Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

[Pentele]

The idea that Markkanen is a good shooter, therefore he shouldn't have to pass is laughable.

Yes, absolutely laughable. Has someone actually argued so? For example, if you read what I have said on the matter, I have only stated that Lauri should not pass if he has an open shot. There is this narrative going on that his TS% or the clip he makes threes does not really matter because he only makes and takes open shots. If that is indeed so, and he makes the shots, the team has succeeded rather than failed.

I am the first to admit that I am sort of messing with you guys when I say this, but there is a kernel of truth to it. But of course the point is not to say that Lauri should not pass at all.

[chefo]

I find the argument of "team plays well--> Lauri bad" nonsensical. All it shows is that the team has played well, and above expectations. So what? What if Lauri did not get injured, continued getting his 21pts from January on 50/40/90 and the Bulls went 8-1 instead? I don't see that as a completely unrealistic scenario--if the Bulls had Lauri against the Sixers, they may have stolen that game, for example.

It is very rare that a team is better without one of its top 2 players, especially since that player is primarily an off-ball player who does not dominate the offense and is out of people's way most of the time.

The Bulls have played better because WCJ got his mojo back, especially on help D, and Coby is no longer playing PG full-time, with much of his duties going to Sato and Zach, and even Val (yuck). Sato, in particular, is absolutely killing it the last 10-15 or so games at nearly 70% TS, with a 3x A/TO ratio and +20 net rating in his minutes on the floor. He's playing like an elite, championship-level low usage role player right now. None of these things have anything to do with who plays PF on the Bulls.

If the Bulls had a healthy Otto and Lauri, that means no minutes for Val, Archie, Luke, Shrek, Gafford. That's what? 45-50 minutes combined / game where you're replacing guys with marginal NBA talent with high producing NBA players. I can easily make the case that if we were at full health, the Bulls would be playing like a top 3 seed in the East right now. We're doing this despite missing two of our more impactful players, not because of it.

You don't get better by giving minutes to players who are worse than the guys missing time in every aspect of playing basketball. If Lauri and Otto come back and suck, or throw the team's rhythm off against the same level of competition we faced the last 10 games, I'd consider the argument better substantiated. But, in its current form, it's a logical fallacy.

[coldfish]

The idea that Markkanen is a good shooter, therefore he shouldn't have to pass is laughable.

Yes, absolutely laughable. Has someone actually argued so? For example, if you read what I have said on the matter, I have only stated that Lauri should not pass if he has an open shot. There is this narrative going on that his TS% or the clip he makes threes does not really matter because he only makes and takes open shots. If that is indeed so, and he makes the shots, the team has succeeded rather than failed.

I am the first to admit that I am sort of messing with you guys when I say this, but there is a kernel of truth to it. But of course the point is not to say that Lauri should not pass at all.

Here is some of the discussion on the topic, from a few pages ago.

* On passing--I agree, but to a point. His job is to finish plays. He doesn't dribble, or hold up the ball. He shoots and drives as an end-point of a possession, and he's doing it an absolutely elite rate. He's not dribbling the air out of the ball to get his like Coby did to start the year. There is no player outside of Zach who Lauri should be giving up shots to because, by definition, the result would be statistically inferior. Here's how Lauri's most recent 30-point games came about: Zach gets doubled, passes to Thad. Lauri either spots up for an open 3, or Lauri cuts and get a pass for a layup/dunk. Repeat again and again. That's beautiful ball, no matter how you look at it. In context, he's finishing at 75% at the rim and 40% on his 3s. You don't want him passing these shots up so that Denzel or Temple can launch a shot. They are shots within the system--he's not breaking the flow of the game for the team as a whole.

* See above for shot creation--why do you need him to create for others? You've got Zach, Thad and Sato kicking ass in that department lately. No need for another guy to be creating just for the sake of creating. He's been elite at finishing possessions--let him continue doing that. In the end, no matter how well the ball moves--somebody has to put it in the hoop. That's like complaining that prime Suns Amare wasn't creating for others--it didn't matter.

* He's an off-ball player and for some reason, maybe because we had two of the best ever on-ball players in Scottie and MJ, we don't seem to value a guy that can score very well with barely touching the rock. You can't leave him open to help all game or else he'd drop 30 on your posterior, like he was starting to do regularly.

I don't see how you can read that as anything other than "he is a good shooter so creating for others isn't his job"

[chefo]

The idea that Markkanen is a good shooter, therefore he shouldn't have to pass is laughable.

Yes, absolutely laughable. Has someone actually argued so? For example, if you read what I have said on the matter, I have only stated that Lauri should not pass if he has an open shot. There is this narrative going on that his TS% or the clip he makes threes does not really matter because he only makes and takes open shots. If that is indeed so, and he makes the shots, the team has succeeded rather than failed.

I am the first to admit that I am sort of messing with you guys when I say this, but there is a kernel of truth to it. But of course the point is not to say that Lauri should not pass at all.

Here is some of the discussion on the topic, from a few pages ago.

* On passing--I agree, but to a point. His job is to finish plays. He doesn't dribble, or hold up the ball. He shoots and drives as an end-point of a possession, and he's doing it an absolutely elite rate. He's not dribbling the air out of the ball to get his like Coby did to start the year. There is no player outside of Zach who Lauri should be giving up shots to because, by definition, the result would be statistically inferior. Here's how Lauri's most recent 30-point games came about: Zach gets doubled, passes to Thad. Lauri either spots up for an open 3, or Lauri cuts and get a pass for a layup/dunk. Repeat again and again. That's beautiful ball, no matter how you look at it. In context, he's finishing at 75% at the rim and 40% on his 3s. You don't want him passing these shots up so that Denzel or Temple can launch a shot. They are shots within the system--he's not breaking the flow of the game for the team as a whole.

* See above for shot creation--why do you need him to create for others? You've got Zach, Thad and Sato kicking ass in that department lately. No need for another guy to be creating just for the sake of creating. He's been elite at finishing possessions--let him continue doing that. In the end, no matter how well the ball moves--somebody has to put it in the hoop. That's like complaining that prime Suns Amare wasn't creating for others--it didn't matter.

* He's an off-ball player and for some reason, maybe because we had two of the best ever on-ball players in Scottie and MJ, we don't seem to value a guy that can score very well with barely touching the rock. You can't leave him open to help all game or else he'd drop 30 on your posterior, like he was starting to do regularly.

I don't see how you can read that as anything other than "he is a good shooter so creating for others isn't his job"

In all fairness to Pentele, I said that so I should take the blame . And, I kind of believe that to a large degree, with the difference being that it's more expansive than "he's a good shooter", to more like "He's a good shooter AND an excellent finisher around the hoop", and that AND is quite a bit important in my book.

To clarify my thoughts to some further extent--Lauri is not a "hub" on offense. He doesn't touch the ball in a position where he can realistically create for others, given his current skillset. Would it be great if he could--hell, yeah--but then you're talking an all-NBA player on O. Guys who can score a lot efficiently AND create for others efficiently at high volume are known as franchise superstars. That Lauri is not, and is not close to being one any time soon.

What Lauri, however, happens to be this year is a guy who's been absolutely terrific at putting the ball in the hoop after it's moved around some. He's not getting plays run for him often, if at all, so his superbly efficient scoring comes from being the guy who takes the shot/layup/dunk as the end-point of the possession. He's not doing heat checks, or breaking the O to get his. I don't think that can be argued by anybody watching the team play.

I get that if you give him the ball in a stationary spot and ask him to go do something he'll look like the somewhat clumsy 7 footer that he is--it'll neither be efficient, nor eye-pleasing. But, in the context of what the Bulls are doing this year, he has fit like a glove.

BTW, I've criticized his lack of ability to see anything on D plenty, as some of you might remember. I've criticized his lack of hoop awareness, even on O, plenty in seasons past (he doesn't seem to know what a repost is, for example). But, I saw what he could be on O, and he's getting there, slowly but surely under the new regime. This year, Coach D had him playing average D (in the context of Bulls team play) and superb O. Biggest issue is to stay healthy--when he's been on the floor, he's done well.

[coldfish]

Yes, absolutely laughable. Has someone actually argued so? For example, if you read what I have said on the matter, I have only stated that Lauri should not pass if he has an open shot. There is this narrative going on that his TS% or the clip he makes threes does not really matter because he only makes and takes open shots. If that is indeed so, and he makes the shots, the team has succeeded rather than failed.

I am the first to admit that I am sort of messing with you guys when I say this, but there is a kernel of truth to it. But of course the point is not to say that Lauri should not pass at all.

Here is some of the discussion on the topic, from a few pages ago.

* On passing--I agree, but to a point. His job is to finish plays. He doesn't dribble, or hold up the ball. He shoots and drives as an end-point of a possession, and he's doing it an absolutely elite rate. He's not dribbling the air out of the ball to get his like Coby did to start the year. There is no player outside of Zach who Lauri should be giving up shots to because, by definition, the result would be statistically inferior. Here's how Lauri's most recent 30-point games came about: Zach gets doubled, passes to Thad. Lauri either spots up for an open 3, or Lauri cuts and get a pass for a layup/dunk. Repeat again and again. That's beautiful ball, no matter how you look at it. In context, he's finishing at 75% at the rim and 40% on his 3s. You don't want him passing these shots up so that Denzel or Temple can launch a shot. They are shots within the system--he's not breaking the flow of the game for the team as a whole.

* See above for shot creation--why do you need him to create for others? You've got Zach, Thad and Sato kicking ass in that department lately. No need for another guy to be creating just for the sake of creating. He's been elite at finishing possessions--let him continue doing that. In the end, no matter how well the ball moves--somebody has to put it in the hoop. That's like complaining that prime Suns Amare wasn't creating for others--it didn't matter.

* He's an off-ball player and for some reason, maybe because we had two of the best ever on-ball players in Scottie and MJ, we don't seem to value a guy that can score very well with barely touching the rock. You can't leave him open to help all game or else he'd drop 30 on your posterior, like he was starting to do regularly.

I don't see how you can read that as anything other than "he is a good shooter so creating for others isn't his job"

In all fairness to Pentele, I said that so I should take the blame . And, I kind of believe that to a large degree, with the difference being that it's more expansive than "he's a good shooter", to more like "He's a good shooter AND an excellent finisher around the hoop", and that AND is quite a bit important in my book.

To clarify my thoughts to some further extent--Lauri is not a "hub" on offense. He doesn't touch the ball in a position where he can realistically create for others, given his current skillset. Would it be great if he could--hell, yeah--but then you're talking an all-NBA player on O. Guys who can score a lot efficiently AND create for others efficiently at high volume are known as franchise superstars. That Lauri is not, and is not close to being one any time soon.

What Lauri, however, happens to be this year is a guy who's been absolutely terrific at putting the ball in the hoop after it's moved around some. He's not getting plays run for him often, if at all, so his superbly efficient scoring comes from being the guy who takes the shot/layup/dunk as the end-point of the possession. He's not doing heat checks, or breaking the O to get his. I don't think that can be argued by anybody watching the team play.

I get that if you give him the ball in a stationary spot and ask him to go do something he'll look like the somewhat clumsy 7 footer that he is--it'll neither be efficient, nor eye-pleasing. But, in the context of what the Bulls are doing this year, he has fit like a glove.

BTW, I've criticized his lack of ability to see anything on D plenty, as some you remember. I've criticized his lack of hoop awareness, even on O plenty in seasons past (he doesn't seem to know what a repost is, for example). But this year, Coach D had him playing average D and superb O. Biggest issue is to stay healthy--when he's been on the floor, he's done well.

I don't expect Lauri to be Jokic on offense. I don't think that's fair. However, its not being realistic to just say that Lauri is acting like a normal off ball shooter. Kyle Korver didn't put the ball on the floor much and was a better shooter than Lauri, so everything you say about Lauri's shooting is more true about Korver. Despite that, Korver had a career 10.4% assist rate.

Just being on the floor with a bunch of offensive weapons like Lauri has around him should generate some assists by accident. The fact that Lauri is so low speaks to his inability or unwillingness to pass.

Again, before you say it, Korver was a better shooter than Lauri and had the role of being the recipient of passes and despite that, his assist rate was more than double Lauri's.

Lauri is more like Ryan Anderson. Ryan was also a terrible passer who either shot or just had a panic pass to an outlet man.

[coldfish]

I find the argument of "team plays well--> Lauri bad" nonsensical. All it shows is that the team has played well, and above expectations. So what? What if Lauri did not get injured, continued getting his 21pts from January on 50/40/90 and the Bulls went 8-1 instead? I don't see that as a completely unrealistic scenario--if the Bulls had Lauri against the Sixers, they may have stolen that game, for example.

It is very rare that a team is better without one of its top 2 players, especially since that player is primarily an off-ball player who does not dominate the offense and is out of people's way most of the time.

The Bulls have played better because WCJ got his mojo back, especially on help D, and Coby is no longer playing PG full-time, with much of his duties going to Sato and Zach, and even Val (yuck). Sato, in particular, is absolutely killing it the last 10-15 or so games at nearly 70% TS, with a 3x A/TO ratio and +20 net rating in his minutes on the floor. He's playing like an elite, championship-level low usage role player right now. None of these things have anything to do with who plays PF on the Bulls.

If the Bulls had a healthy Otto and Lauri, that means no minutes for Val, Archie, Luke, Shrek, Gafford. That's what? 45-50 minutes combined / game where you're replacing guys with marginal NBA talent with high producing NBA players. I can easily make the case that if we were at full health, the Bulls would be playing like a top 3 seed in the East right now. We're doing this despite missing two of our more impactful players, not because of it.

You don't get better by giving minutes to players who are worse than the guys missing time in every aspect of playing basketball. If Lauri and Otto come back and suck, or throw the team's rhythm off against the same level of competition we faced the last 10 games, I'd consider the argument better substantiated. But, in its current form, it's a logical fallacy.

IMO, Lauri has played well this year and the team would even be better if he was playing right now. Lauri would be taking up the minutes of some of the guys who have been playing pretty bad (Val, Kornett, etc.) and be helping.

That said, if you look deeper at the defense, the rebounding, the ball movement, etc. you can see where Lauri's deficiencies really do hurt the team to the point where his shooting is just offsetting these problems. He isn't the huge positive that some would think purely based on his scoring and efficiency numbers.

[chefo]

Here is some of the discussion on the topic, from a few pages ago.



I don't see how you can read that as anything other than "he is a good shooter so creating for others isn't his job"

In all fairness to Pentele, I said that so I should take the blame . And, I kind of believe that to a large degree, with the difference being that it's more expansive than "he's a good shooter", to more like "He's a good shooter AND an excellent finisher around the hoop", and that AND is quite a bit important in my book.

To clarify my thoughts to some further extent--Lauri is not a "hub" on offense. He doesn't touch the ball in a position where he can realistically create for others, given his current skillset. Would it be great if he could--hell, yeah--but then you're talking an all-NBA player on O. Guys who can score a lot efficiently AND create for others efficiently at high volume are known as franchise superstars. That Lauri is not, and is not close to being one any time soon.

What Lauri, however, happens to be this year is a guy who's been absolutely terrific at putting the ball in the hoop after it's moved around some. He's not getting plays run for him often, if at all, so his superbly efficient scoring comes from being the guy who takes the shot/layup/dunk as the end-point of the possession. He's not doing heat checks, or breaking the O to get his. I don't think that can be argued by anybody watching the team play.

I get that if you give him the ball in a stationary spot and ask him to go do something he'll look like the somewhat clumsy 7 footer that he is--it'll neither be efficient, nor eye-pleasing. But, in the context of what the Bulls are doing this year, he has fit like a glove.

BTW, I've criticized his lack of ability to see anything on D plenty, as some you remember. I've criticized his lack of hoop awareness, even on O plenty in seasons past (he doesn't seem to know what a repost is, for example). But this year, Coach D had him playing average D and superb O. Biggest issue is to stay healthy--when he's been on the floor, he's done well.

I don't expect Lauri to be Jokic on offense. I don't think that's fair. However, its not being realistic to just say that Lauri is acting like a normal off ball shooter. Kyle Korver didn't put the ball on the floor much and was a better shooter than Lauri, so everything you say about Lauri's shooting is more true about Korver. Despite that, Korver had a career 10.4% assist rate.

Just being on the floor with a bunch of offensive weapons like Lauri has around him should generate some assists by accident. The fact that Lauri is so low speaks to his inability or unwillingness to pass.

Again, before you say it, Korver was a better shooter than Lauri and had the role of being the recipient of passes and despite that, his assist rate was more than double Lauri's.

Lauri is more like Ryan Anderson. Ryan was also a terrible passer who either shot or just had a panic pass to an outlet man.

I'm not even going to argue that Lauri's a good passer, has decent vision or can even become one at any point in his career. I'm with you there--he doesn't pass much, if at all.

My main point of disagreement is that you seem to think that's a pretty big flaw in his game where I don't. I don't particularly want him to pass. As we can both agree--he's not really any good at it right now. I want him to do exactly what he's been doing--when he's close to the hoop and gets a pass--> dunk/layup; when he's open for 3--shoot it or drive it on a hard close-out. That's what he's been doing.

His lack of assists does not bother me, especially in the context that the ball does not stop when he's on the court. If he's not doing one of the above--he's handing it off to a guard pretty much on the spot or swinging it. Again, it's not about being Jokic--it's about being used in the areas he's good at and keeping him away from spots where he'll suck--and to me that includes him trying to create for others. Baby steps--maybe he has it in him (even if I haven't seen it yet), but I think what coach D has him doing is perfect for his current tool kit.

As for the Korver comparison-- Lauri is a blend of a pretty good shooter AND an elite rim-runner this year--and as much as Kyle was one of my favorites when he was here, he's only half of that equation, even if he was a superior shooter. What makes Lauri really valuable on O is the AND. If he were only one or the other, given his other deficiencies, he'd be just another role player that only deserves 20 min/game.

[Hangtime84]

I think Chicago needs Lauri. Lauri knows and set a few goals on his availability problem. Clearly his first two seasons he was NOT ready for the amount of stress the NBA requires.

While I don’t expect him to get 20million dollar a season check as his “ prove it” season he has continued to struggle with availability.

I have always expected to rise for the next contract and become a more productive player. Simply cause how “not ready” his body was for the NBA grind.

At the start of the this season he was our most consistent bull and was finding ways to impact the game when his shot wasn’t falling. He needs to continue to improve his shooting, ball handling, and ability to finish around the rim.

I can be patient while that it’s not like his peers are blowing out the water.

Is this something you are guessing at or do you have a source? Not that it shouldn't be obvious.

I am hopeful Lauri returns with enough time before the deadline to boost his trade value. If he is missing more than 1/2 the season so far in a "prove it" season, I think it is unrealistic to assume he's going to play more than 70% of his games in his next contract. That is such a penalty for our team to work under if we resign him.

Lauri last year I can find the pervious season as well when Paxson answered a question about shutting down Lauri at end of his rookie year cause his body literally got fatigued.

Watch on YouTube

;feature=youtu.be

These are Lauri words from last year.

Zach has been very complementary of Lauri during his time here as well.

[coldfish]

In all fairness to Pentele, I said that so I should take the blame . And, I kind of believe that to a large degree, with the difference being that it's more expansive than "he's a good shooter", to more like "He's a good shooter AND an excellent finisher around the hoop", and that AND is quite a bit important in my book.

To clarify my thoughts to some further extent--Lauri is not a "hub" on offense. He doesn't touch the ball in a position where he can realistically create for others, given his current skillset. Would it be great if he could--hell, yeah--but then you're talking an all-NBA player on O. Guys who can score a lot efficiently AND create for others efficiently at high volume are known as franchise superstars. That Lauri is not, and is not close to being one any time soon.

What Lauri, however, happens to be this year is a guy who's been absolutely terrific at putting the ball in the hoop after it's moved around some. He's not getting plays run for him often, if at all, so his superbly efficient scoring comes from being the guy who takes the shot/layup/dunk as the end-point of the possession. He's not doing heat checks, or breaking the O to get his. I don't think that can be argued by anybody watching the team play.

I get that if you give him the ball in a stationary spot and ask him to go do something he'll look like the somewhat clumsy 7 footer that he is--it'll neither be efficient, nor eye-pleasing. But, in the context of what the Bulls are doing this year, he has fit like a glove.

BTW, I've criticized his lack of ability to see anything on D plenty, as some you remember. I've criticized his lack of hoop awareness, even on O plenty in seasons past (he doesn't seem to know what a repost is, for example). But this year, Coach D had him playing average D and superb O. Biggest issue is to stay healthy--when he's been on the floor, he's done well.

I don't expect Lauri to be Jokic on offense. I don't think that's fair. However, its not being realistic to just say that Lauri is acting like a normal off ball shooter. Kyle Korver didn't put the ball on the floor much and was a better shooter than Lauri, so everything you say about Lauri's shooting is more true about Korver. Despite that, Korver had a career 10.4% assist rate.

Just being on the floor with a bunch of offensive weapons like Lauri has around him should generate some assists by accident. The fact that Lauri is so low speaks to his inability or unwillingness to pass.

Again, before you say it, Korver was a better shooter than Lauri and had the role of being the recipient of passes and despite that, his assist rate was more than double Lauri's.

Lauri is more like Ryan Anderson. Ryan was also a terrible passer who either shot or just had a panic pass to an outlet man.

I'm not even going to argue that Lauri's a good passer, has decent vision or can even become one at any point in his career. I'm with you there--he doesn't pass much, if at all.

My main point of disagreement is that you seem to think that's a pretty big flaw in his game where I don't. I don't particularly want him to pass. As we can both agree--he's not really any good at it right now. I want him to do exactly what he's been doing--when he's close to the hoop and gets a pass--> dunk/layup; when he's open for 3--shoot it or drive it on a hard close-out. That's what he's been doing.

His lack of assists does not bother me, especially in the context that the ball does not stop when he's on the court. If he's not doing one of the above--he's handing it off to a guard pretty much on the spot or swinging it. Again, it's not about being Jokic--it's about being used in the areas he's good at and keeping him away from spots where he'll suck--and to me that includes him trying to create for others. Baby steps--maybe he has it in him (even if I haven't seen it yet), but I think what coach D has him doing is perfect for his current tool kit.

As for the Korver comparison-- Lauri is a blend of a pretty good shooter AND an elite rim-runner this year--and as much as Kyle was one of my favorites when he was here, he's only half of that equation, even if he was a superior shooter. What makes Lauri really valuable on O is the AND. If he were only one or the other, given his other deficiencies, he'd be just another role player that only deserves 20 min/game.

I have said this before so I apologize for repeating myself. You can break the game down to the following skills:
- On ball scoring
- Off ball scoring
- Playmaking (creating for others)
- On ball defense
- Off ball defense
- Rebounding

Your all time greats are good at most of that, but not all. Star level players are good at 3 or 4 of those things. Right now, Lauri is good at one. If he wants $20m per year, he has to make it 2 or 3 in order to justify that salary.

If you look around, teams like Chicago on a budget don't hand out $20m contracts like candy. That has to be your 3rd best player or possibly second. If Lauri wants around $10m, he can be the guy he is now and still be an asset.

[chefo]

I find the argument of "team plays well--> Lauri bad" nonsensical. All it shows is that the team has played well, and above expectations. So what? What if Lauri did not get injured, continued getting his 21pts from January on 50/40/90 and the Bulls went 8-1 instead? I don't see that as a completely unrealistic scenario--if the Bulls had Lauri against the Sixers, they may have stolen that game, for example.

It is very rare that a team is better without one of its top 2 players, especially since that player is primarily an off-ball player who does not dominate the offense and is out of people's way most of the time.

The Bulls have played better because WCJ got his mojo back, especially on help D, and Coby is no longer playing PG full-time, with much of his duties going to Sato and Zach, and even Val (yuck). Sato, in particular, is absolutely killing it the last 10-15 or so games at nearly 70% TS, with a 3x A/TO ratio and +20 net rating in his minutes on the floor. He's playing like an elite, championship-level low usage role player right now. None of these things have anything to do with who plays PF on the Bulls.

If the Bulls had a healthy Otto and Lauri, that means no minutes for Val, Archie, Luke, Shrek, Gafford. That's what? 45-50 minutes combined / game where you're replacing guys with marginal NBA talent with high producing NBA players. I can easily make the case that if we were at full health, the Bulls would be playing like a top 3 seed in the East right now. We're doing this despite missing two of our more impactful players, not because of it.

You don't get better by giving minutes to players who are worse than the guys missing time in every aspect of playing basketball. If Lauri and Otto come back and suck, or throw the team's rhythm off against the same level of competition we faced the last 10 games, I'd consider the argument better substantiated. But, in its current form, it's a logical fallacy.

IMO, Lauri has played well this year and the team would even be better if he was playing right now. Lauri would be taking up the minutes of some of the guys who have been playing pretty bad (Val, Kornett, etc.) and be helping.

That said, if you look deeper at the defense, the rebounding, the ball movement, etc. you can see where Lauri's deficiencies really do hurt the team to the point where his shooting is just offsetting these problems. He isn't the huge positive that some would think purely based on his scoring and efficiency numbers.

I think you are right on--but I view it from a slightly different angle--Lauri was replaced in the lineup by a veteran guard, who also happens to be the Bulls' best man-to-man defender. Yes, the ball moves better, and there is more speed on the court. But the alternative is what if Temple replaced PaW in the lineup, not Lauri? How much of these same benefits would still hold true? The ball is moving well despite PaW, who passes about as much as Lauri. The D is better because, among other things like WCj being better, PaW now no longer has to guard opposing best scorers all-game (where he was getting cooked pretty much nightly; not a knock on him--that's a pretty rough spot to put anybody in, let alone a rook).

I think the biggest difference is having crafty vets like Temple and Sato on the floor with the kiddos, which is a fairly recent lineup change from coach D. We don't yet know how Lauri would fit in there, but he tends to play better with smarter guys around him, in principle.

[CobyWhite0]

Lauri's ranks among the 60 players in his draft class:

22nd Games
11th Minutes
6th Points
5th Rebounds
23rd Assists
27th FG%
13th 3pt%
3rd FT%
__________________________

12th Win Shares
21st Win Shares/48
13th BPM
12th VORP

[chefo]

I don't expect Lauri to be Jokic on offense. I don't think that's fair. However, its not being realistic to just say that Lauri is acting like a normal off ball shooter. Kyle Korver didn't put the ball on the floor much and was a better shooter than Lauri, so everything you say about Lauri's shooting is more true about Korver. Despite that, Korver had a career 10.4% assist rate.

Just being on the floor with a bunch of offensive weapons like Lauri has around him should generate some assists by accident. The fact that Lauri is so low speaks to his inability or unwillingness to pass.

Again, before you say it, Korver was a better shooter than Lauri and had the role of being the recipient of passes and despite that, his assist rate was more than double Lauri's.

Lauri is more like Ryan Anderson. Ryan was also a terrible passer who either shot or just had a panic pass to an outlet man.

I'm not even going to argue that Lauri's a good passer, has decent vision or can even become one at any point in his career. I'm with you there--he doesn't pass much, if at all.

My main point of disagreement is that you seem to think that's a pretty big flaw in his game where I don't. I don't particularly want him to pass. As we can both agree--he's not really any good at it right now. I want him to do exactly what he's been doing--when he's close to the hoop and gets a pass--> dunk/layup; when he's open for 3--shoot it or drive it on a hard close-out. That's what he's been doing.

His lack of assists does not bother me, especially in the context that the ball does not stop when he's on the court. If he's not doing one of the above--he's handing it off to a guard pretty much on the spot or swinging it. Again, it's not about being Jokic--it's about being used in the areas he's good at and keeping him away from spots where he'll suck--and to me that includes him trying to create for others. Baby steps--maybe he has it in him (even if I haven't seen it yet), but I think what coach D has him doing is perfect for his current tool kit.

As for the Korver comparison-- Lauri is a blend of a pretty good shooter AND an elite rim-runner this year--and as much as Kyle was one of my favorites when he was here, he's only half of that equation, even if he was a superior shooter. What makes Lauri really valuable on O is the AND. If he were only one or the other, given his other deficiencies, he'd be just another role player that only deserves 20 min/game.

I have said this before so I apologize for repeating myself. You can break the game down to the following skills:
- On ball scoring
- Off ball scoring
- Playmaking (creating for others)
- On ball defense
- Off ball defense
- Rebounding

Your all time greats are good at most of that, but not all. Star level players are good at 3 or 4 of those things. Right now, Lauri is good at one. If he wants $20m per year, he has to make it 2 or 3 in order to justify that salary.

If you look around, teams like Chicago on a budget don't hand out $20m contracts like candy. That has to be your 3rd best player or possibly second. If Lauri wants around $10m, he can be the guy he is now and still be an asset.

I think we're getting back to extremes here, as you probably understand--you're not getting a hyper-efficient 20ppg scorer for $10M, even if he utterly sucks at everything else.

Your framework is a good starting point, but it needs a bit of nuance, especially in a team setting. For example, there are diminishing marginal returns as a team of having too many on-ball scorers. It's not a game of ISO and post-ups any longer. Even when it was, you rarely had more than 2 guys on any team who were good at it. Hopefully, a player can check both D boxes because otherwise you have to contort your schemes to hide him on D. As you point out, ideally a player is good at most of these things. In reality, very, very few players are.

So how does Lauri rank here?

- On ball scoring (meh)
- Off ball scoring (elite)
- Playmaking (creating for others) (puke)
- On ball defense (above-average)
- Off ball defense (poor, but at least making progress)
- Rebounding (average)

On each of these criteria, there's a wide range of outcomes, almost a slider--from abysmal to elite. If you're elite or close to it at anything in the NBA, you'll probably have a nice, long and well-paid career. Furthermore, the O criteria come as a package, IMO, where one elite skill is enough to override you being bad at the rest (say Klay, or Reggie Miller). Just because these guys can't create for others, or are not good at taking people one-on-one, doesn't mean they are not very valuable players on O.

If Lauri had to be a primary option right now, he wouldn't be able to do it... not without you having to run plays for him all night and he's not good enough to get that kind of system put in for him. However, given that the Bulls already have Zach who is in turn, elite, elite, average on O, that's not a pronounced flaw from the team's perspective.

Lauri needs to improve his help D, first and foremost, apart from staying healthy. To me that would make him a bargain at $20M, so long as he can keep it up on O.

[CobyWhite0]

I think you are right on--but I view it from a slightly different angle--Lauri was replaced in the lineup by a veteran guard, who also happens to be the Bulls' best man-to-man defender. Yes, the ball moves better, and there is more speed on the court. But the alternative is what if Temple replaced PaW in the lineup, not Lauri? How much of these same benefits would still hold true? The ball is moving well despite PaW, who passes about as much as Lauri. The D is better because, among other things like WCj being better, PaW now no longer has to guard opposing best scorers all-game (where he was getting cooked pretty much nightly; not a knock on him--that's a pretty rough spot to put anybody in, let alone a rook).

I think the biggest difference is having crafty vets like Temple and Sato on the floor with the kiddos, which is a fairly recent lineup change from coach D. We don't yet know how Lauri would fit in there, but he tends to play better with smarter guys around him, in principle.

What would it look like if Temple replaced PWill in the lineup instead of Lauri? It would look very ugly for Lauri

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 103.9 Off, 105.8 Def, -1.8 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 118.4 Off, 109.1 Def, +9.3 Net Rating

If we double up on the vets, replacing WCJ with Thad at C and going small... it's really bad, you might not want to look

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 111.3 Off, 126.9 Def, -15.6 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 127.2 Off, 115.7 Def, +11.4 Net Rating

[LateNight]

I think Chicago needs Lauri. Lauri knows and set a few goals on his availability problem. Clearly his first two seasons he was NOT ready for the amount of stress the NBA requires.

While I don’t expect him to get 20million dollar a season check as his “ prove it” season he has continued to struggle with availability.

I have always expected to rise for the next contract and become a more productive player. Simply cause how “not ready” his body was for the NBA grind.

At the start of the this season he was our most consistent bull and was finding ways to impact the game when his shot wasn’t falling. He needs to continue to improve his shooting, ball handling, and ability to finish around the rim.

I can be patient while that it’s not like his peers are blowing out the water.

Is this something you are guessing at or do you have a source? Not that it shouldn't be obvious.

I am hopeful Lauri returns with enough time before the deadline to boost his trade value. If he is missing more than 1/2 the season so far in a "prove it" season, I think it is unrealistic to assume he's going to play more than 70% of his games in his next contract. That is such a penalty for our team to work under if we resign him.

Lauri last year I can find the pervious season as well when Paxson answered a question about shutting down Lauri at end of his rookie year cause his body literally got fatigued.

https://youtu.be/lvue7Amf06o

These are Lauri words from last year.

Zach has been very complementary of Lauri during his time here as well.

All criticism of Lauri aside -- it must be incredibly frustrating to constantly get these little injuries. Especially should injuries - those suck, and they affect every part of your game, especially for Lauri who is expected to not only shoot but also block shots and dunk.

It really sucks that he's never been healthy for any long stretch of time.

[MrSparkle]

I honestly am not hell-bent on trashing Lauri. I wish he was the rookie I thought he could be; I had big hopes with some caution, but I did see a chance of star potential if he could shoot like a maniac. I mis-evaluated him and drank too much kool-aid.

The more you see a guy, the more conclusions you can draw. 4 seasons is a long evaluation period, even if he’s been injured a lot.

Zach, Coby, Pat, Thad and Wendell are 5 guys who play better without him. These guys don’t need a bail-out shooter/spacer; they need well-rounded, high-skill (handle/pass/shoot) 2-way players.

Simmons and Embiid DO need a bail-out shooter, even if he hurts D or pace. But we’re not them; we get almost 50 ppg from our back-court. Since Lauri is not an undisputed star prospect, you need to consider player fit very strongly. Maxing out the pace benefits this team a lot. Yes, in ways his addition to the rotation would help in place of Kornet (obviously), but Lauri isn’t a 10-minute bench guy. Politically, he starts and gets almost 30 mpg. Decreases Pat’s time at PF, and some of the small guard spot-minutes. Call me crazy, but I think even Denzel in front, in a very limited role, does more good.

Lauri can shoot- we’ve known that- but he’s low-skill in every other department. I just don’t know how anyone can claim he has great skills: bad movement off-ball, mediocre handles, uncreative vision, and virtually no foot-work/post-game.

If his (contested) shooting was revelational all like Dirk’s, then you could make a strong case. Feed him the rock in iso and get an automatic 2 or 3pts? Sure, sign me up. But he doesn’t draw double teams. He draws a hand to open up the floor. That’s not enough for today’s NBA. Other PFs like Thad and Siakam bring way more skills to the table. Not to mention that Pat kid.

I am pretty confident that we don’t win and compete as well with a healthy Lauri starting. But hey, that’s my opinion. If he was moved to the bench and averaged 20 mpg, then yes; he’d be a great net positive. Not sure he and his agent allow that to happen without a stink.

[chefo]

I think you are right on--but I view it from a slightly different angle--Lauri was replaced in the lineup by a veteran guard, who also happens to be the Bulls' best man-to-man defender. Yes, the ball moves better, and there is more speed on the court. But the alternative is what if Temple replaced PaW in the lineup, not Lauri? How much of these same benefits would still hold true? The ball is moving well despite PaW, who passes about as much as Lauri. The D is better because, among other things like WCj being better, PaW now no longer has to guard opposing best scorers all-game (where he was getting cooked pretty much nightly; not a knock on him--that's a pretty rough spot to put anybody in, let alone a rook).

I think the biggest difference is having crafty vets like Temple and Sato on the floor with the kiddos, which is a fairly recent lineup change from coach D. We don't yet know how Lauri would fit in there, but he tends to play better with smarter guys around him, in principle.

What would it look like if Temple replaced PWill in the lineup instead of Lauri? It would look very ugly for Lauri

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 103.9 Off, 105.8 Def, -1.8 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - WCJ: 118.4 Off, 109.1 Def, +9.3 Net Rating

If we double up on the vets, replacing WCJ with Thad at C and going small... it's really bad, you might not want to look

Lauri with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 111.3 Off, 126.9 Def, -15.6 Net Rating
PWill with Temple - Zach - Coby - Thad: 127.2 Off, 115.7 Def, +11.4 Net Rating

Sure--now if we're gonna' talk stats: let's compare apples to apples; how did these numbers look when you exclude the last 10 games? How about to start the year? What's the sample size? I know multi-variable regressions ain't the hottest subject in school, but you need to be very careful to not confuse correlation and causation, when using stats to prove a point.

Stats have their use when you have clearly definable, single variables (say in Tennis, or maybe stretching it to baseball if it comes to sports) and large sample sets, and even then it's more often than not garbage-in, garbage-out, especially when it comes to examining results. To examine 5-man units, with each guy going through good and bad stretches on their own, who play multiple other 5-man units, each of which have their ups and downs, and who range from elite to utter trash, and then draw a conclusion about team dynamic over a 20-game sample is useless data-mining.

Stats without context and deep expertise in the subject matter are worse than useless, because they can actually lead to the wrong conclusions.

[madvillian]

Lauri's ranks among the 60 players in his draft class:

22nd Games
11th Minutes
6th Points
5th Rebounds
23rd Assists
27th FG%
13th 3pt%
3rd FT%
__________________________

12th Win Shares
21st Win Shares/48
13th BPM
12th VORP

Really puts it into perspective how hurt he's been as he's been an auto starter on a bad team when healthy.

[Pentele]

Sure--now if we're gonna' talk stats: let's compare apples to apples; how did these numbers look when you exclude the last 10 games? How about to start the year? What's the sample size? I know multi-variable regressions ain't the hottest subject in school, but you need to be very careful to not confuse correlation and causation, when using stats to prove a point.

Stats have their use when you have clearly definable, single variables (say in Tennis, or maybe stretching it to baseball if it comes to sports) and large sample sets, and even then it's more often than not garbage-in, garbage-out, especially when it comes to examining results. To examine 5-man units, with each guy going through good and bad stretches on their own, who play multiple other 5-man units, each of which have their ups and downs, and who range from elite to utter trash, and then draw a conclusion about team dynamic over a 20-game sample is useless data-mining.

Stats without context and deep expertise in the subject matter are worse than useless, because they can actually lead to the wrong conclusions.

I think he (or she, for that matter) is quite aware that his stat case is not conclusive, or at least he should be by now. His approach would be ok in the kind of (contrafactual) situation in which all individual performances would be remain stable over a large enough sample size. It is clear that neither requirement is met here. No, I think it is rather obvious that - unlike most posters, here, whether they criticize Lauri or not - he has simply set out to find ways to make Lauri look bad. That is why he constantly brings up Lauri in different threads on this forum, and always in a negative light. He even started PG-thread after a recent loss by inserting "6-3 after Lauri's injury" or something like that to the title I think it is quite telling that his first impulse after a victory is to try to find a way to make player on the team look bad, the player that has not even played in that game. It would be sort of funny if it would not smack of obsessiveness. I am sorry about the off topic but this is just a fair warning that arguing with him on the topic of Lauri will not probably be as productive as one might hope. I started noticing this after it was shown in a different thread that Coby, Zach, and Lauri had played abysmally together at the time, and Coby's influence to their play was strongly negative (whereas Lauri and Zach without Coby were very good when playing together).

[coldfish]

I'm not even going to argue that Lauri's a good passer, has decent vision or can even become one at any point in his career. I'm with you there--he doesn't pass much, if at all.

My main point of disagreement is that you seem to think that's a pretty big flaw in his game where I don't. I don't particularly want him to pass. As we can both agree--he's not really any good at it right now. I want him to do exactly what he's been doing--when he's close to the hoop and gets a pass--> dunk/layup; when he's open for 3--shoot it or drive it on a hard close-out. That's what he's been doing.

His lack of assists does not bother me, especially in the context that the ball does not stop when he's on the court. If he's not doing one of the above--he's handing it off to a guard pretty much on the spot or swinging it. Again, it's not about being Jokic--it's about being used in the areas he's good at and keeping him away from spots where he'll suck--and to me that includes him trying to create for others. Baby steps--maybe he has it in him (even if I haven't seen it yet), but I think what coach D has him doing is perfect for his current tool kit.

As for the Korver comparison-- Lauri is a blend of a pretty good shooter AND an elite rim-runner this year--and as much as Kyle was one of my favorites when he was here, he's only half of that equation, even if he was a superior shooter. What makes Lauri really valuable on O is the AND. If he were only one or the other, given his other deficiencies, he'd be just another role player that only deserves 20 min/game.

I have said this before so I apologize for repeating myself. You can break the game down to the following skills:
- On ball scoring
- Off ball scoring
- Playmaking (creating for others)
- On ball defense
- Off ball defense
- Rebounding

Your all time greats are good at most of that, but not all. Star level players are good at 3 or 4 of those things. Right now, Lauri is good at one. If he wants $20m per year, he has to make it 2 or 3 in order to justify that salary.

If you look around, teams like Chicago on a budget don't hand out $20m contracts like candy. That has to be your 3rd best player or possibly second. If Lauri wants around $10m, he can be the guy he is now and still be an asset.

I think we're getting back to extremes here, as you probably understand--you're not getting a hyper-efficient 20ppg scorer for $10M, even if he utterly sucks at everything else.

Your framework is a good starting point, but it needs a bit of nuance, especially in a team setting. For example, there are diminishing marginal returns as a team of having too many on-ball scorers. It's not a game of ISO and post-ups any longer. Even when it was, you rarely had more than 2 guys on any team who were good at it. Hopefully, a player can check both D boxes because otherwise you have to contort your schemes to hide him on D. As you point out, ideally a player is good at most of these things. In reality, very, very few players are.

So how does Lauri rank here?

- On ball scoring (meh)
- Off ball scoring (elite)
- Playmaking (creating for others) (puke)
- On ball defense (above-average)
- Off ball defense (poor, but at least making progress)
- Rebounding (average)

On each of these criteria, there's a wide range of outcomes, almost a slider--from abysmal to elite. If you're elite or close to it at anything in the NBA, you'll probably have a nice, long and well-paid career. Furthermore, the O criteria come as a package, IMO, where one elite skill is enough to override you being bad at the rest (say Klay, or Reggie Miller). Just because these guys can't create for others, or are not good at taking people one-on-one, doesn't mean they are not very valuable players on O.

If Lauri had to be a primary option right now, he wouldn't be able to do it... not without you having to run plays for him all night and he's not good enough to get that kind of system put in for him. However, given that the Bulls already have Zach who is in turn, elite, elite, average on O, that's not a pronounced flaw from the team's perspective.

Lauri needs to improve his help D, first and foremost, apart from staying healthy. To me that would make him a bargain at $20M, so long as he can keep it up on O.

Right now, in a season where he is having career numbers in the scoring department, he has a PER of 17.3 because he is so bad at every other phase of the game. You can definitely get 17.3PER players for $10m. Thad Young is paid only slightly more than that and he is at 19.9.

[chefo]

I have said this before so I apologize for repeating myself. You can break the game down to the following skills:
- On ball scoring
- Off ball scoring
- Playmaking (creating for others)
- On ball defense
- Off ball defense
- Rebounding

Your all time greats are good at most of that, but not all. Star level players are good at 3 or 4 of those things. Right now, Lauri is good at one. If he wants $20m per year, he has to make it 2 or 3 in order to justify that salary.

If you look around, teams like Chicago on a budget don't hand out $20m contracts like candy. That has to be your 3rd best player or possibly second. If Lauri wants around $10m, he can be the guy he is now and still be an asset.

I think we're getting back to extremes here, as you probably understand--you're not getting a hyper-efficient 20ppg scorer for $10M, even if he utterly sucks at everything else.

Your framework is a good starting point, but it needs a bit of nuance, especially in a team setting. For example, there are diminishing marginal returns as a team of having too many on-ball scorers. It's not a game of ISO and post-ups any longer. Even when it was, you rarely had more than 2 guys on any team who were good at it. Hopefully, a player can check both D boxes because otherwise you have to contort your schemes to hide him on D. As you point out, ideally a player is good at most of these things. In reality, very, very few players are.

So how does Lauri rank here?

- On ball scoring (meh)
- Off ball scoring (elite)
- Playmaking (creating for others) (puke)
- On ball defense (above-average)
- Off ball defense (poor, but at least making progress)
- Rebounding (average)

On each of these criteria, there's a wide range of outcomes, almost a slider--from abysmal to elite. If you're elite or close to it at anything in the NBA, you'll probably have a nice, long and well-paid career. Furthermore, the O criteria come as a package, IMO, where one elite skill is enough to override you being bad at the rest (say Klay, or Reggie Miller). Just because these guys can't create for others, or are not good at taking people one-on-one, doesn't mean they are not very valuable players on O.

If Lauri had to be a primary option right now, he wouldn't be able to do it... not without you having to run plays for him all night and he's not good enough to get that kind of system put in for him. However, given that the Bulls already have Zach who is in turn, elite, elite, average on O, that's not a pronounced flaw from the team's perspective.

Lauri needs to improve his help D, first and foremost, apart from staying healthy. To me that would make him a bargain at $20M, so long as he can keep it up on O.

Right now, in a season where he is having career numbers in the scoring department, he has a PER of 17.3 because he is so bad at every other phase of the game. You can definitely get 17.3PER players for $10m. Thad Young is paid only slightly more than that and he is at 19.9.

Well, that's what makes a market, whether of thought, stocks, whatever, doesn't it? If I knew he'd be healthy, I'd give him 20 and not think twice, despite his flaws. I've stated my reasons. You'd be shorting him at 20 and you have you reasons.

I have a suspicion that Lauri's career will be defined by his health more-so than anything else. He's still young enough, to where if he's healthy, there's enough time to beat out all the bad habits he's got in his head from never having been properly coached until he was 23, IMO.