I suspect we should see some progression to the mean on that. Stop posting up, Mitch! (Actually don’t, it’s often my favorite moment of any game where he tries it…).

I love IQ, but his midrange game is nowhere close to JB’s, and obviously Brunson is a better 3 point shooter.

Plus, who’s gonna take all those charges?

Agreed but I think the dropoff from either Mitch or iHart to Sims is more recoverable than say from Julius and JHart to (whoever.)

But beyond that, there are a lot of ways to go for anyone other than our starting PF, including just rolling with an 8-man rotation for a while by bumping up minutes for guys like DDV, IQ, and Grimes.

As such, I don’t think the characterization of our depth being an inch deep is accurate beyond the PF position. Sims and Deuce can both play. Switchability is part of our depth. And you can even pluck a pretty good rotation guy like Fournier out of mothballs.

Brunson: on first glance, it would be a disaster. But would it? Could IQ be a good enough starter to pick up the slack? That would probably mean more minutes for DDV and some minutes for Deuce. You would probably be worse, but there would be at least some beneficial tradeoff on the defensive side of the ball.

Randle: We tend to go as Julius goes. He has played terribly overall in our losses. Would some of those have been wins without him? It’s hard to even visualize what Thibs would do without Randle for a long stretch. I guess they’d go small and start Hart at the 4, and patch in some Sims minutes when a bigger lineup was needed. Or as mentioned, maybe the answer isn’t on the roster. But we need Julius to play well to win, so it would definitely be the hardest obstacle to overcome.

Beyond those two, it seems like the next most difficult player to replace might be Josh Hart, mainly because of the backup PF issue. His versatility probably means more than his box score production. I mean, how do you replace a guy who plays winner?

And yes, we’re paper-thin at some positions, but that’s the NBA. Most teams would (and do) struggle when one of their two best players go down. Which is why I would never call iHart a luxury — not that Mitch is one of our two best players necessarily, but iHart a) gives us good minutes to keep Mitch fresh, and b) provides coverage should Mitch get dinged, which for a physical big is almost to be expected.

I think we’re starting to see “normal” Julius Randle after an atrocious start, and I think we’re also starting to see “normal” RJ Barrett after a surprisingly good start. The sample sizes are getting larger and things are normalizing. Josh Hart is Josh Harting and Brunson is playing better than ever.

The obvious disappointment is Quentin Grimes, who is looking like he should be a 10 MPG defensive specialist, but we’ve made up for that by acquiring a similar but better player in DDV, who is increasingly Hoovering Grimey’s minutes.

Our depth is a mile wide but an inch deep, by which I mean our top 9 is stuffed with quality, but we’re in some trouble if and when any of those top 9 guys get hurt. It maybe would have been a good idea to bring in some vet “OG” guys who could have provided some cromulent minutes in case of emergency. I’m not very high on anybody on the roster after that top 9 to provide even competent play, and I think we might be in danger of getting exposed if we have to start spinning some of the roster’s deeper cuts.

Except a loss-loss-loss for the fans, who enjoyed watching him greyhound down the floor, and enjoyed arguing about him (something they still try to do), and enjoyed having the best of a bunch of good Biblical names on the team.

If he only played against the Knicks he could have played until he was 50…

But that’s the way that TOR loses and often the way we win, isn’t it? Why is it lucky when two teams play to their tendencies? We’re tied for 6th in 3pt% and they are 29th. And can they count on our best offensive rebounder having an off night next time?

This was not a lucky win.