Everything OG Anunoby

[SkywalkerAC]

Guys, when you go small, positions go out the window.

[planetmars]

Guys, when you go small, positions go out the window.

You still need that position-less line up to succeed. We'll be great at the perimeter and can switch on to everybody and anybody.. but when the opponent misses.. who's grabbing the rebound? That would be my concern.

[SkywalkerAC]

You still need that position-less line up to succeed. We'll be great at the perimeter and can switch on to everybody and anybody.. but when the opponent misses.. who's grabbing the rebound? That would be my concern.

Sure, but that's a different discussion than "who's going to play the 3, who's going to play the 4?"

The rebounding issue gets mitigated when you can go 'positionless' but stay long, like the Warriors do.

[white men can't jump]

Sure, but that's a different discussion than "who's going to play the 3, who's going to play the 4?"

The rebounding issue gets mitigated when you can go 'positionless' but stay long, like the Warriors do.

I would argue it's strength that matters just as much. Durant and Curry are weak, but yeah, Durant is a 7 footer basically. However, Thompson, Iguodala and Green (especially the latter 2) are all very strong physically. Thompson it's mostly just for a SG, but Iguodala and Green are strong enough to hold up in physical games.

This would easily be something that could translate in the miracle scenario where we have Giannis, OG and Kawhi, who are also all strong, but Giannis also has that freak length like Durant.

Siakam is decently strong but he's wiry still, and needs to fill out more. We'd have a hard time competing physically with him as our C, so he can still only play the 5 in very specific matchups. The way Giannis is looking, he looks like he could play the 5 in all but a few matchups. Giannis is looking stronger than Garnett, who was a full time big.

[SkywalkerAC]

I would argue it's strength that matters just as much. Durant and Curry are weak, but yeah, Durant is a 7 footer basically. However, Thompson, Iguodala and Green (especially the latter 2) are all very strong physically. Thompson it's mostly just for a SG, but Iguodala and Green are strong enough to hold up in physical games.

This would easily be something that could translate in the miracle scenario where we have Giannis, OG and Kawhi, who are also all strong, but Giannis also has that freak length like Durant.

Siakam is decently strong but he's wiry still, and needs to fill out more. We'd have a hard time competing physically with him as our C, so he can still only play the 5 in very specific matchups. The way Giannis is looking, he looks like he could play the 5 in all but a few matchups. Giannis is looking stronger than Garnett, who was a full time big.

Sure, but that is comparing them to one of the greatest lineups in the history of the game. A frontcourt of Leonard/OG/Siakam should be able to run most opponents off the court as long as they get rebounding help from their guards (Delon/Powell).

But I might agree that it's the the best use of resources, save for select minutes, because we can play fast but bigger. Let Pascal do his damage as a 4-man and go uber long on the wings and maximize blocks/steals/deflections.

Pumped for a lineup like Lowry/Leonard/OG/Pascal/Ibaka.

[white men can't jump]

Sure, but that is comparing them to one of the greatest lineups in the history of the game. A frontcourt of Leonard/OG/Siakam should be able to run most opponents off the court as long as they get rebounding help from their guards (Delon/Powell).

But I might agree that it's the the best use of resources, save for select minutes, because we can play fast but bigger. Let Pascal do his damage as a 4-man and go uber long on the wings and maximize blocks/steals/deflections.

Pumped for a lineup like Lowry/Leonard/OG/Pascal/Ibaka.

Well yeah, because no other team in the history of the league has really been successful not playing a natural big. Who else is it worth comparing small lineups too? And a big reason they're successful isn't just that they're long for non-bigs, it's also that they don't just get easily pushed around. That's not even getting into offensive versatility.

[S.R.]

Meh, arguably the two best teams in the league last year used Draymond Green and Clint Capela at the 5 with 4 perimeter players for the most important minutes of games. Both teams also had bigger bodies on the roster and used them as needed. I'm not sure how talking about any combo of Ibaka/Siakam at the 5 + 4 perimeter players for the Raptors is even an issue. The context/match-ups considerations are all a given imho.

Houston and GS both rebounded worse than Toronto last season, btw. Raps were 8th overall as a team, I'm not that concerned about boards.

[DanH]

Meh, arguably the two best teams in the league last year used Draymond Green and Clint Capela at the 5 with 4 perimeter players for the most important minutes of games. Both teams also had bigger bodies on the roster and used them as needed. I'm not sure how talking about any combo of Ibaka/Siakam at the 5 + 4 perimeter players for the Raptors is even an issue. The context/match-ups considerations are all a given imho.

Houston and GS both rebounded worse than Toronto last season, btw. Raps were 8th overall as a team, I'm not that concerned about boards.

Comparing teams by TRB% doesn't make much sense. And HOU and GSW had basically identical rebounding rates as Toronto did (50.8% vs 50.9%). More pertinent is that the Raptors were two teams last year - the rebounding team with JV on the court (79% DRB%), and the rebounding team with him off the court (75% DRB%). Also known as "5th" and "dead last." The Raptors have not proven they can play small on a consistent basis and put up the rebounding numbers needed to not significantly damage their defence.

I think people post about the concern with matchups because we aren't sure whether the small ball will be used situationally like last year or not. If we were all 100% certain the matchup use would be perfect there's be no concern. But defaulting to a small ball look when closing, for example, is not that.

[LJ2]

Comparing teams by TRB% doesn't make much sense. And HOU and GSW had basically identical rebounding rates as Toronto did (50.8% vs 50.9%). More pertinent is that the Raptors were two teams last year - the rebounding team with JV on the court (79% DRB%), and the rebounding team with him off the court (75% DRB%). Also known as "5th" and "dead last." The Raptors have not proven they can play small on a consistent basis and put up the rebounding numbers needed to not significantly damage their defence.

I think people post about the concern with matchups because we aren't sure whether the small ball will be used situationally like last year or not. If we were all 100% certain the matchup use would be perfect there's be no concern. But defaulting to a small ball look when closing, for example, is not that.

So during 4th quarters when JV normally was on the bench, we were the worst defensive rebounding team in the NBA? And we still got 59 wins, so is the point you are trying to make that DRB isn't a huge impact stat...at least when closing a game?

[DanH]

So during 4th quarters when JV normally was on the bench, we were the worst defensive rebounding team in the NBA? And we still got 59 wins, so is the point you are trying to make that DRB isn't a huge impact stat...at least when closing a game?

We had a below average clutch rating and lost a lot of close games (more than you'd expect with our overall record) - except when JV played. They were 7-7 in close games JV didn't close. 16-11 in games he did. Had a -9 clutch net rating without JV, and a +3 clutch net rating with JV.

Against opposing bench units, you can generally get away with poor rebounding because bench scorers are less efficient (generally) so it doesn't kill you giving up extra chances (and our bench was dominant offensively and defensively, which makes up for a lot on the boards). Give Steph or Harden or LeBron extra shots and you will suffer for it.

[SkywalkerAC]

Well yeah, because no other team in the history of the league has really been successful not playing a natural big. Who else is it worth comparing small lineups too? And a big reason they're successful isn't just that they're long for non-bigs, it's also that they don't just get easily pushed around. That's not even getting into offensive versatility.

I don't know about that. I've seen Boris Diaw out there playing centre for good teams. The Golden State team that beat the Mavs way back when featured Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson at the 4/5, with Biedrins only getting 20 min a game or so. Then there's the Cavs K-Love at centre (great rebounder I'm aware), the Heat with a jump-shooting Bosh at centre, and many other examples over the past 5-7 years.

[white men can't jump]

I don't know about that. I've seen Boris Diaw out there playing centre for good teams. The Golden State team that beat the Mavs way back when featured Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson at the 4/5, with Biedrins only getting 20 min a game or so. Then there's the Cavs K-Love at centre (great rebounder I'm aware), the Heat with a jump-shooting Bosh at centre, and many other examples over the past 5-7 years.

Diaw was a "big", basically a point power forward. Especially post-PHX. Love and Bosh are natural bigs. I said natural big, not C.

That old GSW team pulled off one upset and did nothing else of note at all.

The new GSW team plays stretches against all kinds of units with no big whatsoever on the court. They can do it because of how spectacularly talented and versatile their personnel are and they still don't get pushed around easily.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[white men can't jump]

We had a below average clutch rating and lost a lot of close games (more than you'd expect with our overall record) - except when JV played. They were 7-7 in close games JV didn't close. 16-11 in games he did. Had a -9 clutch net rating without JV, and a +3 clutch net rating with JV.

Against opposing bench units, you can generally get away with poor rebounding because bench scorers are less efficient (generally) so it doesn't kill you giving up extra chances (and our bench was dominant offensively and defensively, which makes up for a lot on the boards). Give Steph or Harden or LeBron extra shots and you will suffer for it.

The thing that this makes me excited for is mostly that we replaced our coach.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[SkywalkerAC]

Diaw was a "big", basically a point power forward. Especially post-PHX. Love and Bosh are natural bigs. I said natural big, not C.

That old GSW team pulled off one upset and did nothing else of note at all.

The new GSW team plays stretches against all kinds of units with no big whatsoever on the court. They can do it because of how spectacularly talented and versatile their personnel are and they still don't get pushed around easily.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Right, but we're talking about running Siakam at the 5. Doesn't have the caboose of Diaw, but still a "big". I don't think anyone has suggested sliding OG/Leonard to the 4/5.

[white men can't jump]

Right, but we're talking about running Siakam at the 5. Doesn't have the caboose of Diaw, but still a "big". I don't think anyone has suggested sliding OG/Leonard to the 4/5.

Right, but Siakam hasn't shown a high level of physicality and can't shoot (hopefully the latter improves). So he won't help spread your offence (ie pull a big away from the rim) or be able to match a big body down low all that well.

So it can still only be very situational while all that is true.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk