PG: Well at least we are getting healthy

[Bandit King]

Well at least Coby is fun to watch!

[PaKii94]

Bingo. If Zach were a legit #1 Guy, he’d have the Bulls at .500 or over right now, despite the bum teammates & despite the non existent coaching. He isn’t, not right now. I personally think he can get there, seeing as how he’s a late bloomer compared to a lot of other top guys his age, but I dunno if it’ll be with the bulls

If they’re dead set on having him play out his contract & seeing if he “gets it” over the next two seasons, then they *must* get some better passers on the team & a new coach. Can’t stress this enough

I dont even expect .500. If Zach was good as advertised nobody else cares, they would be 8th seed or 1game behind minimum.
Why is BKN at 7th seed despite 50% of their cap wasted this season and having role players? Guys like Din and Levert are producing similar while making peanuts. Maybe, hes a 3rd option on a championship contender like Bucks if I am being very generous but having him as number 1 option is the worst since you cant even tank properly yet get these garbage #7 picks in a row.
He produces a lot but most of it has to do with usage and actually makes the team worse like you saw with post ACL Rose Bulls.

You guys are using strawmen. The fact that Zach isn't good enough to be a #1 doesn't change the fact that he is our best offensive option. Get better players to push him down the pecking order where he belongs. This all or nothing talk is just a garbage argument. He is being paid like the 2nd/3rd option he should be.

Only LaVine haters are still talking about whether he is a #1. Most of us have already moved on from that idea. If you are saying he cannot function without being the #1 option that is pure biased speculation because there is no one on this team he should defer too. Lauri had his opportunity this year and **** the bed. Porter is a limited role player. Carter doesn't project as much on offense. Coby White is literally the only other guy showing ability to take over games and he has had a very inconsistent rookie season.

Quite frankly it is really ridiculous that LaVine is the focus of anyone's criticism when he is BY FAR our best player. That may not mean much, but blame GarPax for that being case.

There's a difference between being a #1 and being the best/highest scorer. Lavine is our most TALENTED player. Applied the right way he could easily be the BEST player. I wouldn't say he is BY FAR our best player though. He is one of the guys.

[PaKii94]

The best team in the league also has the highest usage player in the league. I expect I am misinterpreting your point. Can you clarify?

Lavine's style of play/shot selection isn't conducive to winning. He's a subpar playmaker when on ball but he's also very mediocre off ball. He needs to be an on ball scorer to make and impact but he can't run the team. I agree with Dice. If lavine can reign himself in he can be a legit positive impact but right now he doesn't still know the nuances of ball.

Also the people saying the offense looks better, because it WAS better for our role players. They get the ball moving around. If lavine could play like that AND score like he does, the team would be doing much better. Less of a "carrying the team" alpha and more of a "scoring leader" role. He would be a nice bonus then.

The offense looks better because Otto Porter.

The ball moved around the first 4:30 of the game tonight. It was moving great, right? That's what everyone was saying. The Bulls scored 4 points. Then Coby came in, the ball stopped moving, Coby started scoring, and the Bulls went on a run.

It's hilarious how it was always "no one on the team can create their own shot except Butler". Now it is "Lavine is creating his own shot, we have to move the ball more". How about we see Lavine play with Otto, Lauri, Coby and Val for a bit?

Lavine has been doing what he has to.

Nobody he was playing alongside could be a playmaker. Boylen refused to play Val, Porter was hurt. So Lavine did it.

No one else on the court could score. Coby was sucking ass until a few games ago. Otto was hurt. So Lavine had to score.

Yet, for there last 15-20 games, Lavine spent the first several minutes if each game deferring. The Bulls got worse.

He doesn't need to reign himself in (and that isn't what Dice said BTW). He needs players around him.

The ball does stop sometimes with Coby. That happens with scorers. I don't mind it happening SOMETIMES with Lavine. I just want him to play like 80% in the offense and 20% of getting his (during bailout shots). However, Lavine's style is too far balanced towards iso. It's more like 20% in the offense and 80% tough shots. Also again, scoring wasn't the issue this game. It was twolves hitting 44% from 3. Would Zach help or hurt that?

Yet, for there last 15-20 games, Lavine spent the first several minutes if each game deferring. The Bulls got worse.

and like I said, Zach is a very very mediocre off ball player. He hasn't learned how to play off ball. That's why the team is worse. That's why he needs to play on ball. True impact players still distort the field just by standing on the court. Watch his possessions off ball. He passes it off and goes stands with his hands down on the side ball watching. Eventually the ball makes it's way back to him, the defense resets (because Zach doesn't know how to keep the flow going) and it's back to iso mode.

He doesn't need to reign himself in (and that isn't what Dice said BTW). He needs players around him.

He needs a facilitator and a true #1 to keep him in check with his iso tendencies. I just don't know how we get one that Lavine would defer to.

[PaKii94]

You know I vehemently agree with you when we agree, and vehemently disagree when we disagree.

I got to call bull on this one. So... they are better off with Lavine on the roster, but not on the court? What, is he a world class cheerleader? Or should they make him assistant coach?

they HAVE BEEN better when he hasn't been on the court. that is statistical fact. but there is random variation involved along with unit performance factors. for example, a good player on a bad unit is going to have a negative +/-. or if he's a starter and the bench performs well the same thing will happen

And, this is a big one that is never mentioned, the player who plays the most minutes is inevitably tied to the team's overall performance and has little chance to deviate from it. So based on those variables the team hasn't necessarily been better when he is off the court.

If it was just +/- that painted him in a bad picture then yeah you could disregard it as an anomaly. But pretty much every advanced stat has him AT BEST as middle of the pack (and usually bottom barrel) throughout his career regardless of the players around him.

Also that doesn't hold weight to the true impact players. Regardless of the people around them, they all have positive advanced stats.

[PaKii94]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, the Finnisher is back!

Watch on YouTube

Lauri aggressive = Great..Finnisher!!
LaVine aggrease = ball hog/losing basketball

What a joke.

Also talk is cheap. I hope he backs it up though because I want all Bulls to succeed....

Is that seriously the argument you're going to make? Obviously we want all players to be aggressive. BUT it needs to be applied the right way and the right time.

[PaKii94]

which is why i said that it's not a reason to say the team is better off without him!

he's averaging 34.8 minutes, by the way

Recently he has been playing 38 or 39 minutes unless there is garbage time... and garbage time will really screw up plus minus

ok, but the stats are based on the entire season. he was +2.7 on/off last season and -5.5 this season. i don't think a single person would argue that he has been significantly worse this season, so there's a lot of random variation in the stat from year to year and this year's number is thus hardly evidence that the team is better off w/o him

He was a positive on/off because last year the bench was literally a g-league team bench (not starters). Obviously Zach is better than players that don't belong in the league. Now that we have some talent on the bench, Zach is not clearly better than them (and numbers say he is worse)

[MikeDC]

The Bulls have the 26th ranked offense in the league.

I think the biggest single reason for that is that the Bulls perceive offense as taking turns, and this perception trickles down to fans. Oh no, there won't be enough shots for everyone!

When you step back and look at the big picture though, everyone getting their allotment of shots isn't winning them anything.

What needs to be understood is that GOOD SHOTS ARE OPEN SHOTS. A good offense is more than the sum of its parts, and more than sharing and taking turns, because the more gravity each player takes, the more likely it is that every player gets open shots.

Zach and Coby create gravity. But by themselves, they don't create enough gravity to consistently power an offense when they're on court with guys who are afraid, unable, or told not to shoot.

Put them together, and put the guys who are being told not to shoot in positions where they can shoot, and you are going to have better offense. It's really not a complicated concept.

Well said.

The other thing would be it's ok to break a play when there is an obvious mismatch on the floor.
There were at least five times that I counted where the bulls involved a guard and lauri in a two man game. The Bulls got the switch. Lauri had that midget (Maclaughlin?) on him. So what does Lauri do? He backs up behind the three point line and stands there. He doesn't immediately go into the post and demand the ball. Also, nobody else on the Bulls sees the obvious mismatch and directs Lauri into the post. They just run whatever play has been set. Thad, on the other hand, was demanding the ball in the post when he had a mismatch. The results were generally positive.

I don't know if it's Lauri, the coaching staff or what is going on. When you have a guy who is 7 feet tall and he's being guarded by a guy 5' 10" - you get the 7-footer the ball and make the defense have to adjust. Instead, they actually reward the switching by not exposing the mismatch. It's frustrating to watch.

Here we go again.

1) Nobody's claiming Lauri has good low post instincts. Let's just get that out of the way.

2) Now... regarding the bolded part. That's been happening a lot over the last few years, it's true. However, when you get a small-on-big mismatch like that, the whole team needs to recognize it - and most importantly, any other big who's occupying the low post needs to get the HELL out of the way, fast. Preferably to the weakside corner, where he he can space the floor for the mismatch 1-on-1.

Unfortunately, now that Kornet's out, we don't have any other bigs who can space the floor for Lauri. It's always the other way around. Gafford's a 2nd round pick and a rookie, I'm not gonna be too hard on him. But the fact that Wendell still can't do this very basic thing at all is damning. I just don't know why he continues to get a free pass for preventing the Bulls from playing modern NBA basketball.

Never draft non-shooters. NEVER. Particularly in the lottery. Are we clear?

No. This is a ridiculous interpretation of what should be happening, and the worst thing of all is that there's a lot of evidence to suggest it's also how the coach/FO looks at things.

It's a terrible interpretation of what should be happening because it's backwards. It's putting the means ahead of the ends. You run an offense to CREATE mismatches like this. Once you get it, you execute. You throw the ball to Lauri and he shoots it.

What you, and the Bulls seem to think is that it's no good because in their idealized theory, Lauri neither at the rim or behind the (3 point) line. And because, in general, they want Lauri spacing the floor and Wendell not.

But those things, those generalized forms, are only the MEANS to the END of getting good shots. It really doesn't matter HOW you get that shot once its available! Once you throw it to Lauri and a 5'10 guy is guarding him, he needs to shoot it. Immediately. It doesn't matter where Carter or anywhere else is on the floor or what they can do.

That's absurd. You're saying pass up a good scoring situation in order to have Lauri back up to the three point line. To what end? Oh yeah... to hopefully create space to hopefully create a good shot. Except... that's the very thing he had that he just passed out of!

It's insane, stupid, completely circular logic that totally misses the point of the game of basketball.

Other than that, it's a completely sound idea though.

[PaKii94]

it has nothing to do with the team's overall performance. it has to do with the team's performance when he's out there compared to when he isn't. the team is awful when he's on the bench and even worse when he's in the game

He has been playing 39 of 48 minutes. Your sample size with him off the court is 9 mpg when the other team is resting its best players.

I can't believe how many people just don't get that individual +/- stats are useless.

All analytics are useless IMO

ah there we go.

[PaKii94]

The best team in the league also has the highest usage player in the league. I expect I am misinterpreting your point. Can you clarify?

That player is a big positive, he's not Zach. How much clearer can it be?

You have no proof that it will be hard to take the ball away. No one on this team is better than him or even close enough to justify it. Until such a situation presents saying what won't work is useless. Fact of matter is he doesn't need to control the ball with extremely high usage to score a lot. It just works that way playing with bums. In alternate universe where we had say Anthony Davis, Trae Young or Luka Doncic do you seriously believe there would be a problem because he wouldn't want to give up the ball? Be real.

Zach cannot co-exist with the imaginary star we don't have yet...is that really your argument for trading him?

You flipped it. The team are bums because Zach is hogging the ball. We see them playing better individually without him these past few games. Like you said, he has the ability to score well without high usage. He needs to do that and he will be a good positive. I do think he would give up the ball to a player that is clearly better. But I don't see how we get that player, and I think in Zach's mind very very few players are clearly better.

Zach takes a lot of shots cuz zach has to take a lot of shots. Just like at times White has to take a lot of shots. This team has terrible offense, no initiators, or better shot creators. Complain when Zach starts passing the ball to Sato with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 times per game. Zach very may be more selective with a better cast, until then slamming him for shooting too much is silly.

No, Bulls have scored just fine without him. We could use his scoring as a bonus to be a lot better but we don't need him hogging the ball and stalling the offense.

Zach takes a lot of shots cuz zach has to take a lot of shots. Just like at times White has to take a lot of shots. This team has terrible offense, no initiators, or better shot creators. Complain when Zach starts passing the ball to Sato with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 times per game. Zach very may be more selective with a better cast, until then slamming him for shooting too much is silly.

Coby and Zach are literally both high volume iso scorers and the only guys that have impressed on offense at any point this season. Either they are just remarkably similar or maybe those are the best shots available because of the coaching and players around them?

Similar mold but Coby has applied it better. We need Zach to do the same.

[wolffy]

That player is a big positive, he's not Zach. How much clearer can it be?

You have no proof that it will be hard to take the ball away. No one on this team is better than him or even close enough to justify it. Until such a situation presents saying what won't work is useless. Fact of matter is he doesn't need to control the ball with extremely high usage to score a lot. It just works that way playing with bums. In alternate universe where we had say Anthony Davis, Trae Young or Luka Doncic do you seriously believe there would be a problem because he wouldn't want to give up the ball? Be real.

Zach cannot co-exist with the imaginary star we don't have yet...is that really your argument for trading him?

You flipped it. The team are bums because Zach is hogging the ball. We see them playing better individually without him these past few games. Like you said, he has the ability to score well without high usage. He needs to do that and he will be a good positive. I do think he would give up the ball to a player that is clearly better. But I don't see how we get that player, and I think in Zach's mind very very few players are clearly better.

Zach takes a lot of shots cuz zach has to take a lot of shots. Just like at times White has to take a lot of shots. This team has terrible offense, no initiators, or better shot creators. Complain when Zach starts passing the ball to Sato with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 times per game. Zach very may be more selective with a better cast, until then slamming him for shooting too much is silly.

No, Bulls have scored just fine without him. We could use his scoring as a bonus to be a lot better but we don't need him hogging the ball and stalling the offense.

Zach takes a lot of shots cuz zach has to take a lot of shots. Just like at times White has to take a lot of shots. This team has terrible offense, no initiators, or better shot creators. Complain when Zach starts passing the ball to Sato with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 times per game. Zach very may be more selective with a better cast, until then slamming him for shooting too much is silly.

Coby and Zach are literally both high volume iso scorers and the only guys that have impressed on offense at any point this season. Either they are just remarkably similar or maybe those are the best shots available because of the coaching and players around them?

Similar mold but Coby has applied it better. We need Zach to do the same.

The one game without Zach does give you a bit of an argument but i would counter that with the simple concept of the importance of a go to scorer. No offense could ever really be good without a good scorer long term. Teams would adjust after just a game or two.

Zach isnt the ideal number one but he shoulders a lot of the burden for this team. His shooting, at times, is a result of the crappy structure and not the cause imo.

[Fl_Flash]

The Bulls have the 26th ranked offense in the league.

I think the biggest single reason for that is that the Bulls perceive offense as taking turns, and this perception trickles down to fans. Oh no, there won't be enough shots for everyone!

When you step back and look at the big picture though, everyone getting their allotment of shots isn't winning them anything.

What needs to be understood is that GOOD SHOTS ARE OPEN SHOTS. A good offense is more than the sum of its parts, and more than sharing and taking turns, because the more gravity each player takes, the more likely it is that every player gets open shots.

Zach and Coby create gravity. But by themselves, they don't create enough gravity to consistently power an offense when they're on court with guys who are afraid, unable, or told not to shoot.

Put them together, and put the guys who are being told not to shoot in positions where they can shoot, and you are going to have better offense. It's really not a complicated concept.

Well said.

The other thing would be it's ok to break a play when there is an obvious mismatch on the floor.
There were at least five times that I counted where the bulls involved a guard and lauri in a two man game. The Bulls got the switch. Lauri had that midget (Maclaughlin?) on him. So what does Lauri do? He backs up behind the three point line and stands there. He doesn't immediately go into the post and demand the ball. Also, nobody else on the Bulls sees the obvious mismatch and directs Lauri into the post. They just run whatever play has been set. Thad, on the other hand, was demanding the ball in the post when he had a mismatch. The results were generally positive.

I don't know if it's Lauri, the coaching staff or what is going on. When you have a guy who is 7 feet tall and he's being guarded by a guy 5' 10" - you get the 7-footer the ball and make the defense have to adjust. Instead, they actually reward the switching by not exposing the mismatch. It's frustrating to watch.

Here we go again.

1) Nobody's claiming Lauri has good low post instincts. Let's just get that out of the way.

2) Now... regarding the bolded part. That's been happening a lot over the last few years, it's true. However, when you get a small-on-big mismatch like that, the whole team needs to recognize it - and most importantly, any other big who's occupying the low post needs to get the HELL out of the way, fast. Preferably to the weakside corner, where he he can space the floor for the mismatch 1-on-1.

Unfortunately, now that Kornet's out, we don't have any other bigs who can space the floor for Lauri. It's always the other way around. Gafford's a 2nd round pick and a rookie, I'm not gonna be too hard on him. But the fact that Wendell still can't do this very basic thing at all is damning. I just don't know why he continues to get a free pass for preventing the Bulls from playing modern NBA basketball.

Never draft non-shooters. NEVER. Particularly in the lottery. Are we clear?

I don't believe anybody here has claimed Lauri to be a good post player. Let's just get that out of the way.

Having the other big vacate the block to give room is one way to attack the mismatch - sure. But it's not the only way. The point would be to force a double-team. Get the defense scrambling. Once you force the double-team, as long as the correct, simple passes are made - you're going to get an open look. Hell, teams have been doing that to Boylen's blitzing defense all year long. It generates quite a few turnovers as most teams don't know how to initially handle the blitz, but once they see how easy it is to get around, we give up open look after open look. Why do you think we have such pathetic second halves?

It's not a must that you evacuate the post and let the big operate on the mismatch. It's an effective strategy, that's for sure, but not the only one. Get the defense moving, turning their heads. That's how you'll generate a good look even if the big in question isn't a low post stud. I think Lauri is a decent enough passer that he'd do OK.

[PaKii94]

You have no proof that it will be hard to take the ball away. No one on this team is better than him or even close enough to justify it. Until such a situation presents saying what won't work is useless. Fact of matter is he doesn't need to control the ball with extremely high usage to score a lot. It just works that way playing with bums. In alternate universe where we had say Anthony Davis, Trae Young or Luka Doncic do you seriously believe there would be a problem because he wouldn't want to give up the ball? Be real.

Zach cannot co-exist with the imaginary star we don't have yet...is that really your argument for trading him?

You flipped it. The team are bums because Zach is hogging the ball. We see them playing better individually without him these past few games. Like you said, he has the ability to score well without high usage. He needs to do that and he will be a good positive. I do think he would give up the ball to a player that is clearly better. But I don't see how we get that player, and I think in Zach's mind very very few players are clearly better.

Zach takes a lot of shots cuz zach has to take a lot of shots. Just like at times White has to take a lot of shots. This team has terrible offense, no initiators, or better shot creators. Complain when Zach starts passing the ball to Sato with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 times per game. Zach very may be more selective with a better cast, until then slamming him for shooting too much is silly.

No, Bulls have scored just fine without him. We could use his scoring as a bonus to be a lot better but we don't need him hogging the ball and stalling the offense.

Coby and Zach are literally both high volume iso scorers and the only guys that have impressed on offense at any point this season. Either they are just remarkably similar or maybe those are the best shots available because of the coaching and players around them?

Similar mold but Coby has applied it better. We need Zach to do the same.

The one game without Zach does give you a bit of an argument but i would counter that with the simple concept of the importance of a go to scorer. No offense could ever really be good without a good scorer long term. Teams would adjust after just a game or two.

Zach isnt the ideal number one but he shoulders a lot of the burden for this team. His shooting, at times, is a result of the crappy structure and not the cause imo.

I agree with your first part. All teams need a go to scorer. and Zach can DEFINITELY DEFINITELY be one. Like I said, the team without Zach isn't going anywhere. It just has better resemblance of team ball which gives credit to that they aren't complete bums. Thus yes he is "carrying a lot of the burden" but he doesn't NEED to. He should be utilized as a bonus. Like what the team is without him PLUS his extra scoring. So team is in the valley but he can take us to the mountaintop.

Instead, the way we play with him (with his over burdened self) is everyone retracts (team is put in a hole) and he then is pulling us from a hole back to the valley. With or without zach both ways we reach the valley but we need Zach to play well to pull us to the mountain top (team can't reach the top without him)

Putting it into arbitrary numbers:
1) iso team without Zach = 2/10
2) motion offense team without zach =4/10
3) iso team with iso zach = 4.5/10
4) motion offense with motion offense zach = 8/10

We saw #3 for most of the season. We saw #2 in the past 2 games. Zach "defenders" thinks the team is #1 when he's not on the floor. I think we can be and we should be striving for #4 but we have only seen very very small glimpses of that.

[Dresden]

The Bulls have the 26th ranked offense in the league.

I think the biggest single reason for that is that the Bulls perceive offense as taking turns, and this perception trickles down to fans. Oh no, there won't be enough shots for everyone!

When you step back and look at the big picture though, everyone getting their allotment of shots isn't winning them anything.

What needs to be understood is that GOOD SHOTS ARE OPEN SHOTS. A good offense is more than the sum of its parts, and more than sharing and taking turns, because the more gravity each player takes, the more likely it is that every player gets open shots.

Zach and Coby create gravity. But by themselves, they don't create enough gravity to consistently power an offense when they're on court with guys who are afraid, unable, or told not to shoot.

Put them together, and put the guys who are being told not to shoot in positions where they can shoot, and you are going to have better offense. It's really not a complicated concept.

This is all the coach, which is why so many on the forum rightfully put a large or majority of the blame on Boylen. He's not putting his players in position to succeed.

Not me. I won't be sad to see Boylen go, but I think he's far from the biggest problem with this team. The problem is lack of talent.

[GameBredAPBT]

The Bulls have the 26th ranked offense in the league.

I think the biggest single reason for that is that the Bulls perceive offense as taking turns, and this perception trickles down to fans. Oh no, there won't be enough shots for everyone!

When you step back and look at the big picture though, everyone getting their allotment of shots isn't winning them anything.

What needs to be understood is that GOOD SHOTS ARE OPEN SHOTS. A good offense is more than the sum of its parts, and more than sharing and taking turns, because the more gravity each player takes, the more likely it is that every player gets open shots.

Zach and Coby create gravity. But by themselves, they don't create enough gravity to consistently power an offense when they're on court with guys who are afraid, unable, or told not to shoot.

Put them together, and put the guys who are being told not to shoot in positions where they can shoot, and you are going to have better offense. It's really not a complicated concept.

This is all the coach, which is why so many on the forum rightfully put a large or majority of the blame on Boylen. He's not putting his players in position to succeed.

Not me. I won't be sad to see Boylen go, but I think he's far from the biggest problem with this team. The problem is lack of talent.

The problem is the the coaching staff & the entire league knows it. The talent is fine. Could be better, but its fine. Had we hired Taylor Jenkins or Joerger, we’d be in the playoffs. Coaching is everything. That’s why you see the Heat turning raw athletes like adebayo into skilled players, and no names like Kendrick Nunn into ROY candidates. The Bulls are a notoriously toxic atmosphere where guys regress, stagnate, and lose value. We’ve heard & seen it time & time again, from players, analysts, etc. The one & only real success the franchise has had over the past twenty years came because the coach went to war with the FO, froze them out, and turned the players against them. Then & only then were we able to achieve success & develop guys. The problem right now is the horrible toxic atmosphere & coach/fo.

[Chi town]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Lauris body language and attitude looked much more assertive lastnight.

My bet is Boylen has worn on him big time and he is going to play his game for the rest of the season.

Can’t wait to watch.

[Chi town]

1. I think Coby is going to be our #1 option but that won’t help Lauri for WCJ

2. I think a Coby Lavine Otto big 3 could be a playoff team if we had great defenders at the 4 and 5. Or a playmaking big like a Jurkic.

[dice]

they HAVE BEEN better when he hasn't been on the court. that is statistical fact. but there is random variation involved along with unit performance factors. for example, a good player on a bad unit is going to have a negative +/-. or if he's a starter and the bench performs well the same thing will happen

And, this is a big one that is never mentioned, the player who plays the most minutes is inevitably tied to the team's overall performance and has little chance to deviate from it. So based on those variables the team hasn't necessarily been better when he is off the court.

If it was just +/- that painted him in a bad picture then yeah you could disregard it as an anomaly. But pretty much every advanced stat has him AT BEST as middle of the pack (and usually bottom barrel) throughout his career regardless of the players around him.

Also that doesn't hold weight to the true impact players. Regardless of the people around them, they all have positive advanced stats.

the more prominent of the respected advanced stats do have lavine as an above league average player at this point (starter quality). excluding his first year w/ the bulls (injury):

BPM (box score only)

-4.6 (rookie)
-1.5
0.1
0.8
2.5 (this season)

RPM

-6.87
-3.71
-2.97
-0.49
1.96 (formula recently changed for this season only to devalue defense)

"luck adjusted" pure RAPM

-2.49
-3.17
-1.47
-.39
-1.04

PIPM (newer stat) https://www.bball-index.com/current-pipm/

-1.06 (this season)

[dice]

You have no proof that it will be hard to take the ball away. No one on this team is better than him or even close enough to justify it. Until such a situation presents saying what won't work is useless. Fact of matter is he doesn't need to control the ball with extremely high usage to score a lot. It just works that way playing with bums. In alternate universe where we had say Anthony Davis, Trae Young or Luka Doncic do you seriously believe there would be a problem because he wouldn't want to give up the ball? Be real.

Zach cannot co-exist with the imaginary star we don't have yet...is that really your argument for trading him?

You flipped it. The team are bums because Zach is hogging the ball. We see them playing better individually without him these past few games. Like you said, he has the ability to score well without high usage. He needs to do that and he will be a good positive. I do think he would give up the ball to a player that is clearly better. But I don't see how we get that player, and I think in Zach's mind very very few players are clearly better.

Zach takes a lot of shots cuz zach has to take a lot of shots. Just like at times White has to take a lot of shots. This team has terrible offense, no initiators, or better shot creators. Complain when Zach starts passing the ball to Sato with 2 seconds on the shot clock 15 times per game. Zach very may be more selective with a better cast, until then slamming him for shooting too much is silly.

No, Bulls have scored just fine without him. We could use his scoring as a bonus to be a lot better but we don't need him hogging the ball and stalling the offense.

Coby and Zach are literally both high volume iso scorers and the only guys that have impressed on offense at any point this season. Either they are just remarkably similar or maybe those are the best shots available because of the coaching and players around them?

Similar mold but Coby has applied it better. We need Zach to do the same.

The one game without Zach does give you a bit of an argument but i would counter that with the simple concept of the importance of a go to scorer. No offense could ever really be good without a good scorer long term. Teams would adjust after just a game or two.

while i agree that a go-to scorer is valuable, it's easier for defenses to adjust to that than it is to ball movement with no offensive focal point

[PaKii94]

And, this is a big one that is never mentioned, the player who plays the most minutes is inevitably tied to the team's overall performance and has little chance to deviate from it. So based on those variables the team hasn't necessarily been better when he is off the court.

If it was just +/- that painted him in a bad picture then yeah you could disregard it as an anomaly. But pretty much every advanced stat has him AT BEST as middle of the pack (and usually bottom barrel) throughout his career regardless of the players around him.

Also that doesn't hold weight to the true impact players. Regardless of the people around them, they all have positive advanced stats.

the more prominent of the respected advanced stats do have lavine as an above league average player at this point (starter quality). excluding his first year w/ the bulls (injury):

BPM (box score only)

-4.6 (rookie)
-1.5
0.1
0.8
2.5 (this season)

RPM

-6.87
-3.71
-2.97
-0.49
1.96 (formula recently changed for this season only to devalue defense)

"luck adjusted" pure RAPM

-2.49
-3.17
-1.47
-.39
-1.04

PIPM (newer stat) https://www.bball-index.com/current-pipm/

-1.06 (this season)

Yes the advanced analytics show a slow upward trend with Lavine. That's encouraging. Like you said, it's gotten to "starter" level. He still has a ways to go to reach #1 impact level. Until then, he shouldn't be forcing himself into a #1 role.

You flipped it. The team are bums because Zach is hogging the ball. We see them playing better individually without him these past few games. Like you said, he has the ability to score well without high usage. He needs to do that and he will be a good positive. I do think he would give up the ball to a player that is clearly better. But I don't see how we get that player, and I think in Zach's mind very very few players are clearly better.




No, Bulls have scored just fine without him. We could use his scoring as a bonus to be a lot better but we don't need him hogging the ball and stalling the offense.



Similar mold but Coby has applied it better. We need Zach to do the same.

The one game without Zach does give you a bit of an argument but i would counter that with the simple concept of the importance of a go to scorer. No offense could ever really be good without a good scorer long term. Teams would adjust after just a game or two.

while i agree that a go-to scorer is valuable, it's easier for defenses to adjust to that than it is to ball movement with no offensive focal point

Exactly. A go to scorer is essential when the offense breaks down and a bailout bucket is needed. The Rose bulls team desperately needed a go to scorer like Lavine. But that brings it back to a go to scorer as a positive should be used as a "bonus". They provide the next step up from good to great. They shouldn't be used as the basis of the offense where it switches from positive to detrimental and becomes almost a "crutch" to the team.

[PaKii94]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Lauris body language and attitude looked much more assertive lastnight.

My bet is Boylen has worn on him big time and he is going to play his game for the rest of the season.

Can’t wait to watch.

tbh, he looked like he did in December...with a bit more usage and maybe an extra post up

1. I think Coby is going to be our #1 option but that won’t help Lauri for WCJ

2. I think a Coby Lavine Otto big 3 could be a playoff team if we had great defenders at the 4 and 5. Or a playmaking big like a Jurkic.

I think Coby should be the #1 option in playmaking (not scoring). For that, that's an upgrade coming from Lavine for Lauri/WCJ. However I agree it probably won't maximize our bigs. This team would have been a playoff team if we had a lead playmaker...regardless of everything else