What the Raptors are missing? (Points Per Shot)

[rapfan10]

Derozan would thrive as a number 2 option. I feel that he got much better/ efficient looks right before gay got traded. He has improved but we need another scorer at sf

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Masai Ujiri]

I know that and I said as much. The difference is that pro-tankers felt that one of them (ideally Gay, but more likely DeRozan) needed to go, while the other (ideally DeRozan) could possibly be traded (not dumped/unloaded, but traded in a good value trade of present talent for future talent type move). There was never a call to unload/dump everybody. Exploring trade opportunities to return packages of good young prospects and draft picks is an entirely different thing altogether. The only commonality between them is the future-looking aspect.



I also included the Gay trade as part of the explanation for #1 seemingly being addressed. I don't believe for a second that any poster - pro, anti or neutral on tanking - envisioned such a significant improvement in the team's performance and W/L record following the Gay trade. Yes, it may have been hoped that some players would benefit from removing Gay's black-hole offense, but definitely not to the degree we've seen thus far.




Again, this is no different than what any pro-tanker was pushing for. The only difference is that most people (not just pro-tankers) assumed that trading Gay or DeRozan would not have such a profoundly positive impact on the team's record. It was widely assumed by posters and NBA experts/insiders/reporters alike, that the result of such a trade would have been a less competitive team (ie: tanking).

Given the near-immediate rumors of Lowry being shopped following the Gay trade, I would personally be inclined to include MU in that list of people who believed the Gay trade was more of a tank/rebuilding/gaining flexibility deal than a move intended to improve the team this season.

Newsflash btw... I'm a pro-tanker.

Exceedingly more moderate than the bulk of you though.

[slaw]

Lots of criticism of bean counters and mathematicians trying to play/discuss/build basketball. But here is an interesting perspective from one of the all-time greats, Pat Riley:

The Riley stuff probably deserves a thread somewhere.

What comes through here is something that has always bothered me about two distinct camps: the economists, consultants or analysts who always think they know better than the experts actually working in the field; and the "gut instinct" guys who disparage new techniques because..... Experience! The reality is, at the end of the day, you need both quantitative and qualitative analyses to form opinions and make decisions. It is almost never one or the other.

Honestly, the economists often bother me more because they are, believe it or not, more intractable than any old curmudgeon. The old fart can be convinced there's a better way to do things if you can demonstrate it will work better, while the consultants, etc. almost uniformly refuse to concede any point to subject matter experts and will often not even bother considering contrarian arguments.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Newsflash btw... I'm a pro-tanker.

Exceedingly more moderate than the bulk of you though.

And it's been a good discussion.

My main issue has always been when posters dismiss anybody promoting tanking, rebuilding, retooling, etc... as having an irrational desire to 'put all our eggs in one basket' or 'gamble on a single draft pick to deliver a savior', when that has simply never been the case.

I do recall you being much more anti-tank during the offseason, under a prior username. Having you come around to call yourself a 'pro-tanker' just goes to show that such a team-building strategy doesn't need to be extreme and that it's far from the black-and-white issue that it's often made out to be.

[p00ka]

And it's been a good discussion.

My main issue has always been when posters dismiss anybody promoting tanking, rebuilding, retooling, etc... as having an irrational desire to 'put all our eggs in one basket' or 'gamble on a single draft pick to deliver a savior', when that has simply never been the case.

I do recall you being much more anti-tank during the offseason, under a prior username. Having you come around to call yourself a 'pro-tanker' just goes to show that such a team-building strategy doesn't need to be extreme and that it's far from the black-and-white issue that it's often made out to be.

You've expressed this opinion before, but my memory of the progress in those discussions is quite different. It would take far too much time to search and dig up stuff, so I'll just agree to disagree. The lines did grow closer though as time passed.

As for your earlier comment about nobody able to declare victory. That was my point about the "The debate is over" thread that got created immediately after the Gay trade, and the rumour of NY and other teams calling about Lowry, and MU saying let's talk about a trade that you can't help but refuse. It was a clear attempt to declare victory and included a number of "I still can't believe people don't see the tank is on" comments. Just saying. So, pardon anybody who now says, see, this team does have a base to build upon, and the tank isn't in full blown motion.

[JawsGT]

I don't think anyone expected the 180 turn this team has taken since the Gay trade. But, looking back, if Rudy had to buy into the team game, and share the ball like the coaching staff has suggested it was preaching all along, then isn't it quite possible that team would have done well? Perhaps not as good as the team has been doing since the trade, because our bench has certainly improved and contributed. Rudy was a terrible teammate.

I sometimes wonder what if Derozan had been traded and Rudy retained. My guess is this team would be even worse than it was before the Rudy trade, but of course that is just a guess. Maybe if DD was gone, Rudy would have bought in, who knows. But I am glad Rudy is gone and Derozan is still here.

[Masai Ujiri]

And it's been a good discussion.

My main issue has always been when posters dismiss anybody promoting tanking, rebuilding, retooling, etc... as having an irrational desire to 'put all our eggs in one basket' or 'gamble on a single draft pick to deliver a savior', when that has simply never been the case.

I do recall you being much more anti-tank during the offseason, under a prior username. Having you come around to call yourself a 'pro-tanker' just goes to show that such a team-building strategy doesn't need to be extreme and that it's far from the black-and-white issue that it's often made out to be.

I have never been "anti-tank". I've been anti-trading away guys for the purpose of tanking. My main mantra is asset accumulation. Whether that leads to a tank or not doesn't particularly matter to me. This year I favoured the tank because I wasn't really expecting the team to be that good, and the draft is loaded. Surprisingly they're 10-4 without Gay.

Would I like to go for a top 5 pick? Yes. But I do not advocate trading away players to tank first. If you can deal a key guy, win the trade, and it results in a tank? By all means be my guest. But for example that move that was brought up a while ago of Lowry for Felton/Hardaway JR/2018 1st? No thanks.

I think this is where I differ from some of the other pro-tankers. Obviously none of us want to trade away guys for nothing, but here's how I see it:

I look at it as: If you can win the deal, then trade the veteran and tank
Most of you look at it as: Trade the veteran to tank as long as the deal isn't a complete failure.

[MACK11]

I have never been "anti-tank". I've been anti-trading away guys for the purpose of tanking. My main mantra is asset accumulation. Whether that leads to a tank or not doesn't particularly matter to me. This year I favoured the tank because I wasn't really expecting the team to be that good, and the draft is loaded. Surprisingly they're 10-4 without Gay.

Would I like to go for a top 5 pick? Yes. But I do not advocate trading away players to tank first. If you can deal a key guy, win the trade, and it results in a tank? By all means be my guest. But for example that move that was brought up a while ago of Lowry for Felton/Hardaway JR/2018 1st? No thanks.

I think this is where I differ from some of the other pro-tankers. Obviously none of us want to trade away guys for nothing, but here's how I see it:

I look at it as: If you can win the deal, then trade the veteran and tank
Most of you look at it as: Trade the veteran to tank as long as the deal isn't a complete failure.

A lot of people on this forum think that Tanking is giving away all of your assets for nothing so you can just land a top 5 pick

[Masai Ujiri]

A lot of people on this forum think that Tanking is giving away all of your assets for nothing so you can just land a top 5 pick

I do not think that, nor do I think that very many pro-tankers are/ever have been advocating for that.

Although some of the tanking trades that I've seen suggested by pro-tankers are the EQUIVALENT of trading away assets for nothing or next to nothing.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

You've expressed this opinion before, but my memory of the progress in those discussions is quite different. It would take far too much time to search and dig up stuff, so I'll just agree to disagree. The lines did grow closer though as time passed.

As for your earlier comment about nobody able to declare victory. That was my point about the "The debate is over" thread that got created immediately after the Gay trade, and the rumour of NY and other teams calling about Lowry, and MU saying let's talk about a trade that you can't help but refuse. It was a clear attempt to declare victory and included a number of "I still can't believe people don't see the tank is on" comments. Just saying. So, pardon anybody who now says, see, this team does have a base to build upon, and the tank isn't in full blown motion.

It was pretty widely expected that Toronto would be a worse team in the short-run following the Gay trade, even if it meant some individual improvements. Had the rumored Lowry deal gone down with NY in the immediate aftermath, I think we'd be having a much different conversation today, with the Raptors well on their way to the bottom-5 of the standings.

With the Lowry trade falling through and the team rallying together to prove the experts wrong, the pendulum has swung the other way, to the point that I feel some of the more aggressive anti-tankers are now declaring 'victory' equally prematurely.

Unfortunately, we're likely to continue having this debate until the trade deadline.

[Masai Ujiri]

It was pretty widely expected that Toronto would be a worse team in the short-run following the Gay trade, even if it meant some individual improvements. Had the rumored Lowry deal gone down with NY in the immediate aftermath, I think we'd be having a much different conversation today, with the Raptors well on their way to the bottom-5 of the standings.

Just saying p00ka actually called this. I remember when Matt52 made that very arrogant thread about the tank debate being over, p00ka was pretty adamant that the trade actually improved the team. Very impressive tbh, because I was pretty damn sure they were gonna suck something awful after the deal.

With the Lowry trade falling through and the team rallying together to prove the experts wrong, the pendulum has swung the other way, to the point that I feel some of the more aggressive anti-tankers are now declaring 'victory' equally prematurely.

Unfortunately, we're likely to continue having this debate until the trade deadline.

I don't think you can just assume the Lowry trade fell through, at least not on our end. You don't know whether it was the Knicks that called asking for that deal, and Ujiri was just listening, or maybe they were just discussing it but weren't close to anything.

I agree that nothing is going to be clear until Lowry is dealt. But I would like to point something out.

Assuming Lowry is dealt around the trade deadline, that will be roughly 50 games played. Let's say we fall back to earth a bit and start playing .500 ball. So 25-25. A lot of you have been harping on and on about finishing 4th last at least and that giving us a 99% chance of being in that elusive top 6 spot in the draft (where most of the superstar prospects are supposedly going to be picked).

Well let's just give ourselves a dose of reality here please. Currently Sacramento is 4th last with a 10-22 record. If they continued at that rate they would finish the 82 game season with 25 wins. Maybe Sacramento does better, maybe not, but it's likely that the bottom 4 teams will have no more than 25 wins each based on current standings.

So the Raptors would need to lose 32 games in a row in that scenario to be in the top 4. Just a reality check, that is all.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Just saying p00ka actually called this. I remember when Matt52 made that very arrogant thread about the tank debate being over, p00ka was pretty adamant that the trade actually improved the team. Very impressive tbh, because I was pretty damn sure they were gonna suck something awful after the deal.

I think a lot of people were starting to think the team would be better without Gay, because of him becoming such an awful black-hole on offense. I didn't see/hear/read a single person make any sort of claim that Toronto would rocket up to 3rd in the EC standings, or go on such a roll with regards to W/L like they have. Nobody saw that coming, even if they did think the team would be improved.

I don't think you can just assume the Lowry trade fell through, at least not on our end. You don't know whether it was the Knicks that called asking for that deal, and Ujiri was just listening, or maybe they were just discussing it but weren't close to anything.

I agree that nothing is going to be clear until Lowry is dealt. But I would like to point something out.

All I did was mention the rumor and the fact that the trade didn't happen. When I said "fell through" I just meant that a trade appeared to be imminent, then didn't happen. I wasn't inferring why it fell through, just that it did; I also referred to it as only a rumored trade, since that's all we had to go on as fans.

Assuming Lowry is dealt around the trade deadline, that will be roughly 50 games played. Let's say we fall back to earth a bit and start playing .500 ball. So 25-25. A lot of you have been harping on and on about finishing 4th last at least and that giving us a 99% chance of being in that elusive top 6 spot in the draft (where most of the superstar prospects are supposedly going to be picked).

Well let's just give ourselves a dose of reality here please. Currently Sacramento is 4th last with a 10-22 record. If they continued at that rate they would finish the 82 game season with 25 wins. Maybe Sacramento does better, maybe not, but it's likely that the bottom 4 teams will have no more than 25 wins each based on current standings.

So the Raptors would need to lose 32 games in a row in that scenario to be in the top 4. Just a reality check, that is all.

I thought my comment about the Raptors heading to the bottom of the standings was obvious, in that I was referring to if that rumored trade had happened that day the rumor heated up. Obviously circumstances are different now, so the impact would be different. I'm not going to speculate on where they might finish as a result, but I think it's pretty unanimous that Toronto would be a much worse team going forward without Lowry (whenever they were to trade him).

[mcHAPPY]

That Matt52 thread which was arrogant was actually a poll.

It was Debate Settled...... *then click in side * .....or is it?

Considering Lowry was as good as traded for a 2018 pick and garbage, it was a pretty good assumption at the time. Then the current run happened. I'm guilty of it too at times but, man oh man, there is some fucked up selective memory and cherry picking posts around these parts.

EDIT:

Here is the link:
http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/forum...Debate-settled

[Masai Ujiri]

Ah yes Lowry was "as good as traded"

[Fully]

Ah yes Lowry was "as good as traded"

Well obviously you never quite know about these things but it was widely reported that Dolan stepped in at the last minute to squash that deal. CBS, NBC, NY Daily News and others all ran the story.