Do the Raptors really have the 5th most talented team in the Eastern Conference?
During Wednesday’s television broadcast of the Orlando/Toronto game, Jack Armstrong, Toronto’s analyst, made the following observation about the perceived talent level for this year’s Raptors team:
|
Play Audio |
Then, on Thursday evening , during the FAN590′s ”Hoops” broadcast, Eric Smith, Toronto’s radio analyst, tried to re-iterated this same point of view, when a caller suggested that the Charlotte Bobcats should actually be considered as “a better team with more NBA talent than the Raptors” … along with, at least, 4 other teams in the Estern Conference, i.e. Boston, Orlando, Cleveland and Atlanta.
After hearing Eric’s response to that caller, this is the exact comment [including errors] which was submitted by yours truly to his FAN590 blog, The Rap, on Friday, Dec 18 2009, at 2:17 PM:
————-
Hi, Eric.
I heard you on speak with a caller on last night’s show, just prior to 8:00 PM, concerning your belief that the Raptors [11-17/.393] are a better team than the Bobcats [10-14/.417]. According to what you said, your opinion was based on conversations you have had with various NBA insiders who you have encountered across the league and what their impression of Toronto and Charlotte has been to this point in the season.
Respectfully, it is my contention that you … and these NBA insiders who you happened to have communicated with regarding the relative strength of these two teams … happen to be incorrect in this assessment, and will eventually be proven wrong are the season plays itself out.
After starting the season poorly, without Stephen Jackson on their roster, the Bobcats have begun to climb up the standings in the Eastern Conference, and are now ahead of the Raptors. Although the Raptors [#4] have played a more difficult schedule than the Bobcats [#15], to this point, IMO, Charlotte has more “NBA talent” on its current roster, and should probably be expected to close out the current season by finishing ahead of Toronto in the final standings.
Calderon [+1] > Felton
DeRozan < Jackson [+1]
Turkoglu < Wallace [+2]
Bosh [+2] > Diaw
Bargnani < Chandler [+3]
———————-
Jack = Augustin
Belinelli < Henderson [+4]
Wright < Brown [+5]
Johnson = Mohammed
Nesterovic [+3] > Diop
———————-
Banks < Murray [+6]
Seems [+4] > Law
Mensah-Bonsu = Graham
Evans [+5] ?
O’Bryant = Ajinca
———————-
Triano < Brown [+7]
PS. Hopefully, the fanbase should now be able to see that we’ve been saying for a while now, re: Jose Calderon’s relative lack of individual defensive prowess not being the major catalyst for the team’s many short-comings on that side of the ball, has been a highly accurate assessment. 
————-
As you can clearly see there are several typos and what appear to be “publication errors” contained in that specific comment, which was submitted rather hurriedly and is still awaiting moderation/publication at The Rap.
In an effort to clear up any mis-understanding which Eric Smith - or other visitors to his blog – might have …
Here is a more “in-depth” analysis of the rosters for the Raptors and the Bobcats, with a few adjustments to the initial ratings that more accurately reflect the current state of affairs with these two teams, from the perspective of this coner:
|
RAPTORS VS BOBCATS ROSTER EVALUATION 2009-2010 |
||||||||
|
No. |
Player |
Off |
Def |
Reb |
Total |
Adv |
Tor |
Cha |
|
STARTERS |
||||||||
|
01 |
Calderon |
4 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
√ |
+1 |
|
|
|
Felton |
3 |
3 |
2 |
8 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
||||||||
|
02 |
DeRozan |
3 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
|
- |
|
|
|
Jackson |
4 |
4 |
4 |
12 |
√ |
|
+1 |
|
|
||||||||
|
03 |
Turkoglu |
4 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
|
- |
|
|
|
Wallace |
3 |
3 |
5 |
11 |
√ |
|
+2 |
|
|
||||||||
|
04 |
Bosh |
4 |
3 |
5 |
12 |
√ |
+2 |
|
|
|
Diaw |
4 |
3 |
3 |
10 |
|
|
- |
|
|
||||||||
|
05 |
Bargnani |
4 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
- |
|
|
|
Chandler |
1 |
4 |
4 |
9 |
√ |
|
+3 |
|
KEY SUBS |
||||||||
|
06 |
Jack |
3 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Augustin |
4 |
3 |
2 |
9 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
||||||||
|
07 |
Belinelli |
3 |
2 |
1 |
6 |
|
- |
|
|
|
Henderson |
2 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
√ |
|
+4 |
|
|
||||||||
|
08 |
Wright |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
|
- |
|
|
|
Brown |
2 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
√ |
|
+5 |
|
|
||||||||
|
09 |
Johnson |
2 |
3 |
4 |
9 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Mohammed |
3 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
||||||||
|
10 |
Nesterovic |
3 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
√ |
+3 |
|
|
|
Diop |
1 |
4 |
3 |
8 |
|
|
0 |
|
RESERVES |
||||||||
|
11 |
Banks |
2 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
|
- |
|
|
|
Murray |
3 |
3 |
2 |
8 |
√ |
|
+6 |
|
|
||||||||
|
12 |
Weems |
3 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
√ |
+4 |
|
|
|
Law |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
- |
|
EXTRAS |
||||||||
|
13 |
O’Bryant |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Ajinca |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
||||||||
|
14 |
M-Bonsu |
1 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Graham |
2 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
|
|
0 |
|
INJURED/OUT |
||||||||
|
15 |
Evans |
[2] |
[2] |
[4] |
[8] |
[√] |
[+5] |
|
|
|
N/A |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
- |
|
|
||||||||
|
HC |
Triano |
3 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
|
- |
|
|
|
Brown |
4 |
4 |
4 |
12 |
√ |
|
+7 |
|
|
||||||||
|
TOTALS |
||||||||
|
|
Toronto |
42 |
34 |
41 |
117 |
+4 |
|
|
|
|
Charlotte |
39 |
46 |
42 |
127 |
+7 |
|
|
————————————————————
Loading ...————————————————————
Visitors here are invited to elaborate further on their own answer to this question in the comments section.
Tags: Acie Law, Alexis Ajinca, Amir Johnson, Andrea Bargnani, Antoine Wright, Charlotte Bobcats, Chris Bosh, Derrick Brown, DeSagana Diop, DJ Augustin, Doris Diaw, Eric Smith, FAN590, Flip Murray, Gerald Henderson, Gerald Wallace, Hedo Turkoglu, Jack Armstrong, Jarrett Jack, Jay Triano, Jose Calderon, Larry Brown, Marco Belinelli, Marcus Banks, Nazr Mohammed, Patrick O'Bryant, Pops Mensah-Bonsu, Rasho Nesterovic, Raymond Felton, Reggie Evans, Sonny Weems, Stephen Graham, Stephen Jackson, Toronto Raptors, Tyson Chandler
December 21st, 2009 at 6:07 am
I think this is a good tool for quickly assessing relative talent (although it does away with matchups b/c it doesn’t factor in who wins which matchup). However, I think your application is biased. For example, DeRozan and Weems together average 4.8 rbs/35 mins while Jackson and Law should average 5.2rbs/48 mins (which accounts for Law’s small sample size w CHA but doesn’t discount Jackson’s unusually high rebounding success w CHA). In those categories you give Jackson and Law a combined “6″ for rebounding and DeRozan and Weems a combined “5″. I’d argue that DeRozan and Weems together are much better rebounders…
Good tool, but unless the application is done in an evenhanded way I don’t think it works.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Brain,
1. Using this evaluation method, the ratings for an individual player are not meant/intended to be combined with those of a teammate who happens to play the same position.
2. Each Player Slot isn’t necessarily a direct positional match-up “Winners/Loser” scenario in this evaluation method.
For example:
[Yes]
Player 01 for Toronto happens to be Jose Calderon. Calderon is a PG, and is evaluated at the PG position.
Player 01 for Charlotte happens to be Raymond Felton. Felton is a PG, and is evaluated at the PG position.
——————————————————–
[No]
Player 12 for Toronto happens to be Sonny Weems. Weems is a OG-Sf, and is evaluated at the OG-SF position.
Player 12 for Charlotte happens to be Acie Law. Law is a PG, and is evaluated at the PG position.
3. If you’d like to evaluate the Rebounding strength of the two teams at the OG position then I’d suggest that doing something like this:
DeRozan/3 + Belinelli/1 = 4
or
DeRozan/3 + Weems/2 = 5
vs
Jackson/4 + Henderson/2 = 6
would probably generate a more accurate comparison.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I understand that – you matched them up in your analysis. Your readers pay attention.
That’s besides the point – I’m saying that on a reb/min basis Jax/Henderson = 5.7/48 and DeRozan/Weems = 6.8/48. You’d think the Dynamic Duo would get the edge…
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Brain,
Part 1
re: I understand that – you matched them up in your analysis. Your readers pay attention.
Please explain where you think I matched these combinations in my analysis above … since what I see actually reads as:
DeRozan and Jackson,
then,
Belinelli and Henderson,
then,
Weems and Law.
Part II
How come you are trying to compare the combinations of “DeRozan and Weems” to “Jackson and Henderson” on a Rebounds per 48 minute basis?
[i.e. since I do not mention anything about using Per 48 Minute Stats in my individual player ratings.]
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
Part 1 – I agree.
Part 2 – Rbs per 48 = approximate statistical reflection of rebounding ability (not the only one or perhaps the best one, but one that shows that Derozan is, so far, a more prolific rebounder than Jackson, and that Weems is a much better rebounder than Henderson).
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Brain,
PART TWO, I
That depends on:
1. If you consider Positional Stats to be a valid set of data, in the first place.
2. If you consider Per 48 Minute Stats to be a valid set of data, in the first place
3. What specific set of data you consider, in the first place.
4. How exactly you choose to interpret that data, in the first place.
For example:
DeRozan and Weems
vs
Jackson and Henderson
can actually be interpreted in different ways.
i.e.
Option 1 – 48 Min Rebound Production
DeRozan [6.7] + Weems [4.6] = Total [11.3];
Jackson [4.7] + Henderson [6.2] = [10.9];
which favours DeRozan and Weems;
vs
Option 2 – Net 48 Min Rebound Production at OG
DeRozan [-0.3] + Weems [-0.4] = Total [-0.7];
Jackson [-0.9] + Henderson [+2.1] = Total [+1.2];
which favours Jackson and Henderson;
vs
Option 3 – Rebounds per game
DeRozan [3.2] + Weems [1.8] = Total [5.0];
Jackson [4.6] + Henderson [1.1] = Total [5.7];
which also favours Jackson and Henderson.
PART TWO, II
In general, “positional” production numbers are not something which I place a great deal of trust in, in the first place; unless, of course, I produce them myself
and can, therefore, verify that the players in question have actually been allocated to the correct positions.
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:14 am
I agree, how you use and interpret the data matters. Rebounding rate may tell a different story. I can’t assess Option 2 for the same reason. Option 3 is flawed because the CHA guys play many more minutes.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
Brain,
If, according to you, Option 1 is a valid measure, then, you should also be able to assess Option 2 … which, IMO, even has increased validity [i.e. assuming that you are someone who believes in the value of these types of measures, in the first place].
On the other hand, if you are someone who cannot assess Option 2, then, neither should you be able to assess Option 1.
——————————————————–
Option 3 is only flawed if you’re trying to compare the Rebounding prowess at the Off Guard position, exclusively, for these two teams.
If, however, what you’re doing does not include a “positional comparison” of this type … like what I said above this methodology happens to not include … then there is no flaw in using the Rebounds per game measure to evaluate these 2 combinations of players.
Please keep in mind, as well, that it’s you [and not me] who wants to evaluate these two specific sets of players … i.e. in the metric above, the initial comparisons were between: i. Jackson and DeRozan; and, ii. Henderson and Belinelli [not Jackson and Henderson vs DeRozan and Weems].
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
RPG doesn’t work where the minutes aren’t close. Based on RPG alone, Jax outrebounds DD by a wide margin. He also plays twice as many minutes on average.
This is becoming silly.
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Actually …
When minutes aren’t close at all RPG works just fine, despite what many others have to say on the subject … as, in a great many cases, the player who plays twice as many minutes is simply being rewarded by his coach for being a twice-as-good player, in the first place.
What I’m still struggling with the reason you are trying to compare:
Jackson + Henderson
to
DeRozan + Weems
in the first place, when the talent evaluations I listed above were:
DeRozan | Jackson
and
Belinelli | Henderson.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
merry xmas
January 4th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
This is the most ridiculous bullshit I’ve come across in years… Aside from that, you actually think Charlotte will finish ahead of the Raptors in the standings this season? COME ON MAN!
January 5th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Raps and Bobcats have split so logic says they are equal. But something just isn’t right with the Bobcats?
Also Chandler is a permanently injured stiff. Not better than Bargnani, he is barely able to play at all.
It’s not Chandlers fault but he’s not the player he used to be.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
brothersteve,
After losing a very tight game to Toronto [A], 103-107, the Bocats then proceeded to beat Miami [A] and Cleveland [A] in consecutive games.
Do you see the Raptors being able to pull that off, at this stage of the season?
IMO, the Bobcats will continue to improve as the season moves along and will be a tough out in the playoffs.
Time will tell if I’m right or wrong.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
MackNorth,
1. Welcome aboard!
2. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion on the subject.
January 10th, 2010 at 5:57 am
[...] khandor’s sports blog » Do the Raptors really have the 5th most talented team in the Eas… In an effort to clear up any mis-understanding which Eric Smith – or other visitors to his blog – might have … [...]