RealGM

Go ahead and debate it. This will feed many of the folks who don't like Zach at all. Debate away....

Basically, his off the ball defense is non-existent and he doesn't battle hard enough. When the going gets tough, he fails.

Honestly, that's a misguided term. Most players are not leaders. And, maybe Zach is not a leader but classifying him as a winner/loser is a bad take, IMO. His game screams that he needs a better player/ball handler who makes the clutch time decisions with the ball. He needs someone to guide him. But, this culture of losing and him needing to score a lot even after so many years in the league will lead to bad habits. This is what happened to Melo and he never recovered.

I will not support any content produced by the scoutman.

As for the premise, yes, I believe virtually all players can be 'winning' players if they're in the right environment and role.

LaVine didn't have that in Minnesota, and most certainly hasn't had that in Chicago. And so this narrative exists, with his natural tendencies only amplifying it.

Zach isn't a "winner" if he's going to be your best or even 2nd best player.

The people who call him a losing player use a blanket statement that has no nuance involved. The Bulls issues go far beyond him. It's like a house burning down and being more concerned about the leaky pipes.

RedBulls23 wrote:Zach isn't a "winner" if he's going to be your best or even 2nd best player.

The people who call him a losing player use a blanket statement that has no nuance involved. The Bulls issues go far beyond him. It's like a house burning down and being more concerned about the leaky pipes.

I think he can be a winner as the 2nd best player on your team. However, it's really dependent on what we all define as a winner. Is it being on a team which is just in the playoffs, or is it being part of a team which is contending for a championship, a top 5 team in the league.

You have LeBron or KD on your team, and if he is your second best player, I think the perception of him changes significantly.

I don't think any team can win anything significant with Lavine being a high usage, primary ball handler. I think he can be a good off ball scorer on a team with a couple of real stars and two other primary ball handlers. Also, he cannot be a go to guy in the clutch. He will win you a game single handedly every now and then but most of the time it won't end well.

kulaz3000 wrote:

RedBulls23 wrote:Zach isn't a "winner" if he's going to be your best or even 2nd best player.

The people who call him a losing player use a blanket statement that has no nuance involved. The Bulls issues go far beyond him. It's like a house burning down and being more concerned about the leaky pipes.

I think he can be a winner as the 2nd best player on your team. However, it's really dependent on what we all define as a winner. Is it being on a team which is just in the playoffs, or is it being part of a team which is contending for a championship, a top 5 team in the league.

You have LeBron or KD on your team, and if he is your second best player, I think the perception of him changes significantly.

I think you're probably arguing semantics with me and you largely agree with me?

Being a winning player is very difficult&complicated tasks which means even if Zach is not a winning player it can be also true that he is not a losing player either.

Look at the Sunz which ranked at 2nd in the West for a while early in the season and now they seem to have difficulty to make playoffs. They finally got their own PG, Rubio and Devin Booker’s scoring efficiency in this season is crazy. They also hired NBA-level coach. And yet they are struggling nowadays.

I don’t think Zach as a first option can lead this team to the playoffs even if we had good coach and more scoring options. Of course we are in the super weak conference but even if we make playoffs our seed is definitely below 6th seed.

Our team’s ceiling is so low that we even can’t be sure to make playoffs. And that’s not because Zach is not a winning player but because the Bulls lack true talented player.

We need to aim at getting top talented prospects through future drafts. I know 2020 draft class is meh but 2021 draft class has so many talented prospects that each one of them can claim top pick if they are available in 2020 draft.

I know our lottery luck is sucked but the front office guys need to try to move up if there are true talented players at the top. In fact that’s what GarPax will never do. I just wish we clean the house after the season and bring in ‘professional’ executives who can make bold moves.

Mark K wrote:I will not support any content produced by the scoutman.

As for the premise, yes, I believe virtually all players can be 'winning' players if they're in the right environment and role.

LaVine didn't have that in Minnesota, and most certainly hasn't had that in Chicago. And so this narrative exists, with his natural tendencies only amplifying it.

+1. We were discussing "losing culture" in a different thread. Zach is practically a case study in what happens to players who play in a losing culture. IMO, a different coach and situation would have him be a lot more effective with small changes to his decision making.

RedBulls23 wrote:

kulaz3000 wrote:

RedBulls23 wrote:Zach isn't a "winner" if he's going to be your best or even 2nd best player.

The people who call him a losing player use a blanket statement that has no nuance involved. The Bulls issues go far beyond him. It's like a house burning down and being more concerned about the leaky pipes.

I think he can be a winner as the 2nd best player on your team. However, it's really dependent on what we all define as a winner. Is it being on a team which is just in the playoffs, or is it being part of a team which is contending for a championship, a top 5 team in the league.

You have LeBron or KD on your team, and if he is your second best player, I think the perception of him changes significantly.

I think you're probably arguing semantics with me and you largely agree with me?

Agreed!

He’s more of a winner than anyone on this roster and should be the last to go unless we are getting a better talent in return..

We have a sure fire 2nd option, he’s not meant to be first option which is why he’s getting so much flack. But he’d be an amazing 2nd option and those are hard to find.

He's a winner. He has a winners mentality.

if he is good enough for it is another Topic.

Hard for anyone to be a winner in our current state.

He is the definition of a loser but again not many guys are a winner. Lebron, Kawhi, and now Luka, maybe Trae.
The video does a excellent job why he is such a terrible playmaker and not using possessions efficiently even with the 43 pts.
Just from that clip alone, he made 20 mistakes in his best ever game but he does that on a daily basis im not even surprised.
Saying Lavine is a 1st, 2nd option is pretty much just focusing on the box score and completely neglecting analytics.
The guys a homeless mans Westbrook not looking to make winning plays but complacent in his 25 pts.

BigUps wrote:Go ahead and debate it. This will feed many of the folks who don't like Zach at all. Debate away....

Basically, his off the ball defense is non-existent and he doesn't battle hard enough. When the going gets tough, he fails.

Watch on YouTube

Unless we're going to say winners are only players that can lift a franchise to a title as the primary option, winners don't exist. People are often dubbed winners when they are put in a role that they can exceed expectations in.

If Zach LaVine were playing your spark plug off the bench role and averaged 20 points on efficient scoring for your second unit while your stars rested, would he then be considered a winner instead of when he's attempting to play the role of franchise player and #1 option?

Is Bruce Bowen a winner? Is Robert Horry a winner? Odds are, most people would say yes. If they were the #1 on option on your team they sure as hell wouldn't be winners.

If there is one player that is a winner in current Bulls team, it's Zach - all others are projects or pure rubbish.

dougthonus wrote:
Unless we're going to say winners are only players that can lift a franchise to a title as the primary option, winners don't exist. People are often dubbed winners when they are put in a role that they can exceed expectations in.

If Zach LaVine were playing your spark plug off the bench role and averaged 20 points on efficient scoring for your second unit while your stars rested, would he then be considered a winner instead of when he's attempting to play the role of franchise player and #1 option?

Is Bruce Bowen a winner? Is Robert Horry a winner? Odds are, most people would say yes. If they were the #1 on option on your team they sure as hell wouldn't be winners.

Theres various definition of winners so theres no usual right and wrong. But in no way Zach is a winner in any form.
Im not even talking about 1st option. He never makes winning plays and doesnt contribute to the team other than scoring.
You can call even guys like Carter, Sato,Gafford winners bc they make plays that usually turn the tide. Having a good stat (20pt) and being a winner is an entirely different conversation unless he scored like Kyrie today (10/11fg).
Zach is a useless player unless he gets 30 usg and 30 usg is usually reserved for superstars. You dont want a "borderline all-star" taking all your possessions and calling the final shot. Which is why you tank/trade the farm for that savior.

Showtime23 wrote:Theres various definition of winners so theres no usual right and wrong. But in no way Zach is a winner in any form.
Im not even talking about 1st option. He never makes winning plays and doesnt contribute to the team other than scoring.
You can call even guys like Carter, Sato,Gafford winners bc they make plays that usually turn the tide. Having a good stat (20pt) and being a winner is an entirely different conversation unless he scored like Kyrie today (10/11fg).
Zach is a useless player unless he gets 30 usg and 30 usg is usually reserved for superstars. You dont want a "borderline all-star" taking all your possessions and calling the final shot. Which is why you tank/trade the farm for that savior.

We won't know because he won't be in that role on this team, but I think if he's playing in Lou Williams role on a team with stars that he sure looks like a winner.

Nope. To be a winner you need to be able win games or lead team to wins. Zach doesnt make that difference in current role to be a winner.

Everybody is a "winner" playing next to Mike or LeBron. Stacey King was. Will Perdue was. J.R. Smith was. Mike Miller was. So of course LaVine could be a winner in that context.

I guess the real question is, "Would a contending team rely on this guy, or would he be a role player whose main job is not to hurt the team?" Historically Zach has been the latter, but I think since he signed his second contract he has moved up the ladder and could now do a title contender justice.