be saying that our squad got MUCH MUCH better, even if we lost Tucker and 2Pat. So stop denying it for Boston.
                      Hayward is a nice addition for Boston, but they lost two of their best players in Bradley and Olynyk (perimeter shooting). I think both were starters. We lost a couple of bench players who I think can be replaced much more easily. If Boston starts their best 5 players then it's a line up of IT, Hayward, Crawford Tatum and Horford. And the only key guy off the bench which comes to mind is Smart. It's a pretty balanced starting 5 for them, but Tatum is a big question mark unless you buy into summer league hype. I think they closed the distance a bit, but we're still ahead, and have the continuity/chemistry and vet factor going for us. Plus at the last presser Masai mentioned he would be looking to add a player or two if I recall. Not going to be a big move, but likely a solid contributor off the bench who can help defend those big 3's we're all so worried about. OG is a big unknown for us. Could easily slip into 2Pat's role

                      Comment


                      • So JV huh....
                        Twitter @WJ_FINDLAY

                        Comment


                        • DanH wrote: View Post
                          So, IT and Avery Bradley are average players, but PJ Tucker is not?

                          Nevermind that the pre-Tucker/Ibaka Raptors would have smacked the Celts around in the playoffs if Pat, DD and Lowry were healthy.
                          So I wrote a team of "essentially a team of league average players," not "every player on the team is exactly league average"

                          Bradley is slightly above average, IT, like Tucker is significantly above average, a difference maker, but not an elite player by any means. Hayward is much more productive than either. Neither Thomas or Bradley should be a started on an elite team. What Boston accomplished with a team of essentially league average players is amazing.

                          i.e., here is how WP ranks them:

                          boxscore geeks


                          (please don't make this a thread about WP itself, it's just one measure)

                          Comment


                          • Quirk wrote: View Post
                            So I wrote a team of "essentially a team of league average players," not "every player on the team is exactly league average"

                            Bradley is slightly above average, IT, like Tucker is significantly above average, a difference maker, but not an elite player by any means. Hayward is much more productive than either. Neither Thomas or Bradley should be a started on an elite team. What Boston accomplished with a team of essentially league average players is amazing.

                            i.e., here is how WP ranks them:

                            boxscore geeks


                            (please don't make this a thread about WP itself, it's just one measure)
                            Yeah, it's just one measure. By WS, IT is a superstar, same with by PER. He has an incredibly high BPM, and a very solid (well above average) RPM.

                            Thomas absolutely comes with a load of drawbacks, and he's a big reason why BOS is as limited as they are, but the value he provides is nowhere remotely close to average.

                            Besides (the dramatically flawed) WP, is there a single measure that shows Hayward is significantly better than Thomas, for example? He's like a +3 in RPM to IT's +2; that's about it. That's not some different tier.
                            twitter.com/dhackett1565

                            Comment


                            • DanH wrote: View Post
                              So, IT and Avery Bradley are average players, but PJ Tucker is not?

                              Nevermind that the pre-Tucker/Ibaka Raptors would have smacked the Celts around in the playoffs if Pat, DD and Lowry were healthy, and DD and Lowry didn't play like they normally do in the playoffs.
                              Dan you forgot something, I fixed it for you.
                              "Stop eating your sushi."
                              "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                              "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                              - Jack Armstrong

                              Comment


                              • DanH wrote: View Post
                                is there a single measure that shows Hayward is significantly better than Thomas, for example? He's like a +3 in RPM to IT's +2; that's about it. That's not some different tier.
                                This part makes my point. Thomas, as I already noted, is probably the best player on the team, and they've added a player in Hayward, who is at least as good, perhaps better (imo much better) than Thomas, their best player.

                                While we have traded a difference maker in Tucker, a well above average player, for a league average player in CJ Mills.

                                This would mean that the only thing we are counting on to not lose ground to Boston is internal growth. Which exactly what my comment said.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X