Quantifying Where The Raptors Are

[Apollo]

Rate the team on a scale of one to ten for these ten aspects of the game. One being the worst, ten being the best:

• Athleticism
• Size
• Defense
• Offense
• Rebounding
• Leadership
• Potential
• Intangibles
• Coaching
• Management

[malefax]

Will this be graded on a curve? Are there bonus marks?

[funkie]

which number quantifies improving levels of suck the most?

[Apollo]

Will this be graded on a curve? Are there bonus marks?

Somebody just ruled them self out of the possibility of a

[WJF]

Overall I have us at about 57, so I voted 60 on the poll. Some areas like offense and size help to bring us up, while defense (1) and leadership (5) help to balance it out.

[Fully]

Athleticism (7)
Size (6)
Defense (3)
Offense (5)
Rebounding (5)
Leadership (6)
Potential (8)
Intangibles (5)
Coaching (5)
Management (5)

[Ambidextrious]

50

[ebrian]

I got a bit confused by the instructions. Here are the attributes ranked by order of importance, and then a score for each.

Management (5)
Defense (1)
Offense (5)
Leadership (4)
Rebounding (4)
Coaching (5)
Athleticism (6)
Potential (5)
Size (?)
Intangibles (?)

I didn't know what to put for Size and Intangibles. I have no idea what "intangibles" means here unless someone is a little more specific. Does it mean facial hair? Shoe size? And I don't see how "size" matters. Our tallest player (and worst) is Solomon Alabi. The Pistons dominated all those years with a 6'9" Ben Wallace.

Total score here 35/80, which is a 44% score.

(I have no idea how people are coming up with passing grades for this team. Apparently no one was watching..)

[Apollo]

Intangibles can be things like effort, chemistry, etc.

As for size, what was the last small ball team who you saw win a title?

I never asked you to rank them based on importance.

[hateslosing]

Athleticism (8)
Size (6)
Defense (1)
Offense (4)
Rebounding (8.5)(with Reggie)
Leadership (6)
Potential (9)
Intangibles (4)
Coaching (6)
Management (5)

[ebrian]

Teams play small-ball as a strategy when the opportune moments arise. That has more to do with coaching than the overall height of your team. It's like saying that a team with average height of 6'8" will win more games than a team averaging 6'6".

If we're including girth/width to this, I'd probably give us a 3.

I'd give us a 5 on Intangibles, giving us then a 43/100. It's almost double our winning percentage.

[Apollo]

Height and weight. It plays a factor in deciding games. It's not the deciding factor but it's something that goes overlooked. The Lakers are the biggest team in the league.

[minks77]

Athleticism – 7 – got a few high jumpers.
Size – 6 – decent height/length at all positions, not enough heft in the post.
Defense – 1 – worst D in the NBA 2 years and runnin'. If I could give them less I would.
Offense – 3 – no go-to guy, no post play, no three point shooting. Jump shots all day every day.
Rebounding – 5 – Andrea. 'nuff said.
Leadership – 1 – The Liberals have better leadership.
Potential – 4 – They're young but are any of them sure fire blue chippers?
Intangibles – 3 – better chemistry but is there really anything else
Coaching – 3 – ok coaching on one side of the ball, plays out of time outs are 50/50. Like how Jay drops F bombs on the media.
Management – 5 – some good moves, some bad. At least they are realistic about rebuilding.

TOTAL SCORE=38

[duncan]

•Athleticism 7
•Size 6
•Defense 1
•Offense 5
•Rebounding 3
•Leadership 3
•Potential 6
•Intangibles 4
•Coaching 3
•Management 4

For a grand total of 42!