Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread: PT 2

[DuckIII]

Pentele, I didn’t even read whatever post you are talking about.

[DuckIII]

I agree completely with coldfish’s take. And add that not only do I reject the notion the team somehow is responsible for Lauri’s mediocrity, in my view they went way out of their way to make his development a priority and his shortcomings are 100% his own.

That doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. He’s decent and I think he will have a decent career. But this notion that this is an organizational failure, to me, is clearly driven by an emotional investment in the player rather than an objective analysis of his career.

All of the foregoing relating to his career prior to this season. If you want to complain about the team’s handling of him this season I can get with that. But its a consequence not a cause.

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

It’s incredibly easy to pick and choose statistics to support an argument driven by emotional bias. Anyone claiming to be well versed in the use of data knows this.

I also don’t hate Lauri and your quick drop to that emotionally charged language supports my statement. At least as to you.

[PaKii94]

I agree completely with coldfish’s take. And add that not only do I reject the notion the team somehow is responsible for Lauri’s mediocrity, in my view they went way out of their way to make his development a priority and his shortcomings are 100% his own.

That doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. He’s decent and I think he will have a decent career. But this notion that this is an organizational failure, to me, is clearly driven by an emotional investment in the player rather than an objective analysis of his career.

All of the foregoing relating to his career prior to this season. If you want to complain about the team’s handling of him this season I can get with that. But its a consequence not a cause.

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

It’s incredibly easy to pick and choose statistics to support an argument driven by emotional bias. Anyone claiming to be well versed in the use of data knows this.

That's why you provide a well rounded argument which most of the Lauri fans have. Instead y'all go back to rhetorics to make your points

[Pentele]

I agree completely with coldfish’s take. And add that not only do I reject the notion the team somehow is responsible for Lauri’s mediocrity, in my view they went way out of their way to make his development a priority and his shortcomings are 100% his own.

That doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. He’s decent and I think he will have a decent career. But this notion that this is an organizational failure, to me, is clearly driven by an emotional investment in the player rather than an objective analysis of his career.

All of the foregoing relating to his career prior to this season. If you want to complain about the team’s handling of him this season I can get with that. But its a consequence not a cause.

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

Not that I necessarily agree with you in this particular instance, but the fact that this board has so many active posters who are willing to share their thoughts on a regular basis does give one an interesting glimpse to human psyche. I thought last year was interesting in that regard but this year has topped it easily.

[Pentele]

Pentele, I didn’t even read whatever post you are talking about.

Let us call it a happy coincidence then.

[DuckIII]

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

It’s incredibly easy to pick and choose statistics to support an argument driven by emotional bias. Anyone claiming to be well versed in the use of data knows this.

That's why you provide a well rounded argument which most of the Lauri fans have. Instead y'all go back to rhetorics to make your points

I’ve read enough tedious arguments on both sides of this debate to know that there are misguided data driven methods to support pretty much any view or Lauri. I’ve defended him against several of them.

As well, on one side, an overwhelming volume of finger pointing blaming Lauri’s tepid career on all manner of external forces.

[DuckIII]

Pentele, I didn’t even read whatever post you are talking about.

Let us call it a happy coincidence then.

Call it whatever you want. I read coldfish’s posts, agreed with them, and wrote my post. I have no idea what you wrote but I’ll take your word for it.

[PaKii94]

It’s incredibly easy to pick and choose statistics to support an argument driven by emotional bias. Anyone claiming to be well versed in the use of data knows this.

That's why you provide a well rounded argument which most of the Lauri fans have. Instead y'all go back to rhetorics to make your points

I’ve read enough tedious arguments on both sides of this debate to know that there are misguided data driven methods to support pretty much any view or Lauri. I’ve defended him against several of them.

As well, one one side, an overwhelming volume of finger pointing blaming Lauri’s tepid career on all manner of external forces.

Except one side talks about the opportunity he got before where he's not getting it now. And we ask to see him get that level of focus and opportunity again. He might completely fail at it now but at least give him a shot.

And the other sees it as confirmation of their bias "see we told you he was bad!! We knew he can't be a competent second scorer".... While completely discrediting the fact that he got 4th option touches. And also disregarding the fact that advanced metrics still rate him as #2-3 in impact on the team.

Lauri hasn't necessarily failed the bulls with his play. The bulls have failed him.

[E-DC]

I agree completely with coldfish’s take. And add that not only do I reject the notion the team somehow is responsible for Lauri’s mediocrity, in my view they went way out of their way to make his development a priority and his shortcomings are 100% his own.

That doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. He’s decent and I think he will have a decent career. But this notion that this is an organizational failure, to me, is clearly driven by an emotional investment in the player rather than an objective analysis of his career.

All of the foregoing relating to his career prior to this season. If you want to complain about the team’s handling of him this season I can get with that. But its a consequence not a cause.

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

It’s incredibly easy to pick and choose statistics to support an argument driven by emotional bias. Anyone claiming to be well versed in the use of data knows this.

I also don’t hate Lauri and your quick drop to that emotionally charged language supports my statement. At least as to you.

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, that's cool. But you are more than welcome to counter it with you own data or demonstrate with objective analysis why the data I provided is inadequate.

[coldfish]

I agree completely with coldfish’s take. And add that not only do I reject the notion the team somehow is responsible for Lauri’s mediocrity, in my view they went way out of their way to make his development a priority and his shortcomings are 100% his own.

That doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. He’s decent and I think he will have a decent career. But this notion that this is an organizational failure, to me, is clearly driven by an emotional investment in the player rather than an objective analysis of his career.

All of the foregoing relating to his career prior to this season. If you want to complain about the team’s handling of him this season I can get with that. But its a consequence not a cause.

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

In general, discussing the posters instead of the players is a slippery slope to nowhere.

I do strongly agree with Duck that Lauri's failing in Chicago is not Chicago's fault. They have given him opportunity well above his ability and tried many different things out. When put in a primary role as an initiator, he fails so quickly that the team almost immediately gives up on it. They have tried the off ball motion thing with multiple different coaches. That definitely works for Lauri the best. When they have run off ball plays for him, its proven to be more of a rare occurrence than something the team can really build an offense around since the defense can adjust so easily.

Defensively, they have tried him at the 3,4 and 5. Every coach eventually figures out that Lauri is a defender you have to hide, not feature.

He has got a ton of minutes. For an off ball shooter, he has got a ridiculous number of shots.

Overall, I have posted on Lauri a lot and it probably looks like I'm a "hater" because I almost argue with the people who support him. I don't think he is a bad player though. I just think he is closer to a Bobby Portis role player than a foundational piece that you build a team around.

[DuckIII]

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

It’s incredibly easy to pick and choose statistics to support an argument driven by emotional bias. Anyone claiming to be well versed in the use of data knows this.

I also don’t hate Lauri and your quick drop to that emotionally charged language supports my statement. At least as to you.

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, that's cool. But you are more than welcome to counter it with you own data or demonstrate with objective analysis why the data I provided is inadequate.

I don’t care enough about Lauri anymore to trade data. Been doing it for years, including when I considered him a borderline untouchable prospect. So I’ll just illustrate my point and be done.

You cited field goal percentage, and only field goal percentage, to support this macro premise (your words):

Here's a question. Do we want players who perform well against the toughest competition?

I put together a spreadsheet to examine this very question. Here's what I found. Note that I only used Lauri and Coby's games as starters. The data may explain why so many of us are talking past each other.

Lauri has performed significantly better against the tougher competition, but those are also games that the Bulls usually struggled in and we typically lost.

And I’m not sure why you only chose Coby’s games as a starter but it’s a minor point. Nor do I understand why you cited Coby at all since they play different roles and I’ve never seen anyone argue we should dump Lauri because Coby is better. Coby has sucked this year.

Moreover, no one disagrees that Lauri is a good shooter. You took his one indisputable strength and bizarrely extrapolated it to represent his general on court performance. That’s cherry picking to buttress an emotional opinion with an “objective” argument.

And here’s the even more obvious thing since you asked. When a poster wisely asked if you considered usage rate, you admitted you intentionally left it out of your initial post, based on a rationale easily illustrated as false:

I did check the USG rates, but chose not to include them because there really weren't any significant differences that showed up. Lavine's USG was 30.4 against the weak competition and 32 against the tougher ones, Lauri was 22.9 and 21.8,

Not significant, despite the fact that Lavine’s usage is a whopping 156% of Lauri’s against “tougher competition.” We could also contextualize it with relative defensive attention, shot-clock urgency shots of higher difficulty, etc. but why when we have field goal percentage?

No one called you on it probably because they concluded someone making that argument isn’t worth trying to convince. Which I agree with. I don’t have a sociology degree, but I do have a juris doctorate and 22 years of experience arguing for a living. And I’ve learned that dispelling foolishness is often a waste of time, in particular when it’s based on poorly concealed intellectual dishonesty.

But believe what you want and cite whatever you want. I’ll just let this stand as why I no longer bother with it in what has all been done before in a years long argument that hopefully, soon, will mercifully end.

[FanInTheAttic]

I agree completely with coldfish’s take. And add that not only do I reject the notion the team somehow is responsible for Lauri’s mediocrity, in my view they went way out of their way to make his development a priority and his shortcomings are 100% his own.

That doesn’t mean he’s bad. He’s not bad. He’s decent and I think he will have a decent career. But this notion that this is an organizational failure, to me, is clearly driven by an emotional investment in the player rather than an objective analysis of his career.

All of the foregoing relating to his career prior to this season. If you want to complain about the team’s handling of him this season I can get with that. But its a consequence not a cause.

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

In general, discussing the posters instead of the players is a slippery slope to nowhere.

I do strongly agree with Duck that Lauri's failing in Chicago is not Chicago's fault. They have given him opportunity well above his ability and tried many different things out. When put in a primary role as an initiator, he fails so quickly that the team almost immediately gives up on it. They have tried the off ball motion thing with multiple different coaches. That definitely works for Lauri the best. When they have run off ball plays for him, its proven to be more of a rare occurrence than something the team can really build an offense around since the defense can adjust so easily.

Defensively, they have tried him at the 3,4 and 5. Every coach eventually figures out that Lauri is a defender you have to hide, not feature.

He has got a ton of minutes. For an off ball shooter, he has got a ridiculous number of shots.

Overall, I have posted on Lauri a lot and it probably looks like I'm a "hater" because I almost argue with the people who support him. I don't think he is a bad player though. I just think he is closer to a Bobby Portis role player than a foundational piece that you build a team around.

I don't have a strong opinion on why Lauri is not matching his expectations. The cause is most probably a combination of Bulls failing on player development and lack of Lauri's personal growth as a player. I do believe he would be better in another team environment ( maybe Spurs), and he also probably recognizes this, and probably doesn't even want to resign with the Bulls.

It is interesting to follow this discussion,but some arguments are missing the stats they are based on. Like on this post for example, would be interesting to know on what stats are these arguments based on? (I'm not arguing they are wrong)

[E-DC]

It’s incredibly easy to pick and choose statistics to support an argument driven by emotional bias. Anyone claiming to be well versed in the use of data knows this.

I also don’t hate Lauri and your quick drop to that emotionally charged language supports my statement. At least as to you.

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, that's cool. But you are more than welcome to counter it with you own data or demonstrate with objective analysis why the data I provided is inadequate.

I don’t care enough about Lauri anymore to trade data. Been doing it for years, including when I considered him a borderline untouchable prospect. So I’ll just illustrate my point and be done.

You cited field goal percentage, and only field goal percentage, to support this macro premise (your words):

Here's a question. Do we want players who perform well against the toughest competition?

I put together a spreadsheet to examine this very question. Here's what I found. Note that I only used Lauri and Coby's games as starters. The data may explain why so many of us are talking past each other.

Lauri has performed significantly better against the tougher competition, but those are also games that the Bulls usually struggled in and we typically lost.

And I’m not sure why you only chose Coby’s games as a starter but it’s a minor point. Nor do I understand why you cited Coby at all since they play different roles and I’ve never seen anyone argue we should dump Lauri because Coby is better. Coby has sucked this year.

Moreover, no one disagrees that Lauri is a good shooter. You took his one indisputable strength and bizarrely extrapolated it to represent his general on court performance. That’s cherry picking to buttress an emotional opinion with an “objective” argument.

And here’s the even more obvious thing since you asked. When a poster wisely asked if you considered usage rate, you admitted you intentionally left it out of your initial post, based on a rationale easily illustrated as false:

I did check the USG rates, but chose not to include them because there really weren't any significant differences that showed up. Lavine's USG was 30.4 against the weak competition and 32 against the tougher ones, Lauri was 22.9 and 21.8,

Not significant, despite the fact that Lavine’s usage is a whopping 156% of Lauri’s against “tougher competition.”

No one called you on it because they probably concluded someone making that argument isn’t worth trying to convince. Which I agree with. I don’t have a sociology degree, but I do have a juris doctorate and 22 years of experience arguing for a living. And I’ve learned that dispelling foolishness is often a waste of time, in particular when it’s based on poorly concealed intellectual dishonesty.

But believe what you want and cite whatever you want. I’ll just let this stand as why I no longer bother with it in what has all been done before in a years long argument that hopefully, soon, will mercifully end.

1. I included Coby because he happened to be one of the players I also ran the data on. I didn't realize I would be maligned for giving extra information. About a month ago I did this for Patrick Williams too.
2. The data analysis was about seeing if any wide disparities emerge based on the strength of the opponent. The usage rate didn't really change based on the strength of the opponent, so I didn't include it in the initial post.
3. I only used the games as a starter to have a more standardized dataset.
4. I also included ORTG and DRTG.

If you always assume that others have an agenda, it may be a red flag that you yourself is the one with the agenda. Often on this board I see people basing their opinions on feelings rather than data, so I like to add a little data into the equation. If I provide data that you disagree with you're more than welcome to counter it, and if your only counter is to say I have an agenda, you're welcome to do that too.

[waffle]

Lauri just hasn't found a niche (it might not exist) and CERTAINLY hasn't displayed the consistency that a starter in this league needs to demonstrate. And his D isn't good enough to make up for his choppy O performance. You just don't know what you are going to get from him.

[E-DC]

DuckIII, I just remembered something and I'm hoping you'll humor me for a moment. Click on my name and you'll see the post that I received the most And1's for. That post was within a debate you were having regarding Jimmy Butler being a selfish prick. I'm a huge Jimmy Butler fan, but I still provided you information that backed up your argument. I don't have an agenda. In fact, every time I see PaKii94's picture, I think to myself, I wish we still had Jimmy Butler.

[coldfish]

This is a perfect example of Psychological Projection.

As someone who provides data to back up all of my assertions, I can find this discussion with the Lauri haters to be a bit frustrating. However, as someone who got a degree in sociology, I actually find this discussion quite illuminating.

In general, discussing the posters instead of the players is a slippery slope to nowhere.

I do strongly agree with Duck that Lauri's failing in Chicago is not Chicago's fault. They have given him opportunity well above his ability and tried many different things out. When put in a primary role as an initiator, he fails so quickly that the team almost immediately gives up on it. They have tried the off ball motion thing with multiple different coaches. That definitely works for Lauri the best. When they have run off ball plays for him, its proven to be more of a rare occurrence than something the team can really build an offense around since the defense can adjust so easily.

Defensively, they have tried him at the 3,4 and 5. Every coach eventually figures out that Lauri is a defender you have to hide, not feature.

He has got a ton of minutes. For an off ball shooter, he has got a ridiculous number of shots.

Overall, I have posted on Lauri a lot and it probably looks like I'm a "hater" because I almost argue with the people who support him. I don't think he is a bad player though. I just think he is closer to a Bobby Portis role player than a foundational piece that you build a team around.

I don't have a strong opinion on why Lauri is not matching his expectations. The cause is most probably a combination of Bulls failing on player development and lack of Lauri's personal growth as a player. I do believe he would be better in another team environment ( maybe Spurs), and he also probably recognizes this, and probably doesn't even want to resign with the Bulls.

It is interesting to follow this discussion,but some arguments are missing the stats they are based on. Like on this post for example, would be interesting to know on what stats are these arguments based on? (I'm not arguing they are wrong)

I can post his assist rate, assists, number of shots from the post, block and steal rate, etc. as derivatives for what I am talking about. I think they are rather common knowledge that its all very poor.

Its kind of funny. To some degree I think we have been gaslighted into thinking that its OK that a theoretically agile 7 footer averages 1.3a, 0.7s and 0.5 blocks per game in 30mpg for his career.

[FanInTheAttic]

In general, discussing the posters instead of the players is a slippery slope to nowhere.

I do strongly agree with Duck that Lauri's failing in Chicago is not Chicago's fault. They have given him opportunity well above his ability and tried many different things out. When put in a primary role as an initiator, he fails so quickly that the team almost immediately gives up on it. They have tried the off ball motion thing with multiple different coaches. That definitely works for Lauri the best. When they have run off ball plays for him, its proven to be more of a rare occurrence than something the team can really build an offense around since the defense can adjust so easily.

Defensively, they have tried him at the 3,4 and 5. Every coach eventually figures out that Lauri is a defender you have to hide, not feature.

He has got a ton of minutes. For an off ball shooter, he has got a ridiculous number of shots.

Overall, I have posted on Lauri a lot and it probably looks like I'm a "hater" because I almost argue with the people who support him. I don't think he is a bad player though. I just think he is closer to a Bobby Portis role player than a foundational piece that you build a team around.

I don't have a strong opinion on why Lauri is not matching his expectations. The cause is most probably a combination of Bulls failing on player development and lack of Lauri's personal growth as a player. I do believe he would be better in another team environment ( maybe Spurs), and he also probably recognizes this, and probably doesn't even want to resign with the Bulls.

It is interesting to follow this discussion,but some arguments are missing the stats they are based on. Like on this post for example, would be interesting to know on what stats are these arguments based on? (I'm not arguing they are wrong)

I can post his assist rate, assists, number of shots from the post, block and steal rate, etc. as derivatives for what I am talking about. I think they are rather common knowledge that its all very poor.

Its kind of funny. To some degree I think we have been gaslighted into thinking that its OK that a theoretically agile 7 footer averages 1.3a, 0.7s and 0.5 blocks per game in 30mpg for his career.

For example, would be interesting to know how you came to this conclusion:

He has got a ton of minutes. For an off ball shooter, he has got a ridiculous number of shots.

Based on what stats and compared tho what / who ? Obviously you have studied the data and came to this conclusion, why not share your thought process? I

[Louri]

In general, discussing the posters instead of the players is a slippery slope to nowhere.

I do strongly agree with Duck that Lauri's failing in Chicago is not Chicago's fault. They have given him opportunity well above his ability and tried many different things out. When put in a primary role as an initiator, he fails so quickly that the team almost immediately gives up on it. They have tried the off ball motion thing with multiple different coaches. That definitely works for Lauri the best. When they have run off ball plays for him, its proven to be more of a rare occurrence than something the team can really build an offense around since the defense can adjust so easily.

Defensively, they have tried him at the 3,4 and 5. Every coach eventually figures out that Lauri is a defender you have to hide, not feature.

He has got a ton of minutes. For an off ball shooter, he has got a ridiculous number of shots.

Overall, I have posted on Lauri a lot and it probably looks like I'm a "hater" because I almost argue with the people who support him. I don't think he is a bad player though. I just think he is closer to a Bobby Portis role player than a foundational piece that you build a team around.

I don't have a strong opinion on why Lauri is not matching his expectations. The cause is most probably a combination of Bulls failing on player development and lack of Lauri's personal growth as a player. I do believe he would be better in another team environment ( maybe Spurs), and he also probably recognizes this, and probably doesn't even want to resign with the Bulls.

It is interesting to follow this discussion,but some arguments are missing the stats they are based on. Like on this post for example, would be interesting to know on what stats are these arguments based on? (I'm not arguing they are wrong)

I can post his assist rate, assists, number of shots from the post, block and steal rate, etc. as derivatives for what I am talking about. I think they are rather common knowledge that its all very poor.

Its kind of funny. To some degree I think we have been gaslighted into thinking that its OK that a theoretically agile 7 footer averages 1.3a, 0.7s and 0.5 blocks per game in 30mpg for his career.

Please post those assists numbers and at the same time some other PF floor spacers that are used in same way like Lauri. Hint, some Lauri comparsion mentioned here are Ryan Anderson and Channing Frye.

[coldfish]

I don't have a strong opinion on why Lauri is not matching his expectations. The cause is most probably a combination of Bulls failing on player development and lack of Lauri's personal growth as a player. I do believe he would be better in another team environment ( maybe Spurs), and he also probably recognizes this, and probably doesn't even want to resign with the Bulls.

It is interesting to follow this discussion,but some arguments are missing the stats they are based on. Like on this post for example, would be interesting to know on what stats are these arguments based on? (I'm not arguing they are wrong)

I can post his assist rate, assists, number of shots from the post, block and steal rate, etc. as derivatives for what I am talking about. I think they are rather common knowledge that its all very poor.

Its kind of funny. To some degree I think we have been gaslighted into thinking that its OK that a theoretically agile 7 footer averages 1.3a, 0.7s and 0.5 blocks per game in 30mpg for his career.

For example, would be interesting to know how you came to this conclusion:

He has got a ton of minutes. For an off ball shooter, he has got a ridiculous number of shots.

Based on what stats and compared tho what / who ? Obviously you have studied the data and came to this conclusion, why not share your thought process? I

If you go back a few pages, I have but to repeat myself.

Per 36, career FGA:
Markkanen 15.4
Korver 10.7
Ryan Anderson 14.0
Rip Hamilton 16.2
Reggie Miller 13.2

Off ball shooters don't get a ton of shots because you can't just throw it to them on the wing while covered and expect them to get high percentage looks. Their shot attempts come from both their defender's spacing AND their teammates' attention. Guys just don't get huge volumes of shots in that role. Compared to other off ball shooters, Lauri has gotten a ton of shots in his Bulls career.

The fact that Lauri averages more shots per minute through his career than Reggie Miller should get some people's attention . . .

[coldfish]

I don't have a strong opinion on why Lauri is not matching his expectations. The cause is most probably a combination of Bulls failing on player development and lack of Lauri's personal growth as a player. I do believe he would be better in another team environment ( maybe Spurs), and he also probably recognizes this, and probably doesn't even want to resign with the Bulls.

It is interesting to follow this discussion,but some arguments are missing the stats they are based on. Like on this post for example, would be interesting to know on what stats are these arguments based on? (I'm not arguing they are wrong)

I can post his assist rate, assists, number of shots from the post, block and steal rate, etc. as derivatives for what I am talking about. I think they are rather common knowledge that its all very poor.

Its kind of funny. To some degree I think we have been gaslighted into thinking that its OK that a theoretically agile 7 footer averages 1.3a, 0.7s and 0.5 blocks per game in 30mpg for his career.

Please post those assists numbers and at the same time some other PF floor spacers that are used in same way like Lauri. Hint, some Lauri comparsion mentioned here are Ryan Anderson and Channing Frye.

Career assist rate:
Channing Frye 6.8
Ryan Anderson 5.8
Lauri Markkanen 6.7

I'm not sure what your point is though. I think this is Lauri's role in the NBA and I think he is fine at it. I just don't think its a good idea to pay Channing Frye $20m per year.

If your point is that Lauri would do well as an offensive hub where he can create his own shot, draw in double teams and find teammates, I think there is no evidence of that being true. Do you have any stats that say otherwise?