Image ImageImage Image

Lavine is....

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

Lavine is...

1-a budding 1st option who we must keep
11
7%
2-a soon-to-be All Star who can be a #2 on a contender, and worth keeping
70
45%
3-A solid 3rd option/elite 6th man worth keeping
27
17%
4-A bum we should trade immediately
5
3%
5-a solid, yet flawed player who we should trade while his value is high
38
24%
6-I miss DRose and MJ (other)
6
4%
 
Total votes: 157

User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#121 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:58 pm

MGB8 wrote:No, they don't. Their BPM has him at 2.4 for 2019-20 - with +3.2 on offense and -0.8 on defense. See below, under "advanced stats." https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html

You are misusing the "on-off" subset of data in that what you are pointing to is the "raw" plus minus, that is not adjusted in comparison to the average player (as a way of trying to adjust for opponent quality).


BPM isn't on-off, it's box score contribution per minute (if I'm not mistaken, but I'm too lazy to go look it up).
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#122 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:00 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:OK. You're using BPM. In your post, you stated a positive +/-. I assumed you were just talking about his raw +/- on/off numbers. Not a fan of BPM because of the way they adjust. I wish they just left RPM alone instead of changing into a offensive only stat. It's the same problem we have with Box Plus/Minus.


Just to be clear, BPM has anything to do with +/- data (I have now looked it up and verified).

RPM is not an offense only stat. It used to be a purely correlation stat (just using regressed +/- statistics) and is now a correlation and box score stat. It takes correlation data still (same defensive component) but now tries to figure out the cause of that correlation data instead of just the correlation data. Looking at the numbers, RPM looks much more accurate to me now than it did in the previous version, the massive outliers of craziness are gone.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#123 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:01 pm

dougthonus wrote:
They didn't pull defense out of the stat. They added box score contribution, so it now combines contribution (causal) as well as just regressed plus minus numbers (correlation). The new RPM much better reflects the eye test IMO and removed the ridiculous outliers of things like saying David West was a top 10 player in the league two years ago.



Well, adding the box score contributions made the stat heavily weighted towards offensive only players the way I understand it. I thought the old RPM actually gave us pretty solid picture but only with a relatively large sample size. The stat was pretty useless when looking at half a season or even a whole season, but if you had several years I think the stat became pretty useful. Now, I think it heavily favors a player like Lavine who puts up great box score numbers, but still has the same negative impact on the scoreboard.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#124 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:05 pm

dougthonus wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:OK. You're using BPM. In your post, you stated a positive +/-. I assumed you were just talking about his raw +/- on/off numbers. Not a fan of BPM because of the way they adjust. I wish they just left RPM alone instead of changing into a offensive only stat. It's the same problem we have with Box Plus/Minus.


Just to be clear, I don't think BPM has anything to do with +/- data, but I could be wrong.

RPM is not an offense only stat. It used to be a purely correlation stat (just using regressed +/- statistics) and is now a correlation and box score stat. It takes correlation data still (same defensive component) but now tries to figure out the cause of that correlation data instead of just the correlation data. Looking at the numbers, RPM looks much more accurate to me now than it did in the previous version, the massive outliers of craziness are gone.


BPM = Box Plus Minus. It is absolutely a +/- stat.. it is supposed to adjust to reflect the player vs. the average player on the court.

Box Plus/Minus, (BPM) is a basketball box score-based metric that estimates a basketball player's contribution to the team when that player is on the court. ... A value of +5.0 means the team is 5 points per 100 possessions better with the player on the floor than with average production from another player.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#125 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:11 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:Well, adding the box score contributions made the stat heavily weighted towards offensive only players the way I understand it. I thought the old RPM actually gave us pretty solid picture but only with a relatively large sample size. The stat was pretty useless when looking at half a season or even a whole season, but if you had several years I think the stat became pretty useful.


It doesn't really matter, but several flaws with this, but I never found it too useful on an individual basis. The problem was the data changed faster than the data could be accumulated. It never held up well when guys changed teams, especially with the big outliers. Also if data has to be accumulated for several years, then its going to significantly underrate young developing players (like LaVine) because their data is changing considerably faster (and we've seen this with LaVine in particular as his efficiency, volume, and ability to handle significant offensive role have all improved).

Now, I think it heavily favors a player like Lavine who puts up great box score numbers, but still has the same negative impact on the scoreboard.


You are assuming your conclusion and saying the stat is bad because it doesn't support your conclusion rather than questioning whether your conclusion is perhaps bad. It's not like Zach is a superstar under RPM either, he was a slightly net negative player.

Zach was 180th in RPM this last year with a very slightly negative -.21 with a good positive affect on offense and a negative affect on defense. For a guy who was a high volume efficient offensive player and a known poor defender, that seems like a very accurate projection of who he was.

If you think Zach is worse than the 180th player in the league, then I think you are being unreasonable in your view on Zach. It's actually much easier to work around someone like Zach's defensive limitations than it is to find guys who can score efficiently on high volume while fighting lots of double teams.

If anything, I think RPM, even in its new form, underrates Zach by playing him a the 180th best player. I would definitely have Zach in my top 100 because his strengths are harder to find and his weaknesses are easier to cover up.

At any rate, I know you don't care for LaVine and don't think he's a winning player, and I'm not trying to argue you out of that stance (truly), but I think he's at least a neutral player at this point with some really good strengths and some really glaring weaknesses.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#126 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:12 pm

I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#127 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:17 pm

dougthonus wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:Well, adding the box score contributions made the stat heavily weighted towards offensive only players the way I understand it. I thought the old RPM actually gave us pretty solid picture but only with a relatively large sample size. The stat was pretty useless when looking at half a season or even a whole season, but if you had several years I think the stat became pretty useful.


It doesn't really matter, but several flaws with this, but I never found it too useful on an individual basis. The problem was the data changed faster than the data could be accumulated. It never held up well when guys changed teams, especially with the big outliers. Also if data has to be accumulated for several years, then its going to significantly underrate young developing players (like LaVine) because their data is changing considerably faster (and we've seen this with LaVine in particular as his efficiency, volume, and ability to handle significant offensive role have all improved).

Now, I think it heavily favors a player like Lavine who puts up great box score numbers, but still has the same negative impact on the scoreboard.


You are assuming your conclusion and saying the stat is bad because it doesn't support your conclusion rather than questioning whether your conclusion is perhaps bad. It's not like Zach is a superstar under RPM either, he was a slightly net negative player.

Zach was 180th in RPM this last year with a very slightly negative -.21 with a good positive affect on offense and a negative affect on defense. For a guy who was a high volume efficient offensive player and a known poor defender, that seems like a very accurate projection of who he was.

If you think Zach is worse than the 180th player in the league, then I think you are being unreasonable in your view on Zach. It's actually much easier to work around someone like Zach's defensive limitations than it is to find guys who can score efficiently on high volume while fighting lots of double teams.

If anything, I think RPM, even in its new form, underrates Zach by playing him a the 180th best player. I would definitely have Zach in my top 100 because his strengths are harder to find and his weaknesses are easier to cover up.

At any rate, I know you don't care for LaVine and don't think he's a winning player, and I'm not trying to argue you out of that stance (truly), but I think he's at least a neutral player at this point with some really good strengths and some really glaring weaknesses.


I just don't think you can "work around" his defensive limitations. This is why his raw impact on the scoreboard has always been so bad. A player like Zach causes an entire defensive scheme to break down because he is consistently in the wrong place. On ball, one on one, he looks like a decent defensive player. It's his help and his team defense that is so costly, IMO.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#128 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:23 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:BPM = Box Plus Minus. It is absolutely a +/- stat.. it is supposed to adjust to reflect the player vs. the average player on the court.

Box Plus/Minus, (BPM) is a basketball box score-based metric that estimates a basketball player's contribution to the team when that player is on the court. ... A value of +5.0 means the team is 5 points per 100 possessions better with the player on the floor than with average production from another player.


I think you are misunderstanding what it says.

They key phrase is "box score-based metric". That is not +/-. +/- is not traditionally viewed as a box score based metric. Box score based metrics are points, rebounds, assists etc. If you read the very long description it seems to me that it does not use +/- at all. It never mentions this and does mention traditional box score stats and that this is a "purely a rate stat" of per 100 possession contributions to the box score.

BPM was created to intentionally only use statistics that are widely available and are available historically. Recently in the NBA far more statistics have been gathered, either from play-by-play or hand tracking, which allow more detailed metrics. BPM does not include that data and should not be as accurate as stats that do include the additional information (assuming they are implemented rigorously!) like Player Impact Plus/Minus and Real Plus/Minus.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#129 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:30 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:I just don't think you can "work around" his defensive limitations. This is why his raw impact on the scoreboard has always been so bad. A player like Zach causes an entire defensive scheme to break down because he is consistently in the wrong place. On ball, one on one, he looks like a decent defensive player. It's his help and his team defense that is so costly, IMO.


It's silly to view this in a vacuum though. Zach LaVine through four years in the league was a dramatically different player than Zach LaVine in years 5 and 6.

When you say thing like "always been" you are ignoring the fact that Zach's ability has not been even remotely static. He has had absolutely dramatic improvement on the offensive end and made consistent progress on the defensive end.

I agree with you that his help defense is costly, but that argument is viewing him as a primary piece. If Zach LaVine is playing the role of Jamal Crawford or Lou Williams off the bench and just comes in to light up back ups then he'd absolutely be totally viable as a player.

Again, his overall numbers show he's basically a net neutral player now. If you play him in situations where you desperately need offense then he can go on stretches that help you a ton. His history shows that he's also consistently improved on both sides of the ball (tons on offense and some on defense).

Given his age, he probably doesn't have a whole lot of improvement left to do of course. I think you should re-evaluate your opinion a little bit. I mean I completely get that you don't think he's a leader or whatever, but a good team easily finds a way to make Zach a super useful player IMO. I just think his role is microwave unless he can make large strides on defense.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#130 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:44 pm

dougthonus wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:BPM = Box Plus Minus. It is absolutely a +/- stat.. it is supposed to adjust to reflect the player vs. the average player on the court.

Box Plus/Minus, (BPM) is a basketball box score-based metric that estimates a basketball player's contribution to the team when that player is on the court. ... A value of +5.0 means the team is 5 points per 100 possessions better with the player on the floor than with average production from another player.


I think you are misunderstanding what it says.

They key phrase is "box score-based metric". That is not +/-. +/- is not traditionally viewed as a box score based metric. Box score based metrics are points, rebounds, assists etc. If you read the very long description it seems to me that it does not use +/- at all. It never mentions this and does mention traditional box score stats and that this is a "purely a rate stat" of per 100 possession contributions to the box score.

BPM was created to intentionally only use statistics that are widely available and are available historically. Recently in the NBA far more statistics have been gathered, either from play-by-play or hand tracking, which allow more detailed metrics. BPM does not include that data and should not be as accurate as stats that do include the additional information (assuming they are implemented rigorously!) like Player Impact Plus/Minus and Real Plus/Minus.


Right. It doesn't use raw +/- numbers but it is a +/- stat. They are trying to derive an adjusted +/- for the player based on box score stats and adjusting for average. More of a VORP type stat than anything. So, I guess it's both. It's not based on +/- but it is actually a +/- value in the end.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#131 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:50 pm

dougthonus wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:I just don't think you can "work around" his defensive limitations. This is why his raw impact on the scoreboard has always been so bad. A player like Zach causes an entire defensive scheme to break down because he is consistently in the wrong place. On ball, one on one, he looks like a decent defensive player. It's his help and his team defense that is so costly, IMO.


It's silly to view this in a vacuum though. Zach LaVine through four years in the league was a dramatically different player than Zach LaVine in years 5 and 6.

When you say thing like "always been" you are ignoring the fact that Zach's ability has not been even remotely static. He has had absolutely dramatic improvement on the offensive end and made consistent progress on the defensive end.

I agree with you that his help defense is costly, but that argument is viewing him as a primary piece. If Zach LaVine is playing the role of Jamal Crawford or Lou Williams off the bench and just comes in to light up back ups then he'd absolutely be totally viable as a player.

Again, his overall numbers show he's basically a net neutral player now. If you play him in situations where you desperately need offense then he can go on stretches that help you a ton. His history shows that he's also consistently improved on both sides of the ball (tons on offense and some on defense).

Given his age, he probably doesn't have a whole lot of improvement left to do of course. I think you should re-evaluate your opinion a little bit. I mean I completely get that you don't think he's a leader or whatever, but a good team easily finds a way to make Zach a super useful player IMO. I just think his role is microwave unless he can make large strides on defense.


I get what you're saying. I think Zach could be a valuable piece, even a very valuable piece, on the right team. Just not this Bulls team, unless we somehow stumble into a true, established #1 who he would defer to. The problem we have with him is that he wants this to be his team. He wants to be the primary ball handler and he wants to be the "man". I just don't think the Bulls will become a winning basketball team with the ball in his hands. I don't think any team can. He would make a great 6th man or even a solid #2 option in an offense with a true #1 already in place. This is why I want to just move on from him, because I don't think his mindset is going to change until he goes to a team with an established star that Lavine would have no choice but defer to.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
drosereturn
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,281
And1: 1,368
Joined: Oct 12, 2018

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#132 » by drosereturn » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:54 pm

MGB8 wrote:People understand that this is a "projection" thread, right.

LaVine is 25 and a half years old. And he seems to be a bit of a late bloomer - in that he's a significantly better player today than he was in his first couple of years. He looks like he has another year, maybe two, if improvement in him. He had a nearly 32% usage rate, and yet at that usage rate he had a solid, though spectacular 57% TS. He put up 26 / 5 rb / 4 as per game playing 35 minutes per. To do that on decent efficiency despite bad coaching... that has some meaning.

Per basketball reference, he had a positive plus minus (2.4), with a +3.2 on offense and a - 0.8 on defense. The last two years are the first years that they have him as a positive +/-. Those numbers are consistent with the eye test -- good offensive player but not as good as the pure scoring suggests (because of some poor decisions / lack of knowing when to involve others / lack of other strong offensive players) and a mild negative on defense.

The biggest thing is that for the past years he has been trending in the right direction - including on defense.

Given all that, I think that there's a solid chance, something like 30-40%, that he can become a #2 player on a contending team. But that leaves a 60-70% chance that he stays where he is - which would be a high level offensive player but maybe ideally suited to be a "microwave" type player on a contending team, a 6th man of the year candidate a la Lou Williams or Jamal Crawford.


Theres no evidence Lavine is a late bloomer except some random VORP number. Wheres that scientific evidence on how you came up with that 30%? Its all about speculation and what gms hate the most is ambiguity. Hes far from a sure thing like MPJ who is almost certainly going to be the next KD if not the closest ever.
25 yr old is certainly not fully developed as in the case of Butler but Lavine has freaking 6 yrs and 7yr in. I am not waiting more than a decade for this weird project type when he is getting paid star money. If he gets a max, hes certainly going to become Wiggins 2.0 bc Wiggins put up great stats the yr he got the max extension.
Lamelo will be a future superstar Bull. Book it. Lavar for president!
User avatar
drosereturn
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,281
And1: 1,368
Joined: Oct 12, 2018

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#133 » by drosereturn » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:57 pm

dougthonus wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:I just don't think you can "work around" his defensive limitations. This is why his raw impact on the scoreboard has always been so bad. A player like Zach causes an entire defensive scheme to break down because he is consistently in the wrong place. On ball, one on one, he looks like a decent defensive player. It's his help and his team defense that is so costly, IMO.


It's silly to view this in a vacuum though. Zach LaVine through four years in the league was a dramatically different player than Zach LaVine in years 5 and 6.

When you say thing like "always been" you are ignoring the fact that Zach's ability has not been even remotely static. He has had absolutely dramatic improvement on the offensive end and made consistent progress on the defensive end.

I agree with you that his help defense is costly, but that argument is viewing him as a primary piece. If Zach LaVine is playing the role of Jamal Crawford or Lou Williams off the bench and just comes in to light up back ups then he'd absolutely be totally viable as a player.

Again, his overall numbers show he's basically a net neutral player now. If you play him in situations where you desperately need offense then he can go on stretches that help you a ton. His history shows that he's also consistently improved on both sides of the ball (tons on offense and some on defense).

Given his age, he probably doesn't have a whole lot of improvement left to do of course. I think you should re-evaluate your opinion a little bit. I mean I completely get that you don't think he's a leader or whatever, but a good team easily finds a way to make Zach a super useful player IMO. I just think his role is microwave unless he can make large strides on defense.


Theres no such thing as useful player when your getting paid the most and your role is a microwave.
Basically if he wants to stay as a Bull, he needs to make miraculous Butler type improvements where he is a MIP candidate every yr bc hes going to be 30 in 4 yrs and no one really becomes better.
Even then, hes getting max money so its not really a net gain bc of the 50% increase in salary. If he admits hes not good and gets the same salary, I could see why teams keep him. But the higher salary he demands, less likely AK will keep him bc at that point.
Lamelo will be a future superstar Bull. Book it. Lavar for president!
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#134 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:04 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:Right. It doesn't use raw +/- numbers but it is a +/- stat. They are trying to derive an adjusted +/- for the player based on box score stats and adjusting for average. More of a VORP type stat than anything. So, I guess it's both. It's not based on +/- but it is actually a +/- value in the end.


You are using +/- in two completely different contests in this sentence. One does not relate in any way to the other.

+/- like 82games and legacy rpm is based purely on what happens when a player is on and off the floor and absolutely nothing else whatsoever. It does not look at who scored how they scored or attempt anything causal at all in its calculation and says a player is worth what happens when he is on the floor without understanding his contribution to it and just assumes that this will all come out in the wash in the long run. Theoretically this stat can significantly overrate glue guys and underrate box score contributors.

The second stat doesn't use any of that data at all and instead uses the exact opposite set of data trying to figure out how much better a team performs based specifically on his contributions and adding them up. It will highly rate players that contribute in the box score and can underrate glue guys.

The only thing similar to them is that they're both giving a +/- number, but the value of that number is derived in near polar opposite ways and means totally different things.

Not that this is necessarily in any way related to the broader context, but just pointing out what they mean so that we can interpret them correctly for what they are worth.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#135 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:09 pm

drosereturn wrote:Theres no such thing as useful player when your getting paid the most and your role is a microwave.
Basically if he wants to stay as a Bull, he needs to make miraculous Butler type improvements where he is a MIP candidate every yr bc hes going to be 30 in 4 yrs and no one really becomes better.
Even then, hes getting max money so its not really a net gain bc of the 50% increase in salary. If he admits hes not good and gets the same salary, I could see why teams keep him. But the higher salary he demands, less likely AK will keep him bc at that point.


It's a moving the goalpost argument.

1: He's not a max player. He makes less than half of the true max players in the league.

2: What he costs on his next contract is undetermined and that might lead you to trade him now if you feel that number will be too high, and I wouldn't necessarily be against that.

However whether he's useful or not is totally different. If LaVine was making 1M a year, he'd be amazingly useful, if he's making 40M a year then he's an albatross. Somewhere in between those numbers is Zach's true value. Where will his next contract be negotiated? Who knows. Probably above where I think his real value will be, but that same statement is true of most non max / above MLE players which is where I think Zach falls. Some team almost always over values these guys.

That could (and probably will) be the case for Zach, but that is separate from his ability. You can make that same argument about any non max worthy player in the league. If someone offered Lou Williams then he'd be a lousy contract too.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#136 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:13 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:I get what you're saying. I think Zach could be a valuable piece, even a very valuable piece, on the right team. Just not this Bulls team, unless we somehow stumble into a true, established #1 who he would defer to. The problem we have with him is that he wants this to be his team. He wants to be the primary ball handler and he wants to be the "man". I just don't think the Bulls will become a winning basketball team with the ball in his hands. I don't think any team can. He would make a great 6th man or even a solid #2 option in an offense with a true #1 already in place. This is why I want to just move on from him, because I don't think his mindset is going to change until he goes to a team with an established star that Lavine would have no choice but defer to.


That's a lot of assumptions on what Zach wants, and I think he wants those things because he's most capable on this team of doing those things. ow maybe Zach would feel this way even if we had Kawhi Leonard on the team, and if so, then that is a big problem, but it's hard for me to argue against Zach being our offensive #1 when he trivially is our best offensive player.

I also agree we aren't likely to get a true #1 that would make Zach more useful, but when we trade Zach, we still aren't going to have that guy, and whomever takes on Zach's role (be it Coby White or Lauri or our #4 draft pick) will likely be worse at it than Zach is, then we can start making the case about how they aren't a true #1 either. N

This will also be accurate, but not helpful. You don't get rid of a guy because he's not a true #1 unless he's actively preventing you from getting one or can be traded for one. I don't think either of those reasons apply to Zach. I would consider trading Zach though, and I'd maybe even actively seek out a trade, because I'm concerned about his lack of control and impending higher price tag in a league that overpays offense.

These aren't really Zach problems, they're problems that face a lot of players that are upcoming UFAs that are worth over MLE and under max.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#137 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:31 pm

dougthonus wrote:
.....You don't get rid of a guy because he's not a true #1 unless he's actively preventing you from getting one or can be traded for one. I don't think either of those reasons apply to Zach.



No, but I think you have to get rid of a guy who "thinks" he's a #1 and plays like he thinks he's a #1. That is my problem with Lavine. I don't think the Bulls can be a winning team with Zach as the guy running the show. I don't think any team can. He's just not that player. He's not the guy you hand the keys to and unfortunately he already has the keys in his pocket and he's drunk and he's leaving the party and nobody is going to stop him. So, yeah, you need to part ways with him now. Get what you can for him and build a real team.

I would consider trading Zach though, and I'd maybe even actively seek out a trade, because I'm concerned about his lack of control and impending higher price tag in a league that overpays offense.


Exactly this. The Bulls need to be looking for that trade and I'm hoping that AK sees this. If he's been watching the tape, then he already knows this and is probably thinking the same thing.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 47,353
And1: 7,428
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#138 » by dougthonus » Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:35 pm

johnnyvann840 wrote:No, but I think you have to get rid of a guy who "thinks" he's a #1 and plays like he thinks he's a #1. That is my problem with Lavine. I don't think the Bulls can be a winning team with Zach as the guy running the show. I don't think any team can. He's just not that player. He's not the guy you hand the keys to and unfortunately he already has the keys in his pocket and he's drunk and he's leaving the party and nobody is going to stop him. So, yeah, you need to part ways with him now. Get what you can for him and build a real team.


The problem is that Zach should be our #1. He's just better than our other choices. Would Zach think this way next to Kawhi? Who knows, but if he thinks way next to Lauri, Coby, and Sato, then it is totally reasonable.

In the end, I think there is no really good or easy outcome here. I don't think Zach will fetch much on the open market and think the team will be worse if you trade him. I don't think whatever you get back will have much value towards building the team in the future either.

In the same sense, I don't think keeping him does much for you either.

I guess in that sense, he's no different than virtually every person on this team. None of them are going to fetch much in trade nor are any of them going to help you much if you don't trade them.

Relative to our other players, Zach is both better and costs more, but the net affect is that probably no team is giving you much for him.

I would consider trading Zach though, and I'd maybe even actively seek out a trade, because I'm concerned about his lack of control and impending higher price tag in a league that overpays offense.


Exactly this. The Bulls need to be looking for that trade and I'm hoping that AK sees this. If he's been watching the tape, then he already knows this and is probably thinking the same thing.


Yeah, the challenge with this theory is that it doesn't do much to help you get better. Just helps you from locking in mediocrity. However, we aren't even mediocre yet. Making this type of move may be a good long term one, but it will be a set back unless we just get really lucky in terms of someone being willing to give up a lot. I don't expect that but anything is possible.
MGB8
RealGM
Posts: 15,448
And1: 1,562
Joined: Jul 20, 2001
Location: Philly

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#139 » by MGB8 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:01 pm

dougthonus wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:Right. It doesn't use raw +/- numbers but it is a +/- stat. They are trying to derive an adjusted +/- for the player based on box score stats and adjusting for average. More of a VORP type stat than anything. So, I guess it's both. It's not based on +/- but it is actually a +/- value in the end.


You are using +/- in two completely different contests in this sentence. One does not relate in any way to the other.

+/- like 82games and legacy rpm is based purely on what happens when a player is on and off the floor and absolutely nothing else whatsoever. It does not look at who scored how they scored or attempt anything causal at all in its calculation and says a player is worth what happens when he is on the floor without understanding his contribution to it and just assumes that this will all come out in the wash in the long run. Theoretically this stat can significantly overrate glue guys and underrate box score contributors.

The second stat doesn't use any of that data at all and instead uses the exact opposite set of data trying to figure out how much better a team performs based specifically on his contributions and adding them up. It will highly rate players that contribute in the box score and can underrate glue guys.

The only thing similar to them is that they're both giving a +/- number, but the value of that number is derived in near polar opposite ways and means totally different things.

Not that this is necessarily in any way related to the broader context, but just pointing out what they mean so that we can interpret them correctly for what they are worth.


I think that your explanation is largely correct (after having read the BPM explanation on basketball reference a couple of times, eyes glazing over a bit). Further, the explanation regarding defensive BPM is almost nonsensical in that it has nothing to do with points allowed or not allowed. Which means that Basketball-reference's use of "plus/minus" in the name of that stat is highly misleading, particularly given a well known, well established set of stats building on actual plus minus numbers (on-court, off-court), with adjustments from the simply scores to account for role, opponent on the floor quality, time on the floor, etc.

I was misled by the name of the stat and assumed based on the name and summary description that it was just pure plus minus with an adjustment against "league average." It's not, and so Johnnyvann was right to talk about the pure on off numbers - though it would be better to get more advanced plus minus data for LaVine.

Edit - and comparing 82games vs. Basketballreference, 82games produces the better "raw" stat - in that they are much more transparent about their comparison numbers, giving you the raw totals for the entire season in terms of on-court, off-court, while it looks like BR throws in some other unknown estimates. For example, 82games notes that the Bulls sans LaVine score 104.7 but give up 105.6 (as opposed to scoring 109.1 but giving up 114 per100 with zach). The opposing Orating stat from BR doesn't seem to correspond.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 33,525
And1: 18,094
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: Lavine is.... 

Post#140 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:08 pm

dougthonus wrote:
johnnyvann840 wrote:No, but I think you have to get rid of a guy who "thinks" he's a #1 and plays like he thinks he's a #1. That is my problem with Lavine. I don't think the Bulls can be a winning team with Zach as the guy running the show. I don't think any team can. He's just not that player. He's not the guy you hand the keys to and unfortunately he already has the keys in his pocket and he's drunk and he's leaving the party and nobody is going to stop him. So, yeah, you need to part ways with him now. Get what you can for him and build a real team.


The problem is that Zach should be our #1. He's just better than our other choices. Would Zach think this way next to Kawhi? Who knows, but if he thinks way next to Lauri, Coby, and Sato, then it is totally reasonable.

In the end, I think there is no really good or easy outcome here. I don't think Zach will fetch much on the open market and think the team will be worse if you trade him. I don't think whatever you get back will have much value towards building the team in the future either.

In the same sense, I don't think keeping him does much for you either.

I guess in that sense, he's no different than virtually every person on this team. None of them are going to fetch much in trade nor are any of them going to help you much if you don't trade them.

Relative to our other players, Zach is both better and costs more, but the net affect is that probably no team is giving you much for him.

I would consider trading Zach though, and I'd maybe even actively seek out a trade, because I'm concerned about his lack of control and impending higher price tag in a league that overpays offense.


Exactly this. The Bulls need to be looking for that trade and I'm hoping that AK sees this. If he's been watching the tape, then he already knows this and is probably thinking the same thing.


Yeah, the challenge with this theory is that it doesn't do much to help you get better. Just helps you from locking in mediocrity. However, we aren't even mediocre yet. Making this type of move may be a good long term one, but it will be a set back unless we just get really lucky in terms of someone being willing to give up a lot. I don't expect that but anything is possible.


I don't think it will be a set back at all, if we move him. That money can be spent on another player, or players and the scoring he provides will be picked up collectively. I think Lauri immediately benefits as he just doesn't mesh well with Zach.. and some other players will likely benefit from more touches also.
I am more than just a serious basketball fan. I am a life-long addict. I was addicted from birth. - Hunter S. Thompson

Return to Chicago Bulls