Would we have won yesterday with Bradley?

[mmmmm]

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

So ... losing a starter, a team's 2nd leading scorer, best rebounder and best perimeter defender ... doesn't make a difference?   Really?

What do you think our chances would be if we played Toronto healthy, except they played without either Lowry or DeRozan?

(Note - this whole discussion glosses over the fact that the Celtics lost _another_ starter, Amir, for most of the second half.  And his loss was arguably the most impactful event of the game, as Toronto started their come-back shortly after Amir was injured.    Consider that, while Amir was in the game, he defended 14 shots that were converted at just 28.9% DFG%.   Most of his minutes had to be filled by Kelly (Zeller was sick).   In this game, Kelly defended 18 shots -- surrendering a 66.7% DFG%.   Ouch.)

[celticsclay]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

Bradley would have likely been a massive help against Lowry/Derozan.

There is literally no way to know if we would have won with Avery Bradley but to act like our 3rd best player would have had no impact on the game seems a little ridiculous.

Having no impact and making no difference in the outcome are two entirely different things.

Not by that much. This was not a blowout. Maybe 1st team all defense Avery Bradley prevents Derozan from getting quite so hot. Maybe he provides an outlet for Isaiah down the stretch.

1 or two little plays could have made all the difference last night. It was a tie game with 2 minutes to go.

Or maybe they go to Valanciunas more, or Carroll, or Lowry.  I don't think he would have made a difference in the ultimate outcome because I think Toronto is a better team than Boston is especially in Toronto.  In the first game, when Smart and Bradley played (without Thomas), Lowry went off and had the huge game while DeRozan took a lesser role (and Jonas didn't do much of anything).  Heck in that game Norman Powell (starting for Carroll) went off for 20 points.  I just don't see Boston consistently beating Toronto if both teams are healthy (and I'm even willing to call Toronto healthy without Sullinger).  Toronto is just a terrible match-up for Boston as the teams are currently constructed.  I think the matchup problems are even worse when Sullinger is taking the minutes of Nogueria and Poeltl.  Contrary to what CC seems to think, I'm a Celtics fan and hope they do well, but I'm also a realist and there are two teams in the East that are clearly better than Boston.  I don't think it would take much to close the gap on Toronto though.  A guy like Chandler, Bogut, or Monroe would do wonders for Boston in a series against Toronto.  That is why I've been advocating for those type of trades for awhile now.  I want Boston to make the ECF and have a shot against Cleveland, but without some moves I just don't see Boston ever getting by Toronto.

Sorry man, in no world are you a realist. You are clearly a pessimist.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm going to say no.  Chris Forsberg seems to agree.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4724951/celtics-are-still-chasing-the-raptors-in-the-east

Some key factual support from the article

"During Stevens' four-year tenure, Boston is 4-10 against Toronto and has lost five of the past six meetings."

"A Celtics team that has routinely taken care of business against lesser foes this season -- Boston is 0-4 against the Raptors and Cavaliers but 13-3 versus the rest of the East -- looked a bit disheveled after the Raptors rallied Tuesday. It seems fair to wonder if there's a bit of a mental hurdle that these Celtics must overcome to truly compete with the Raptors."

"Another loss to a quality foe will mean a rehash of Boston's struggles against good teams this season. Boston is 0-8 against the teams ahead of it in the league standings. The Celtics are still searching for a win against a truly elite opponent. "

1) Not surprising you think this, it is an opportunity to be negative about the Celtics.
2) It is pretty irrelevant how we did 16 games ago against them. Do you realize the start of this "streak" referenced in this article includes a game where our starting lineup was Victor Favereni, Gerald Wallace, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green and Bradley and Amir Johnson was starting against us?
3) We have played them twice this year when just about everyone would believe we have been better than we were last year or two years ago. Unfortunately, for game 1 we were missing IT and this time we were missing Bradley. Considering we led both games in the 4th, it is more than a fair question to ask if we would have beat them at full strength (and the data from this year suggests we would).
4) How come you admitted this "Having Avery Bradley, who missed his second straight game Tuesday due to an Achilles strain, back certainly wouldn't hurt Boston's ability to contain Toronto's All-Star backcourt. Marcus Smart played well in Bradley's starting role but is an obvious luxury in a reserve role where he can maintain Boston's defensive intensity as the starters go out." Doesn't seem like Forsberg agrees with you fully. Not even bothering to focus on accuracy anymore when being negative are you?

Carroll didn't play for the Raptors in the first game, and they haven't had Sullinger all year.  Injuries happen, but it is clear, the Raptors are just a flat out better team than the Celtics are.  They were last year and they were the year before that as well.  There were plenty of parts of the story I didn't post.  I mean he also said this "Toronto big man Jonas Valanciunas scored 18 points and grabbed 23 rebounds, including 11 on the offensive glass, which reminded Boston that its size and rebounding deficiencies are still major concerns against top competition."  or this "It's prudent to not overreact to one loss on the road against a quality opponent, but Tuesday's loss is a reminder that Boston has work to do. The Celtics are still trying to claw their way onto the level of teams such as the Cavaliers and Raptors in the East."

Are we really going to compare the losses of Sullinger (a guy that got a year 5.6 million dollar contract in a year that Mosgov got 16 and Bobo got 7) as something that is even worth mentioning? Will he even be in their rotation if he can ever be healthy? We are comparing the loss of Carroll who has been a below average starter since blowing out his knee in Atlanta to missing a guy ranked 6th in the MVP race and a guy voted all NBA first team while averaging 18 points a game? (By the way maybe having a guard averaging 7 rebounds a game would have helped on the boards a smidge)

Seriously man do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

Edit: For those curious Bradley averages 18, 7 and 2.5 on 48% shooting with 42% from 3 and was voted all defensive first team last season.

Carroll is averaging 10. 3.5 and .9 on 43% shooting with 38% from 3.

Carroll did not receive a single vote for all-defensive teams.

But hey pretty similar losses.

Obviously not all starters are considered equal, but whatever you say about Sulllinger, he was signed to be Toronto's starting PF.  And Carroll is a starting SF.  Not as good as Bradley, but still a pretty solid player and important piece to the Raptors.

Toronto has beaten Boston 5 of the last 6 times they have played. Toronto has finished with a better record than Boston every season since the 12/13 season. 

You act like me saying that Toronto is a better team than Boston is some weird revelation.  Toronto is better than Boston.

Again you are focusing on really irrelevant stuff here and confusing the point. I don't care what we did two years ago against them and I don't care what did last year against them with Sullinger and Turner playing major minutes, not having Horford, us having less development from Smart, IT not being as dominant etc.

The fact is we have played twice them twice this season in close games we actually led in the 4th and for one of them we were missing a guy averaging 28 points and our best offensive creator and for the other we were missing our second leading scorer, best defensive player and a great rebounding player. Despite us having much worse injury issues than them for the duration of the year with Horford, IT, Crowder and Smart all missing multiple games (and for the love of god stuff crying about Sullinger being out it is ridiculous) we are neck and neck with them record wise.

Asking if people think we would have won a close game on the road yesterday if we had had our 3rd best player is MORE than a fair question. If you want to just come in and spout garbage and copy and paste Forsburg articles but omit the part he actually talks about Bradley you really are not adding anything to the question I asked. May as well sit it out if thats how you want to try and disrupt a reasonable question.

Sullinger was signed to be their starting PF.  Him being out is absolutely relevant, no matter how much you dislike him.  With Sullinger, Pascal Siakam doesn't start that first game and probably doesn't play in the game at all.

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

Bradley would have likely been a massive help against Lowry/Derozan.

There is literally no way to know if we would have won with Avery Bradley but to act like our 3rd best player would have had no impact on the game seems a little ridiculous.

Having no impact and making no difference in the outcome are two entirely different things.

Not by that much. This was not a blowout. Maybe 1st team all defense Avery Bradley prevents Derozan from getting quite so hot. Maybe he provides an outlet for Isaiah down the stretch.

1 or two little plays could have made all the difference last night. It was a tie game with 2 minutes to go.

Or maybe they go to Valanciunas more, or Carroll, or Lowry.  I don't think he would have made a difference in the ultimate outcome because I think Toronto is a better team than Boston is especially in Toronto.  In the first game, when Smart and Bradley played (without Thomas), Lowry went off and had the huge game while DeRozan took a lesser role (and Jonas didn't do much of anything).  Heck in that game Norman Powell (starting for Carroll) went off for 20 points.  I just don't see Boston consistently beating Toronto if both teams are healthy (and I'm even willing to call Toronto healthy without Sullinger).  Toronto is just a terrible match-up for Boston as the teams are currently constructed.  I think the matchup problems are even worse when Sullinger is taking the minutes of Nogueria and Poeltl.  Contrary to what CC seems to think, I'm a Celtics fan and hope they do well, but I'm also a realist and there are two teams in the East that are clearly better than Boston.  I don't think it would take much to close the gap on Toronto though.  A guy like Chandler, Bogut, or Monroe would do wonders for Boston in a series against Toronto.  That is why I've been advocating for those type of trades for awhile now.  I want Boston to make the ECF and have a shot against Cleveland, but without some moves I just don't see Boston ever getting by Toronto.

OK. I dont have a problem with anyone believing Toronto is a better team than us with Bradley or without.

I think anyone who looks at last nights game specifically and makes a concrete yes or no answer to this question is foolish.

[RockinRyA]

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

So ... losing a starter, a team's 2nd leading scorer, best rebounder and best perimeter defender ... doesn't make a difference?   Really?

What do you think our chances would be if we played Toronto healthy, except they played without either Lowry or DeRozan?

(Note - this whole discussion glosses over the fact that the Celtics lost _another_ starter, Amir, for most of the second half.  And his loss was arguably the most impactful event of the game, as Toronto started their come-back shortly after Amir was injured.    Consider that, while Amir was in the game, he defended 14 shots that were converted at just 28.9% DFG%.   Most of his minutes had to be filled by Kelly (Zeller was sick).   In this game, Kelly defended 18 shots -- surrendering a 66.7% DFG%.   Ouch.)

Bingo!

[Ilikesports17]

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

So ... losing a starter, a team's 2nd leading scorer, best rebounder and best perimeter defender ... doesn't make a difference?   Really?

What do you think our chances would be if we played Toronto healthy, except they played without either Lowry or DeRozan?

(Note - this whole discussion glosses over the fact that the Celtics lost _another_ starter, Amir, for most of the second half.  And his loss was arguably the most impactful event of the game, as Toronto started their come-back shortly after Amir was injured.    Consider that, while Amir was in the game, he defended 14 shots that were converted at just 28.9% DFG%.   Most of his minutes had to be filled by Kelly (Zeller was sick).   In this game, Kelly defended 18 shots -- surrendering a 66.7% DFG%.   Ouch.)

Bingo!

Toronto lost Patterson for a big chunk of the second half too.

[Moranis]

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

So ... losing a starter, a team's 2nd leading scorer, best rebounder and best perimeter defender ... doesn't make a difference?   Really?

What do you think our chances would be if we played Toronto healthy, except they played without either Lowry or DeRozan?

(Note - this whole discussion glosses over the fact that the Celtics lost _another_ starter, Amir, for most of the second half.  And his loss was arguably the most impactful event of the game, as Toronto started their come-back shortly after Amir was injured.    Consider that, while Amir was in the game, he defended 14 shots that were converted at just 28.9% DFG%.   Most of his minutes had to be filled by Kelly (Zeller was sick).   In this game, Kelly defended 18 shots -- surrendering a 66.7% DFG%.   Ouch.)

Bingo!

Toronto lost Patterson for a big chunk of the second half too.

Hey let's not let facts get in the way. 

[saltlover]

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

So ... losing a starter, a team's 2nd leading scorer, best rebounder and best perimeter defender ... doesn't make a difference?   Really?

What do you think our chances would be if we played Toronto healthy, except they played without either Lowry or DeRozan?

(Note - this whole discussion glosses over the fact that the Celtics lost _another_ starter, Amir, for most of the second half.  And his loss was arguably the most impactful event of the game, as Toronto started their come-back shortly after Amir was injured.    Consider that, while Amir was in the game, he defended 14 shots that were converted at just 28.9% DFG%.   Most of his minutes had to be filled by Kelly (Zeller was sick).   In this game, Kelly defended 18 shots -- surrendering a 66.7% DFG%.   Ouch.)

Bingo!

Toronto lost Patterson for a big chunk of the second half too.

Hey let's not let facts get in the way.

Yeah, losing Patrick Patterson, who played 21 minutes instead of his usual 28, and managed to score 0 points and have 2 rebounds during his near half a game on the court, was a huge loss, especially given he's normally a much better player, shooting 36% on the year.  They were a terrific -3 with him on the court in an 8 point win.

Yes, let's not get facts in the way.

[guava_wrench]

Impossible to know. The odds are we still lose because we were in Toronto playing a better team.

If we are going to ask how a different lineup would have performed, what happened last night is largely irrelevant. The entire game would have been different.

This is all true, but would also make an hypothetical irrelevant because of the butterfly effect. I feel like playing Smart 8 extra minutes than he is used to without Bradley he was pretty wiped because of how intense he normally plays in his minutes. It is pretty tough to not watch a team get outscored by 12 in the 4th quarter and not wonder if the team was tired from missing one of their better players and having a shortened rotation.

Yet we blow leads in the 4th will a full roster at times.

It is fine to think about these things, but it is absurd that there are people getting emotional about a hypothetical.

The bottom line is we have no idea how the game plays out with AB because everything would have been different with AB starting instead of Smart. There is no way to know if we would have been more or less successful. It is generally better to have more talent, but that is irrelevant when analyzing a particular outcome.

Imagine a game against Toronto where Smart and AB are injured and Rozier gets a tone of minutes, scores 40, and we lose by 2. Do we conclude that we would have won with Smart and AB? Of course not. Rozier dropping 40 was an outlier event that we can't ever count on happening. Change anything and we would likely see a performance more in line with expectations.

[celticsclay]

But Bradley wouldn't have made a difference because Boston can't guard DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas.  Boston just doesn't have the players capable of containing them.  That is why DeRozan, Lowry, and Valanciunas have gigantic positive +- ratings against Boston.

So ... losing a starter, a team's 2nd leading scorer, best rebounder and best perimeter defender ... doesn't make a difference?   Really?

What do you think our chances would be if we played Toronto healthy, except they played without either Lowry or DeRozan?

(Note - this whole discussion glosses over the fact that the Celtics lost _another_ starter, Amir, for most of the second half.  And his loss was arguably the most impactful event of the game, as Toronto started their come-back shortly after Amir was injured.    Consider that, while Amir was in the game, he defended 14 shots that were converted at just 28.9% DFG%.   Most of his minutes had to be filled by Kelly (Zeller was sick).   In this game, Kelly defended 18 shots -- surrendering a 66.7% DFG%.   Ouch.)

Bingo!

Toronto lost Patterson for a big chunk of the second half too.

Hey let's not let facts get in the way.

Yeah, losing Patrick Patterson, who played 21 minutes instead of his usual 28, and managed to score 0 points and have 2 rebounds during his near half a game on the court, was a huge loss, especially given he's normally a much better player, shooting 36% on the year.  They were a terrific -3 with him on the court in an 8 point win.

Yes, let's not get facts in the way.

Lol tp.

[celticsclay]

Impossible to know. The odds are we still lose because we were in Toronto playing a better team.

If we are going to ask how a different lineup would have performed, what happened last night is largely irrelevant. The entire game would have been different.

This is all true, but would also make an hypothetical irrelevant because of the butterfly effect. I feel like playing Smart 8 extra minutes than he is used to without Bradley he was pretty wiped because of how intense he normally plays in his minutes. It is pretty tough to not watch a team get outscored by 12 in the 4th quarter and not wonder if the team was tired from missing one of their better players and having a shortened rotation.

Yet we blow leads in the 4th will a full roster at times.

It is fine to think about these things, but it is absurd that there are people getting emotional about a hypothetical.

The bottom line is we have no idea how the game plays out with AB because everything would have been different with AB starting instead of Smart. There is no way to know if we would have been more or less successful. It is generally better to have more talent, but that is irrelevant when analyzing a particular outcome.

Imagine a game against Toronto where Smart and AB are injured and Rozier gets a tone of minutes, scores 40, and we lose by 2. Do we conclude that we would have won with Smart and AB? Of course not. Rozier dropping 40 was an outlier event that we can't ever count on happening. Change anything and we would likely see a performance more in line with expectations.

These are all fine points. I honestly wouldn't get upset with anyone that felt like we could still lose if they put a reasonable effort into explaining their point of view. Pointing out that a bit role player like Patrick Patterson playing 7 less minutes than usual or missing a low level plodding power forward that hasn't played all year as equivalents to missing an all defensive player averaging 18 and 7 does not qualify that and a lot of people find that kind of stuff annoying (myself included).

[mmmmm]

I am struggling to understand how anyone would equate the loss of Patrick Patterson, a bench player with a WS/48 rate of .082 (i.e., slightly below league average) to the loss of Amir Johnson, the starting center on a team that is otherwise thin at the 5, who has a WS/48 rate of .144 (WAY above league average).

[CelticGuardian]

DeMar is really predictable on offense, I think he's going to have another ugly playoffs this year.

I think the Raptors beat us the same way the Warriors and Cavs do. They just shoot over us.. meaning the bodies on the floor were too small. Maybe AB stays right there with him, but I mean, if a guy explodes for 40, and we had Jae Crowder and Marcus Smart both in uniform... man, It could be just one of those nights where a guy is hot. Happens a lot in NBA, which is mainly one of my gripes with drafting for defense every year. As we all know, basketball is played in a haphazard pace where set plays can still have spontaneous results in execution. So really, there's no way we are stopping every single possession by our opponent, I truly hope no one making important roster decisions believes otherwise.

[Ilikesports17]

I am struggling to understand how anyone would equate the loss of Patrick Patterson, a bench player with a WS/48 rate of .082 (i.e., slightly below league average) to the loss of Amir Johnson, the starting center on a team that is otherwise thin at the 5, who has a WS/48 rate of .144 (WAY above league average).

Who is equating the two?

Also Amir was in foul trouble with 4 fouls when he left the game, so for much of the raptors run he would have either been on the bench or operating with less than usual physicality and aggression.

[Bobshot]

I knew Derozen was going to have a big night as soon as I heard Bradley wasn't playing.

That's their problem: they get an injury to one of their key starters, they aren't the same team.

They don't have much depth.