khandor’s sports blog

Last season the Raptors finished 4th in the Atlantic Division and 13th, overall, in the Eastern Conference [i.e. 33-49/402].

Offensively, they scored 99.0 Points Per Game [16th in the NBA].
Defensively, they allowed 101.9 Points Per Game [20th in the NBA].
In terms of Points Scored Differential, they finished with a Per Game mark of -2.9 [23rd in the NBA].  
In terms of Rebounding Differential, they finished with a Per Game mark of -1.5 [22nd in the NBA].

Thus far, this season, Toronto is:

* 2nd in the Atlantic Division and 10th, overall, in the Eastern Conference [i.e. 7-11/.389];

* 4th in Points Scored Per Game [104.9]

* 29th in Points Allowed Per Game [109.4]

* 23rd in Points Scored Differential Per Game [-4.4]

* 20th in Rebounding Differential Per Game [-0.4] 

How much is the roster really improved for the 2009-2010 Toronto Raptors, compared with the 2008-2009 version?

The main problem the Raptors have right now is rooted in the Basketball Philosophy of its Management Team which continues to place far too much emphasis on the Individual Offensive ability of specific players and not nearly enough emphasis on those same players’ Individual Defensive ability.

Until the Raptors add more multi-dimensional players to their roster with the ability to defend their position[s] effectively AND reward those players with additional playing time during important parts of games, Toronto will continue to be little more than a high scoring [entertaining?] Treadmill Team.

There is nothing wrong with the rigid defensive philosophy which Jay Triano is using this season for the Toronto Raptors, i.e. to force baseline and protect the paint. In today’s NBA, this is actually standard fair and is used by other good teams, as well [e.g. Miami Heat, 6-1].

So, too, however, was there little wrong with the flexible defensive philosophy used for the previous 4 seasons by Sam Mitchell, former Raptors’ head coach, which required game-to-game [possession-to-possession?] adjustments based on the specific strengths or weaknesses of the team’s opponents.

The Raptors’ main defensive problems are not rooted in the team’s philosophy, per se, but are based on the specific short-comings of their individual players … several of whom should NOT have been expected to be able to play first rate defense this season by anyone with a sound grasp of how the game actually works in the NBA.

When your team has a roster that looks like THAT ↑↑↑, and struggles to DEFEND and REBOUND effectively:

Points Differential Rank, #18
Points Allowed Rank, #28
Rebounding Differential Rank, #26
Opponent’s FG% Rank, #23

the primary responsibility lies, not with the head coach or the individual players, but with the architect[s] of the team.

On an annual basis, the very best franchises in the NBA place their emphasis on Acquiring and Retaining individual players who advance the cause of their squad by contributing a great more than just scoring points.

When you look at the list of teams that have achieved major success in the history of the NBA:

NBA Finals: All-Time Champions

2009 NBA Champions, Los Angeles Lakers, QIR #6
2008 NBA Champions, Boston Celtics, QIR #1
2007 NBA Champions, San Antonio Spurs, QIR #2
2006 NBA Champions, Miami Heat, QIR #3
2005 NBA Champions, San Antonio Spurs, QIR #1 [tie]
2004 NBA Champions, Detroit Pistons, QIR #1
2003 NBA Champions, San Antonio Spurs, QIR #1
2002 NBA Champions, Los Angeles Lakers, QIR #4
2001 NBA Champions, Los Angeles Lakers, QIR #9

What it takes to win the NBA Championship [QIR definition]

it should be plain to see how placing an inordinant value on the “offensive” contributions made by any individual player is Fool’s Gold.

Related:

Where and how exactly Toronto lost last night at San Antonio

Orlando Magic 125
TORONTO RAPTORS 116
[Sun Nov 01 2009]

Box Score Info

Crucial Sequence, Play-By-Play