Image ImageImage Image

Is Zach LaVine a Winner?

Moderators: HomoSapien, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, Payt10, Ice Man, fleet, dougthonus, kulaz3000, GimmeDat, DASMACKDOWN, Tommy Udo 6

Dan Z
General Manager
Posts: 7,781
And1: 2,709
Joined: Feb 19, 2002
Location: Chicago
 

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#81 » by Dan Z » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:51 pm

I'm not sure if this has already been posted so I'm sorry if this is a repeat.

Read on Twitter
transplant
RealGM
Posts: 11,238
And1: 2,784
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion
       

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#82 » by transplant » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:46 am

Ambush question...there's really no way you can answer affirmatively. To this point in his career, his NBA team's have lost and usually lost big. In his one college year, his team was good, but he was just a part of the supporting cast and in the tournament he was a non-factor. He of course did win consecutive NBA slam dunk contests, if that does anything for ya.

A winner? The story is still being written.
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
tcheco
Senior
Posts: 699
And1: 336
Joined: Jan 15, 2015

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#83 » by tcheco » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:10 pm

I hate this denomination of winner and loser.
By all means, I can't see how anyone can say Zach is a loser. Never played in any structured roster, with decent coaching and all.

For me a loser player would be someone who can't accept his role to benefit the team above his own stats.

Melo in the thunder and rockets, refusing to accept he wasn't the player we once was, could be a definition of loser.
Zach never had the chance to adequate himself to a roster, actually, he did play PG when asked to in the Wolves for a while, even if it wasn't his thing.

Booker is a good example used here already, where he did do the most he could in bad phoenix teams, and now with decent players around, with Rubio next to him, he changed a bit his playing, and is being more and more effective in his scoring and facilitating.
User avatar
FriedRise
Head Coach
Posts: 7,040
And1: 6,136
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
Location: Chicago
 

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#84 » by FriedRise » Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:45 pm

Dan Z wrote:I'm not sure if this has already been posted so I'm sorry if this is a repeat.

Read on Twitter


You can say the same about Trae. He puts up even bigger numbers and his team has even more losses. Atlanta doesn't even have 10 wins yet midway through the season. But because it's Trae and people love watching his half-court heaves, he'll probably make it.
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#85 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:11 pm

FriedRise wrote:
Dan Z wrote:I'm not sure if this has already been posted so I'm sorry if this is a repeat.

Read on Twitter


You can say the same about Trae. He puts up even bigger numbers and his team has even more losses. Atlanta doesn't even have 10 wins yet midway through the season. But because it's Trae and people love watching his half-court heaves, he'll probably make it.


http://bkref.com/tiny/i4lUW

He's carrying a higher load, scores more while being more efficient, including double zach's assists. His weakness is even worse defense than zach's. However, both of them are making cases due to their offensive side and if you compare those, Trae is easily a better selection.


Here is their performance compared to their team's performance

Player RTG/Team RTG/ Difference
ORTG:
Trae- 111 / 103.4 / +7.6
Zach- 106 / 105.3 / +0.7

DRTG:
Trae- 115 / 112.5 / +2.5
Zach- 108 / 107.3 / +0.7

Net:
Trae- +5.1
Zach- +0.0

Zach is the definition of empty calorie points whether people want to admit it or not.
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,739
And1: 18,317
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#86 » by Red Larrivee » Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:34 pm

PaKii94 wrote:Here is their performance compared to their team's performance

Player RTG/Team RTG/ Difference
ORTG:
Trae- 111 / 103.4 / +7.6
Zach- 106 / 105.3 / +0.7

DRTG:
Trae- 115 / 112.5 / +2.5
Zach- 108 / 107.3 / +0.7

Net:
Trae- +5.1
Zach- +0.0

Zach is the definition of empty calorie points whether people want to admit it or not.


You're using these numbers incorrectly. A players offensive rating shouldn't be combined with a teams offensive rating to determine the difference.

There's already an on/off for the team with the player factored.

Zach On: 107.5, Zach Off: 100.0 (+7.5 oRTG)
Zach On: 110.4, Zach Off: 101.1 (-9.3 dRTG)

Zach's offense has absolutely not been empty calories this season. If he wasn't scoring, the Bulls would go from having a small chance to winning games, to no chance of winning games. The season number isn't doing it justice. The Bulls offensive rating without Zach in the games is awful the last 3-4 weeks.

The defense is another story, but by most measures he's having his best defensive season.





Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#87 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:09 pm

Red Larrivee wrote:
PaKii94 wrote:Here is their performance compared to their team's performance

Player RTG/Team RTG/ Difference
ORTG:
Trae- 111 / 103.4 / +7.6
Zach- 106 / 105.3 / +0.7

DRTG:
Trae- 115 / 112.5 / +2.5
Zach- 108 / 107.3 / +0.7

Net:
Trae- +5.1
Zach- +0.0

Zach is the definition of empty calorie points whether people want to admit it or not.


You're using these numbers incorrectly. A players offensive rating shouldn't be combined with a teams offensive rating to determine the difference.

There's already an on/off for the team with the player factored.

Zach On: 107.5, Zach Off: 100.0 (+7.5 oRTG)
Zach On: 110.4, Zach Off: 101.1 (-9.3 dRTG)

Zach's offense has absolutely not been empty calories this season. If he wasn't scoring, the Bulls would go from having a small chance to winning games, to no chance of winning games.

The defense is another story, but by most measures he's having his best defensive season.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Yes I know about on/off numbers...Here are trae's

Trae On: 109.6, Trae Off: 93.4 (+16.2 oRTG)
Trae On: 116.4, Trae Off: 108.0 (-8.4 dRTG)

Net:
Trae = +7.8
Zach = -1.8

That makes zach look all that much worse.

but anyway the numbers I posted still have some value and aren't technically used "incorrectly". The team RTG is pretty much a weighted average of the players RTG. The team ORTG tells us "on average, the team scores x points p100" while individual ORTG tells us "on average, the player scores x points p100"

When you compare the numbers like I did, it shows how much the player is pulling up his team from their average play ("on average the player scores x points more compared to the team's average p100"). Pretty much true star players (even on bad teams) have a positive impact on at least the team offense (applies to defense too but the DRTG numbers are usually messier), and it's the other lesser players that bring down that overall average. It's a way to distinguish empty offensive stats on a bad team vs a good player carrying a team being dragged down by sh*t around him.

You can see this trend on players that ARE pretty much the offense (Giannis/Harden/Lebron/Luka....Zach :clown:). That's not the case with zach. He's not moving the needle from the team's average play. His offense is at the same level as a team that is bottom 5 in offense. He's at BEST a net neutral on an underperforming sh*t team.


Zach's offense has absolutely not been empty calories this season. If he wasn't scoring, the Bulls would go from having a small chance to winning games, to no chance of winning games.


Meh I don't fall into this camp. His void would be picked up by smarter players. Those players don't have as much of an impact when pretty much your "best" offensive player who has the impact of a bottom 5 team is at extreme usage. The reason this offense has tanked is not because it's a bad scheme. It's because our highest usage player can't run it and keeps breaking it.

The defense is another story, but by most measures he's having his best defensive season.


While I am happy for the improvement since we are stuck with him, sh*t is still sh*t going from diarrhea to a nice smooth log. Especially when the marker isn't being moved much on the other end. The all star game shouldn't be a participation trophy. Zach wouldn't be getting any attention if the game wasn't in Chicago this year.
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,739
And1: 18,317
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#88 » by Red Larrivee » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:21 pm

PaKii94 wrote:but anyway the numbers I posted still have some value and aren't technically used "incorrectly". The team RTG is pretty much a weighted average of the players RTG. The team ORTG tells us "on average, the team scores x points p100" while individual ORTG tells us "on average, the player scores x points p100"

When you compare the numbers like I did, it shows how much the player is pulling up his team from their average play. Pretty much true star players (even on bad teams) have a positive impact on at least the team offense (applies to defense too but the DRTG numbers are usually messier), and it's the other lesser players that bring down that overall average. It's a way to distinguish empty offensive stats on a bad team vs a good player carrying a team being dragged down by sh*t around him.


When you use on/off for team oRTG, it shows how much the player is pulling up or down the team. I'd guess that you're only using it the way you are because it doesn't fit your argument.

You wouldn't say "Daniel Gafford has a 127 oRTG and the Bulls have a 105.3 oRTG, therefore, he's +21.7 net."

LaVine's offensive value this season is clearly positive, but he's still not a player you should build your offense around. Both things can be true.

Meh I don't fall into this camp. His void would be picked up by smarter players. Those players don't have as much of an impact when pretty much your "best" offensive player who has the impact of a bottom 5 team is at extreme usage. The reason this offense has tanked is not because it's a bad scheme. It's because our highest usage player can't run it and keeps breaking it.


This is a really, really bad take. There are no smarter, high volume and efficiency offensive players on the Bulls that LaVine is holding down.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Showtime23
Starter
Posts: 2,070
And1: 696
Joined: Oct 12, 2018

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#89 » by Showtime23 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:23 pm

transplant wrote:Ambush question...there's really no way you can answer affirmatively. To this point in his career, his NBA team's have lost and usually lost big. In his one college year, his team was good, but he was just a part of the supporting cast and in the tournament he was a non-factor. He of course did win consecutive NBA slam dunk contests, if that does anything for ya.

A winner? The story is still being written.


well just look at his advanced numbers. all fat minues for nearly 6 years.
Its 100% sure he is not a winner like Doncic. You can make a case he played for losers but still hes close to the latter.
Hes turning around but making 20mil to make a rather neutral impact. Which is why I would be very cautious when someone is saying his defense is improving, having career win shares. Now if he was making 10, I would build around him but it prevents a max guy.
Showtime23
Starter
Posts: 2,070
And1: 696
Joined: Oct 12, 2018

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#90 » by Showtime23 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:34 pm

JimmyJammer wrote:
Oh, hell no ! Once you are not wearing a Bulls jersey, you are on the enemy side. My priority is to see Zach first and foremost in the all-star game.


Whether you like Zach and him making an all star is a different thing. The only reason he might make it is bc it is held in Chicago.
If the Bulls werent hosting, 0% chance but the media and fans are so sorry a host team cannot produce a single star they are literally gifting one. And if your first time allstar like ESPN guy said, you better be playing like a superstar to prove your better than established players with multiple allstar appearances like Mcgrady did. I want the guy to genuinely play better instead of stat padding to make the all-star. Its way too obvious like Westy intentionally making a pass for that triple double.
Hes already said making the allstar is his only goal which might be at the expense of wins.
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#91 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:01 pm

Red Larrivee wrote:
PaKii94 wrote:but anyway the numbers I posted still have some value and aren't technically used "incorrectly". The team RTG is pretty much a weighted average of the players RTG. The team ORTG tells us "on average, the team scores x points p100" while individual ORTG tells us "on average, the player scores x points p100"

When you compare the numbers like I did, it shows how much the player is pulling up his team from their average play. Pretty much true star players (even on bad teams) have a positive impact on at least the team offense (applies to defense too but the DRTG numbers are usually messier), and it's the other lesser players that bring down that overall average. It's a way to distinguish empty offensive stats on a bad team vs a good player carrying a team being dragged down by sh*t around him.


When you use on/off for team oRTG, it shows how much the player is pulling up or down the team with his possessions. I'd guess that you're only using it the way you are because it doesn't fit your argument.

LaVine's offensive value this season is clearly positive, but he's still not a player you should build your offense around. Both things can be true.

Meh I don't fall into this camp. His void would be picked up by smarter players. Those players don't have as much of an impact when pretty much your "best" offensive player who has the impact of a bottom 5 team is at extreme usage. The reason this offense has tanked is not because it's a bad scheme. It's because our highest usage player can't run it and keeps breaking it.


This is a really, really bad take. There are no smarter, high volume and efficiency offensive players on the Bulls that LaVine is holding down.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



When you use on/off for team oRTG, it shows how much the player is pulling up or down the team with his possessions. I'd guess that you're only using it the way you are because it doesn't fit your argument.


okay we are arguing semantics but i'll bite. The on/off numbers you quoted are on a team basis. i.e. if your offense that is one pass, create a tough shot, and make a bucket, yes Zach LaVine reigns supreme. No doubt. Which brings back up being the tallest midget in a group of midgets isn't an accomplishment. The discussion here is "Is Zach a winner" with a side dose of "does he deserve an all-star nod". Your numbers actually backup my case that NO. No Zach is NOT a winner and No Zach is NOT worthy of an all star nod.

If at best you can do on offense (while taking a HUGE portion of the team's shots and playing the most minutes) is an ORTG of 107 on the court (the equivalent of a bottom 5 team offense) then no you probably aren't a good offensive player. This again is not the case for true star players. Their on court rating SHOULD far exceed their team rating and their off court rating.


LaVine's offensive value this season is clearly positive, but he's still not a player you should build your offense around. Both things can be true.


Unfortunately we built around Lavine... at least for this season. With the role comes the criticism for being the lead guy.
When the guy who hogs the ball the majority of the time and can't do anything in a team concept but can create & make tough shots is obviously going to be "better" offensively when he gives up the ball to his teammates and tell them "now your turn, go ahead and create some shots... wait you can't, oh well y'all trash, more shots for me"

There is a reason why the bench earlier on had a better offensive flow vs the starters. Lavine was doing his (iso ball shot creation) thing while the bench was truly playing motion offense. The starters initially had poor stats because they were trying to play motion offense while Lavine was chucking around breaking it. Archi & Dunn had bought into the motion offense, coby was used as a scorer and not shot creator (Which is what I want Lavine to be).

Our problems at that point in time were happening at THE END OF games. What was the common theme then? The offense dissolved into Zach iso ball.

As the season has gone on, injuries have disrupted the bench, and Zach has set up the precedence of getting your own. Now we have one pass chuckfest which is not a motion offense (and doesn't really fit the other players well...besides Coby). Coby is following Zach's lead in the chuckfest and Zach is carrying himself and the team to a bottom 5 offense.


This is a really, really bad take. There are no smarter, high volume and efficiency offensive players on the Bulls that LaVine is holding down.


Maybe now it is with all the injuries but at the beginning of the season, I would much rather reduce Lavine's FGA by like 5 and let those go towards WCJ/OPJ/Lauri/Sato. Also, again this is not on shot creation. This would help the system flow. But it unfortunately can't happen if the lead guard continually breaks the system. And it doesn't seem like the team is motivated to play a motion system when the game is gonna be thrown away at the end of the game with Zach's hero ball.
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#92 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:03 pm

Showtime23 wrote:
JimmyJammer wrote:
Oh, hell no ! Once you are not wearing a Bulls jersey, you are on the enemy side. My priority is to see Zach first and foremost in the all-star game.


Whether you like Zach and him making an all star is a different thing. The only reason he might make it is bc it is held in Chicago.
If the Bulls werent hosting, 0% chance but the media and fans are so sorry a host team cannot produce a single star they are literally gifting one. And if your first time allstar like ESPN guy said, you better be playing like a superstar to prove your better than established players with multiple allstar appearances like Mcgrady did. I want the guy to genuinely play better instead of stat padding to make the all-star. Its way too obvious like Westy intentionally making a pass for that triple double.
Hes already said making the allstar is his only goal which might be at the expense of wins.


Yeah that "my guy" attitude by him makes me cringe. It's the same as what's dividing the political world right now. It shouldn't be my guy vs your guy. It should be the best guy. The all star game should be earned not given.
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#93 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:24 pm

Spoiler:
PaKii94 wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote:
PaKii94 wrote:but anyway the numbers I posted still have some value and aren't technically used "incorrectly". The team RTG is pretty much a weighted average of the players RTG. The team ORTG tells us "on average, the team scores x points p100" while individual ORTG tells us "on average, the player scores x points p100"

When you compare the numbers like I did, it shows how much the player is pulling up his team from their average play. Pretty much true star players (even on bad teams) have a positive impact on at least the team offense (applies to defense too but the DRTG numbers are usually messier), and it's the other lesser players that bring down that overall average. It's a way to distinguish empty offensive stats on a bad team vs a good player carrying a team being dragged down by sh*t around him.


When you use on/off for team oRTG, it shows how much the player is pulling up or down the team with his possessions. I'd guess that you're only using it the way you are because it doesn't fit your argument.

LaVine's offensive value this season is clearly positive, but he's still not a player you should build your offense around. Both things can be true.

Meh I don't fall into this camp. His void would be picked up by smarter players. Those players don't have as much of an impact when pretty much your "best" offensive player who has the impact of a bottom 5 team is at extreme usage. The reason this offense has tanked is not because it's a bad scheme. It's because our highest usage player can't run it and keeps breaking it.


This is a really, really bad take. There are no smarter, high volume and efficiency offensive players on the Bulls that LaVine is holding down.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



When you use on/off for team oRTG, it shows how much the player is pulling up or down the team with his possessions. I'd guess that you're only using it the way you are because it doesn't fit your argument.


okay we are arguing semantics but i'll bite. The on/off numbers you quoted are on a team basis. i.e. if your offense that is one pass, create a tough shot, and make a bucket, yes Zach LaVine reigns supreme. No doubt. Which brings back up being the tallest midget in a group of midgets isn't an accomplishment. The discussion here is "Is Zach a winner" with a side dose of "does he deserve an all-star nod". Your numbers actually backup my case that NO. No Zach is NOT a winner and No Zach is NOT worthy of an all star nod.

If at best you can do on offense (while taking a HUGE portion of the team's shots and playing the most minutes) is an ORTG of 107 on the court (the equivalent of a bottom 5 team offense) then no you probably aren't a good offensive player. This again is not the case for true star players. Their on court rating SHOULD far exceed their team rating and their off court rating.


LaVine's offensive value this season is clearly positive, but he's still not a player you should build your offense around. Both things can be true.


Unfortunately we built around Lavine... at least for this season. With the role comes the criticism for being the lead guy.
When the guy who hogs the ball the majority of the time and can't do anything in a team concept but can create & make tough shots is obviously going to be "better" offensively when he gives up the ball to his teammates and tell them "now your turn, go ahead and create some shots... wait you can't, oh well y'all trash, more shots for me"

There is a reason why the bench earlier on had a better offensive flow vs the starters. Lavine was doing his (iso ball shot creation) thing while the bench was truly playing motion offense. The starters initially had poor stats because they were trying to play motion offense while Lavine was chucking around breaking it. Archi & Dunn had bought into the motion offense, coby was used as a scorer and not shot creator (Which is what I want Lavine to be).

Our problems at that point in time were happening at THE END OF games. What was the common theme then? The offense dissolved into Zach iso ball.

As the season has gone on, injuries have disrupted the bench, and Zach has set up the precedence of getting your own. Now we have one pass chuckfest which is not a motion offense (and doesn't really fit the other players well...besides Coby). Coby is following Zach's lead in the chuckfest and Zach is carrying himself and the team to a bottom 5 offense.


This is a really, really bad take. There are no smarter, high volume and efficiency offensive players on the Bulls that LaVine is holding down.


Maybe now it is with all the injuries but at the beginning of the season, I would much rather reduce Lavine's FGA by like 5 and let those go towards WCJ/OPJ/Lauri/Sato. Also, again this is not on shot creation. This would help the system flow. But it unfortunately can't happen if the lead guard continually breaks the system. And it doesn't seem like the team is motivated to play a motion system when the game is gonna be thrown away at the end of the game with Zach's hero ball.



Forget all the other numbers. Just look at it from a high level view. For a guy who is supposedly carrying the team and having a positive offensive impact, why is his season ORTG the 4th lowest of all our regular rotation players? (Above Dunn/Young/Coby who have been horribly inefficient). Lauri with a horrible start, playing soft, low usage, passive, etc. is still above him. It seems to me again, Zach isn't carrying squat. He's carrying his numbers NOT the team because again he doesn't get his points in a team concept. He gets them on tough contested fadeaway shots breaking the offense for the other team members.

I will say his impact did improve after the benching during the miami game. He started to use his scoring as off ball scoring which was used as a bonus and not a crutch... and look at that, the team looked semi functional and had a .500 month. Same thing happened last feb when OPJ pushed him to an off ball role, another .500 month. Now we are back to Zach's all star push to the deteriment of the team. Yes he's been carrying the team the past few games... a team that's given up on playing a team offense and is telling him Zach just do your thing and try to make the all star game. And so he is... to losses.


More numbers:

There are 60 players above 24% usage & greater than 400 mins played.

Zach is 14th overall in usage but
- 46th in ORTG
- 30th in TS%

Yes there are notable names below him in ORTG but either A) they play defense B) they are going throw injuries C) down year D) other fake inflated number stars

For a guy who is there for his scoring, he doesn't do it an an elite level to justify his huge usage or an all star spot
chefo
Junior
Posts: 431
And1: 751
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#94 » by chefo » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:11 pm

I actually think the closest comp for Zach is prime Melo, but with even less D.

Both viewed themselves as 'stars' and both could put up big scoring numbers. Melo, in NY especially, but even before that in Denver, was quite the selfish player who you knew was trying to get 'his' no matter what. As Melo's teams got progressively worse, the more selfish he became.

Now, I don't think Zach has the same mindset, that's not what I am accusing him of, but the better the opponent, it seems to me the more Zach forces the action, pretty much all game long.

The only reason I'm still holding out hope for Zach is actually team USA Melo. That player was arguably the best player on a team that featured prime LeBron, prime Wade, and prime Paul. He was pretty much unstoppable, moving great off-ball, shooting when open and taking it to the rack off ball-movement.

What I am trying to say is, I think at least a part of why Zach looks like he does, is because just like late-NY Melo, he probably feels like he needs to 'carry' his team, even if that means he uses up 50% of the team's possessions. That's what alphas do in his head. You can tell his first, second and third instinct is to chuck up a shot, no matter how contested, or if it makes sense as to the flow of the game, when things get tight.

The problem for the Bulls is that, just like those NY teams, the current Bulls are turning into a collection of chuckers because that attitude from your point-man (which is what Lavine is) cannot co-exist with successful team ball. Most of the time, anyways. Now, if you have a historic talent like MJ or present-day Harden, it may work out, but Russ, who's just a step below in impact, couldn't make it work, and dude had great talent around him.

So what has the O devolved into:

Lauri touches the ball so few times (not even talking about shot attempts, just touches) that he pretty much lets it fly any split second semi-open chance he gets. You know the ball is going up if Thad or Coby has it as well, no matter where they are on the floor, and these put up as many shots as Lauri.

Only Lauri puts up his shots within the 'system', and not because he's unselfish, but mostly because he doesn't usually touch the ball early in the possession, and so when he does, the ball has been passed around some first. And often, they are not even good shots--but the other 3 go iso the moment they touch the ball, whether or not it makes sense. Zach at least uses P&R with WCJ so the big man gets some scraps, but otherwise, the Bulls' top shot-takers have almost completely devolved into ISO chuckers the last 10-15 games.

So what I am trying to say here? On a team that Zach feels he's NOT the undisputed alpha that has a smart ball-handler that is similar in status to him that can check his worst tendencies, Zach will look much better, just like Melo did with team USA, where he couldn't chuck at will and had to play within the team constraints.

Now on D, he's a train wreck as I've mentioned before so no need to repeat that, but I think D can be drilled into players if you do it enough as Thibs proved with all kind of NBA misfits. So there is some hope there.
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#95 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:24 pm

chefo wrote:I actually think the closest comp for Zach is prime Melo, but with even less D.

Both viewed themselves as 'stars' and both could put up big scoring numbers. Melo, in NY especially, but even before that in Denver, was quite the selfish player who you knew was trying to get 'his' no matter what. As Melo's teams got progressively worse, the more selfish he became.

Now, I don't think Zach has the same mindset, that's not what I am accusing him of, but the better the opponent, it seems to me the more Zach forces the action, pretty much all game long.

The only reason I'm still holding out hope for Zach is actually team USA Melo. That player was arguably the best player on a team that featured prime LeBron, prime Wade, and prime Paul. He was pretty much unstoppable, moving great off-ball, shooting when open and taking it to the rack off ball-movement.

What I am trying to say is, I think at least a part of why Zach looks like he does, is because just like late-NY Melo, he probably feels like he needs to 'carry' his team, even if that means he uses up 50% of the team's possessions. That's what alphas do in his head. You can tell his first, second and third instinct is to chuck up a shot, no matter how contested, or if it makes sense as to the flow of the game, when things get tight.

The problem for the Bulls is that, just like those NY teams, the current Bulls are turning into a collection of chuckers because that attitude from your point-man (which is what Lavine is) cannot co-exist with successful team ball. Most of the time, anyways. Now, if you have a historic talent like MJ or present-day Harden, it may work out, but Russ, who's just a step below in impact, couldn't make it work, and dude had great talent around him.

So what has the O devolved into:

Lauri touches the ball so few times (not even talking about shot attempts, just touches) that he pretty much lets it fly any split second semi-open chance he gets. You know the ball is going up if Thad or Coby has it as well, no matter where they are on the floor, and these put up as many shots as Lauri.

Only Lauri puts up his shots within the 'system', and not because he's unselfish, but mostly because he doesn't usually touch the ball early in the possession, and so when he does, the ball has been passed around some first. And often, they are not even good shots--but the other 3 go iso the moment they touch the ball, whether or not it makes sense. Zach at least uses P&R with WCJ so the big man gets some scraps, but otherwise, the Bulls' top shot-takers have almost completely devolved into ISO chuckers the last 10-15 games.

So what I am trying to say here? On a team that Zach feels he's NOT the undisputed alpha that has a smart ball-handler that is similar in status to him that can check his worst tendencies, Zach will look much better, just like Melo did with team USA, where he couldn't chuck at will and had to play within the team constraints.

Now on D, he's a train wreck as I've mentioned before so no need to repeat that, but I think D can be drilled into players if you do it enough as Thibs proved with all kind of NBA misfits. So there is some hope there.



Good post. I don't think Zach is being selfish necessarily but that's the flawed mindset that he has. Unfortunately Melo needed to play under HOF players on Team USA to take a backseat (but very vital) off ball scorer role. He wasn't able to do that in the NBA because he didn't play with any players "better" than him. Similarly with Lavine, I don't see how we get a "better" player to push him to an off ball role (I put "better" in quotes because he doesn't necessarily have to be a better scorer).Lauri no matter how he plays, I don't see Zach deferring to him. Lauri is just a younger player. To me in Feb last year, Zach was willing to step aside and let OPJ be the leader (a very efficient scorer with winning experience) but it wasn't the case to begin the season (maybe it was because OPJ was injured so Zach thought he had to step up more?).

After that miami benching, Lavine was playing a lot more off-ball but again hero ball zach reared his head. Recently, like you said, the team has pretty much devolved into iso ball which is useful to zach because that's how he gets his points.
User avatar
Mech Engineer
RealGM
Posts: 16,470
And1: 4,488
Joined: Apr 10, 2012
Location: NW Suburbs

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#96 » by Mech Engineer » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:44 pm

There are obviously pros and cons about Zach.

1. You can't blame a young guy in trying to be the alpha guy. He is athletic, can shoot well, can create his own shot. These are the characteristics of most stars.

2. We loved Jimmy for trying to take over even if people doubted him. That's how most young players are. Otherwise, they are not trying to improve.

3. If he accepts a smaller role, he is forever cast in that role and his earnings, growth will be capped.

4. But, there's a fine balance with players like Zach. You can become a Melo or Kawhi. In the first few years of his NBA career, Melo might have looked like he will be a better alpha than most other guys. But, he was probably in a bad situation and learnt bad habits. Or, he was never going to be a #1 option on a contender but nobody knew at that time.

Should Melo have accepted a lesser role and learnt how to share, pass the ball, playmake from the beginning? I think that's the #1 aspect in the growth of a star or a winner. And, Lavine is dangerously close to never learning it which means even if he is on a good team, he will not know how to play as a 2nd or 3rd option.

That aspect of the game which separates the real stars from misfits is the ability to play without the ball, playmake.

Even if MJ did not do it as much, that was a different time plus nobody can be that dominating. He was in a different tier than all the #1 options. So, Lavine needs a good team sooner than later. Otherwise, his career is going to be 'what could have been'?.
User avatar
HomoSapien
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 26,807
And1: 14,375
Joined: Aug 17, 2009
 

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#97 » by HomoSapien » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:04 pm

It really is striking me, especially lately, how little offensive help LaVine has. Maybe the reason he takes bad shots at times (especially in the clutch) is because he really doesn't have teammates he can rely on. Lauri's been so bad over the season that it's hard to consider him a true second option, and we literally don't have a defined third option with Carter, White, and Satoransky all putting up similar scoring numbers.
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
JimmyJammer
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,502
And1: 1,692
Joined: Aug 31, 2005

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#98 » by JimmyJammer » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:15 pm

I can give the names of countless of nba players who previously made the all-star team while playing on a bad team, but I am going to focus my energy on Kemba Walker. Lavine's numbers compare favorably to Kemba's last season's numbers when he made the all-star team. Field goal percentage, free-throw percentage, assist percentage, steal percentage, rebound percentage, and they both have played on a bad team. Kemba was only averaging one point more than what Lavine is currently averaging. So it would not be against the norm for Zach to make the team, considering his numbers are solid, the event is in Chicago and he is a very entertaining player. Nothing will he given to him because he has earned it. The only fans who are rooting against this are those who want to be proven right in their previous assessment of Zach.
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#99 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:35 pm

JimmyJammer wrote:I can give the names of countless of nba players who previously made the all-star team while playing on a bad team, but I am going to focus my energy on Kemba Walker. Lavine's numbers compare favorably to Kemba's last season's numbers when he made the all-star team. Field goal percentage, free-throw percentage, assist percentage, steal percentage, rebound percentage, and they both have played on a bad team. Kemba was only averaging one point more than what Lavine is currently averaging. So it would not be against the norm for Zach to make the team, considering his numbers are solid, the event is in Chicago and he is a very entertaining player. Nothing will he given to him because he has earned it. The only fans who are rooting against this are those who want to be proven right in their previous assessment of Zach.


Hmmmmm, he scored a tad more on slightly lesser efficiency, fouled less, turned it over less while assisting a lot more.

Zach On: 107.5, Zach Off: 100.0 (+7.5 oRTG)
Zach On: 110.4, Zach Off: 101.1 (-9.3 dRTG)

Net: -1.8 RTG

Kemba last year:
Kemba On: 113.8, Kemba Off: 107.1 (+6.7 oRTG)
Kemba On: 113.4 Kemba Off: 112.9 (-0.5 dRTG)

Net: +6.2 RTG


Notice a difference?
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 6,251
And1: 3,239
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Is Zach LaVine a Winner? 

Post#100 » by PaKii94 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:47 pm

Red Larrivee wrote: You wouldn't say "Daniel Gafford has a 127 oRTG and the Bulls have a 105.3 oRTG, therefore, he's +21.7 net."


To address the gafford blurb, yes 21.7 is the net on that. The way of reading that is "on average he scores 22 more points than the team does p100". It doesn't address how he scores those points. It can still be contextually valid. I think the energy gafford provides and the offensive gravity warping effect he has with his rim running is pretty obvious. You don't see that in the lineup weighted on/off court numbers (-4.2 net ORTG)

Obviously with any stat, it requires context. We would have a beast on our hands if Gafford could create his own shot, had high volume and was putting up a 127 ORTG. gafford has played limited minutes (<500) so his ORTG can be inflated with his very idealized role currently (grab ball, dunk). It would plummet if he starts taking jumpers. Likewise, maybe Zach is given too much of the offensive pie? With a reduced role, you can have more of an impact.


but it also goes the other way and due to Gafford's limited minutes/volume, he has a very small weight in the overall team average and he can't move the needle too much for the team

Return to Chicago Bulls