Image ImageImage Image

Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

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

Lauri extension?

Don't want to see one happen - let him show me more first
40
33%
4 years/$40M-$50M
22
18%
4 year/$50M-$65M
29
24%
4 years/$65M-$80M
21
17%
4 years/$80M+
6
5%
Other (explain)
4
3%
 
Total votes: 122

ZOMG
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,709
And1: 2,776
Joined: Dec 31, 2013

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1081 » by ZOMG » Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:45 pm

chefo wrote:
ZOMG wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
If you want to discount all data where he had nagging injuries that he played through, then you will probably have to discount 1/3rd to 1/2 his season every year, because players just play through nagging injuries all the time. It is part of the league.

I do hope he shoots well going forward of course. He definitely has shown the ability to stay hot for good stretches.

Another interesting thing is that Lauri shoots a ton of wide open threes and almost exclusively assisted threes. It will be interesting the defense changes on him if he starts shooting more consistently (ie, people stay at home more) and if he's able to add some off the dribble threes in isolation.


I'm not sure anyone really wants him to shoot off the dribble three pointers in isolation. To me it seems that whenever he gets the ball on the perimeter and puts it on the floor, people start screaming for him to get in the post or just drive to the hoop. Hell, you regularly hear it on this very forum. And it seems Donovan thinks the same way.

Big volume 3pt shooting is here to stay, but it's also important to try to maximize the quality of perimeter looks. It's no wonder all teams love kickout threes and pick and pops. Those are the best ones. NBA defenders are so good that a contested off the dribble 3pt shot is very rarely a good option.

People like Zach can make them, but IMO leaning too heavily on these shots is foolish.


If the other team does change the D as described, our coaching staff start high-fiving and going to bed with a grin from ear to ear. Why?

1.) If nothing else, another 'big' is nowhere near the paint and can't double the ball handler.
2.) If they start playing him tight, you just run a simple 'screen the screener' set after the initial pick and pop action and all kinds of mayhem starts happening defensively because there are very few teams that are disciplined enough and smart enough to constantly make the correct reads when there is a lot going on off ball.
3.) It allows Lauri to drive
4.) It allows Lauri to slip the screen
5.) etc., etc.

When you have a very talented shooter who is not a complete stiff, taking away his attempts costs a lot to a defense. Coach D seems to be the most perceptive guy we've had since... Thibs? He'll know how to counter the counter.


I've never called Lauri an elite shooter, but nevertheless he's long been the only Bulls player besides Zach to be game planned for. Doug's post implied that he's just about ignored on the perimeter, and nothing could be further from the truth. Lauri has had a defender surgically attached to his chest for most of his career because teams consider him a true 3pt shooting threat. But NBA games are long and you can't keep an eye on any player for 100% of the time. He's gonna get off open shots just like any perimeter oriented guy.

However, Fred in particular was also very good at freeing Lauri for 3pt shots with all kinds of clever actions, and Boylen used them for a while too... until he didn't.

I agree that it wouldn't hurt Lauri to be less robotic with his shooting - personally I hate it when he throws up rushed crap when people are running at him. Donovan said at some point that Lauri could do more damage by sprinkling shot fakes here and there and stepping past the defender closing him out, and I absolutely agree. And Markkanen has shown signs of doing that more this season.
Current status: ACTIVE
Former status: BANNED FOR DERAILING DISCUSSION
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1082 » by dougthonus » Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:49 pm

ZOMG wrote:I've never called Lauri an elite shooter, but nevertheless he's long been the only Bulls player besides Zach to be game planned for. Doug's post implied that he's just about ignored on the perimeter, and nothing could be further from the truth. Lauri has had a defender surgically attached to his chest for most of his career because teams consider him a true 3pt shooting threat. But NBA games are long and you can't keep an eye on any player for 100% of the time. He's gonna get off open shots just like any perimeter oriented guy.


I don't think Lauri is ignored, but a very high percentage of his threes are wide open set threes. Teams can start doing a much better job rotating towards him on defense, and they will start doing that if he starts shooting a much higher percentage on those looks. Last year he actually completed those at a pretty pedestrian rate despite getting a lot of them.

I agree that it wouldn't hurt Lauri to be less robotic with this shooting - personally I hate it when he throws up rushed crap when people are running at him. Donovan said at some point that Lauri could do more damage by sprinkling shot fakes here and there and stepping past the defender closing him out, and I absolutely agree. And Markkanen has shown signs of doing that more this season.


The more actions Lauri takes and the more ways he can be dangerous, the more defenders will have to guess what he is doing and less likely to guess correctly. I agree that Lauri has driven a lot more this year rather than just standing around and shooting and much to his benefit.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,471
And1: 1,242
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1083 » by cjbulls » Thu Dec 31, 2020 12:54 pm

Another interesting comparison is Brandon Ingram. He’s largely just a scorer. BI’s defense is nothing special, yet he’s a largely undisputed max player. Perhaps the lesson should be that BI is overpaid, but you can see his jumps and the time it took him to get where he is.

Here is the career comparison (remember that BI started slower though), but you can do a year by year comparison and see similar results. Just remember that BI is one year ahead of Lauri.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=markkla01&player_id2=ingrabr01

Here’s BI’s year 3 against Lauri’s year 3, Lauri’s worst year.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=markkla01&p1yrfrom=2020&player_id2=ingrabr01&p2yrfrom=2019
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1084 » by dougthonus » Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:43 pm

cjbulls wrote:Another interesting comparison is Brandon Ingram. He’s largely just a scorer. BI’s defense is nothing special, yet he’s a largely undisputed max player. Perhaps the lesson should be that BI is overpaid, but you can see his jumps and the time it took him to get where he is.


Ingram creates his own shot and creates for others much more than Lauri has to date. He's an offensive initiator and end point, not just an end point. There in lies a pretty massive difference. I don't follow Ingram enough to know what type of defense he really plays (though rep is bad), but he's an athletic dude that has the physical capability to be a plus defender across multiple positions of course one could say the same about LaVine, but no one expects LaVine to start playing defense. Lauri isn't that type of an athlete where that is a likely outcome regardless of how much effort he puts in.

Finally, when doing progression comparisons, it is typically a way to generate false hope for a player. We could compare every player to some one who made steady improvements to become a star and then assume anyone on that track will become a star, but few people stay on that track and continue with improvements.

I will say this though, if Lauri gives an efficient 23+ points per game on high TS%, he'll likely be a max player too regardless of everything else I just wrote there. The low level max that Ingram got isn't that high a bar. D'Angelo Russell also got it, and isn't so great. Andrew Wiggins got it (awful contract of course) and isn't so great. If a team needs to take a flyer, it isn't so dangerous anymore either because the deal is only four years long. You can't get trapped in super cap hell like you used to.

Once you are at least an 18M player, some team might go max on you just due to having money and no better options. In many respects, this is probably a perfect off-season for any FA in that boat, there should be a lot more money than talent. That's one of the reasons Lauri probably made a great decision to wait as long as he's confident he'll have a decent year.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,471
And1: 1,242
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1085 » by cjbulls » Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:58 pm

dougthonus wrote:
cjbulls wrote:Another interesting comparison is Brandon Ingram. He’s largely just a scorer. BI’s defense is nothing special, yet he’s a largely undisputed max player. Perhaps the lesson should be that BI is overpaid, but you can see his jumps and the time it took him to get where he is.


Ingram creates his own shot and creates for others much more than Lauri has to date. He's an offensive initiator and end point, not just an end point. There in lies a pretty massive difference. I don't follow Ingram enough to know what type of defense he really plays (though rep is bad), but he's an athletic dude that has the physical capability to be a plus defender


I know you disagree, but there is value (arguably even more) value in scoring 20ppg as a non-initiator than as an initiator. The bulls over the years have lots of guys that can generate offense with the ball. We have a pair of them right now and there is fear of your turn/my turn. It’s the guys who generate it off-ball that are harder to find.

The assist rate feels like you finding an excuse to put BI higher. BI has an assist rate of 15% compared to Lauri’s 7. Sounds like a big gap, but really they are both just low. Zach for example, has a career 20% rate and only fell below 15 one time, his second year in the league. Lauri is a much better rebounder if you want to go tit-for-tat.

And who cares if BI is “capable” of being a good defender if he doesn’t actually do it in 4+ years in the league? To me that’s more of a false assumption. Not to mention BI is not some super athlete and not particularly strong to expect some massive change. Wiggins is physically capable of being a good defender. Zach too by the same logic. But we don’t keep pretending like they will magically turn it around.
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,471
And1: 1,242
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1086 » by cjbulls » Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:09 pm

dougthonus wrote:
cjbulls wrote:Another interesting comparison is Brandon Ingram. He’s largely just a scorer. BI’s defense is nothing special, yet he’s a largely undisputed max player. Perhaps the lesson should be that BI is overpaid, but you can see his jumps and the time it took him to get where he is.


Finally, when doing progression comparisons, it is typically a way to generate false hope for a player. We could compare every player to some one who made steady improvements to become a star and then assume anyone on that track will become a star, but few people stay on that track and continue with improvements.


This is true as a general rule. But Lauri and BI have tracked somewhat similarly with Lauri only one year behind, and Lauri has already shown he is capable of more scoring. This isn’t me tracking PW to Kawhi. You’re still hanging onto that poor year 3 when even in the first few games we can already see Lauri’s role has changed and has resulted in him returning to his second year form with potential for more.

Either way, the post was more to show there’s a guy out there that plays a similar role to Lauri who has been maxed (secondary scorer that doesn’t add much else).
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1087 » by dougthonus » Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:26 pm

cjbulls wrote:I know you disagree, but there is value (arguably even more) value in scoring 20ppg as a non-initiator than as an initiator. The bulls over the years have lots of guys that can generate offense with the ball. We have a pair of them right now and there is fear of your turn/my turn. It’s the guys who generate it off-ball that are harder to find.


There is not value in having fewer capabilities. There is value in being versatile in being able to get your points without being an initiator. Again, I don't watch enough Ingram to know if he's an effective off the ball player, if he's only effective on ball, then only being an initiator is less value than being versatile enough to do both. I find most players who are initiators can also be end points, but the value of your initiator status is certainly less as you have more initiators. 2 LeBron's won't live up to the sum of their parts because initiators value does go down as you have more of them.

The assist rate feels like you finding an excuse to put BI higher. BI has an assist rate of 15% compared to Lauri’s 7. Sounds like a big gap, but really they are both just low. Zach for example, has a career 20% rate and only fell below 15 one time, his second year in the league. Lauri is a much better rebounder if you want to go tit-for-tat.

And who cares if BI is “capable” of being a good defender if he doesn’t actually do it in 4+ years in the league? To me that’s more of a false assumption. Not to mention BI is not some super athlete and not particularly strong to expect some massive change. Wiggins is physically capable of being a good defender. Zach too by the same logic. But we don’t keep pretending like they will magically turn it around.


Potential of defense matters a lot, because defense is something that incrementally improves with age for most players. Derrick Rose, was a poor defender for his first couple years in the league, but he had obvious potential to be a very good defender, and prior to his ACL he started to show that.

At any rate, I agree these things are nitpicky in the end, which is why I said if Lauri makes the same offensive steps you outlined, he will be a max player (23ppg and 60%+ TS%) regardless of these other flaws. I pointed them out because Ingram isn't really a comparison in any meaningful way except PPG. They play nothing alike and have entirely different capabilities.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1088 » by dougthonus » Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:39 pm

cjbulls wrote:This is true as a general rule. But Lauri and BI have tracked somewhat similarly with Lauri only one year behind, and Lauri has already shown he is capable of more scoring. This isn’t me tracking PW to Kawhi. You’re still hanging onto that poor year 3 when even in the first few games we can already see Lauri’s role has changed and has resulted in him returning to his second year form with potential for more.


You noted that BI made continual improvements every year. Lauri has not done that. He significantly regressed last year. I'm continually hanging on to year 3 because it is the most recent year and most meaningful year in evaluation. If you swapped his year 3 and year 2, I would be much higher on him because it would show continual improvement.

There probably is one out there somewhere, but I do not know of a single example off the top of my head where a guy regressed significantly, then bounced back to become much better than his previous peak. Maybe Tyson Chandler is the one guy I can think of, but if you look at his p36 numbers or advanced stats its a stretch to say he was ever much better than year 4 after a huge year 5 regression and really just went back to that year 4.

Your argument makes it sound like this is super common, and we should just ignore a full year of his most recent data, but that's not a good way to approach future predictive ability. It doesn't track well with other players. Your expectation is Lauri is going to be massively more efficient than at any point in his career and score massively more ppg than any point in his career after a year of significant decline. That has to be pretty uncommon because not a single example of it leaps to mind.

So yes, I'm hanging on to year 3, because it is the rational thing to do. It is most predictive to use recent data, and I don't know of any rational reason not to hang on to it. You are throwing it out. Why? What rationale is there to do so? It doesn't make sense.

Now if we get a month into this season, and Lauri is performing to your projections, then that year 3 becomes less and less valuable, and I totally will agree with you. Lauri is off to a great start. However, I'd also add he has played in games against three awful defensive teams and ones particularly awful to defend players like himself and the one team that was a sound defensive team held him in check to his one poor game. We'll just see where things go with him. I'm becoming more cautiously optimistic about Lauri as time goes on though. I will definitely change my opinion on Lauri if the data changes.

Either way, the post was more to show there’s a guy out there that plays a similar role to Lauri who has been maxed (secondary scorer that doesn’t add much else).


You can definitely be maxed as a secondary scorer. If Lauri does meet your scoring projections, as I noted in both previous replies, I agree that he will get a max offer. He's in the ball park already now where depending on how someone perceives the talent out there, he just needs two teams to fall in love with him and it might happen. There just isn't much in FA and a lot of money out there.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
FriedRise
General Manager
Posts: 7,835
And1: 6,909
Joined: Jan 13, 2015
Location: Chicago
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1089 » by FriedRise » Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:40 pm

Through four games, Lauri might be primed to have a bounce back year. These are his P36 numbers compared to last year:

Image

His FGA needs to be higher given how efficient he's been (66% TS), but his shooting and rebounding numbers are up across the board. It doesn't look like he's gonna improve on things that he was never very good at (steals, blocks, offensive rebounding, defense), but what's most encouraging to me is his much higher free throw attempts because he's been super aggressive attacking the rim. He's almost doubling last year's average in FTA. His total rebounding is also higher - almost matching the years when he had Robin Lopez boxing out everybody - so he's been battling on the boards too.

We obviously need to see if any of this will sustain - let's say for the next two months - but if he continues to play as aggressively as he has these first four games, I don't see why it won't. The 3P% will most likely drop, but if he can keep attacking and going to the line, it shouldn't affect his scoring output all that much. I hope this calf contusion isn't gonna make him miss too much time.
User avatar
PaKii94
Head Coach
Posts: 7,459
And1: 4,103
Joined: Aug 22, 2013
     

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1090 » by PaKii94 » Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:42 pm

dougthonus wrote:
chefo wrote:If the other team does change the D as described, our coaching staff start high-fiving and going to bed with a grin from ear to ear. Why?

1.) If nothing else, another 'big' is nowhere near the paint and can't double the ball handler.
2.) If they start playing him tight, you just run a simple 'screen the screener' set after the initial pick and pop action and all kinds of mayhem starts happening defensively because there are very few teams that are disciplined enough and smart enough to constantly make the correct reads when there is a lot going on off ball.
3.) It allows Lauri to drive
4.) It allows Lauri to slip the screen
5.) etc., etc.

When you have a very talented shooter who is not a complete stiff, taking away his attempts costs a lot to a defense. Coach D seems to be the most perceptive guy we've had since... Thibs? He'll know how to counter the counter.


It is absolutely a huge benefit to the Bulls if teams start trying to stay at home with Lauri or rotate stronger towards him for the reasons you state. Even if he just scores less but creates off ball gravity like Kyle Korver there is a big benefit to everyone else by that.



Lambo Lauri is just revving up. He'll get there :P
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,471
And1: 1,242
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1091 » by cjbulls » Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:47 pm

dougthonus wrote:
cjbulls wrote:This is true as a general rule. But Lauri and BI have tracked somewhat similarly with Lauri only one year behind, and Lauri has already shown he is capable of more scoring. This isn’t me tracking PW to Kawhi. You’re still hanging onto that poor year 3 when even in the first few games we can already see Lauri’s role has changed and has resulted in him returning to his second year form with potential for more.


You noted that BI made continual improvements every year. Lauri has not done that. He significantly regressed last year. I'm continually hanging on to year 3 because it is the most recent year and most meaningful year in evaluation. If you swapped his year 3 and year 2, I would be much higher on him because it would show continual improvement.

There probably is one out there somewhere, but I do not know of a single example off the top of my head where a guy regressed significantly, then bounced back to become much better than his previous peak. Maybe Tyson Chandler is the one guy I can think of, but if you look at his p36 numbers or advanced stats its a stretch to say he was ever much better than year 4 after a huge year 5 regression and really just went back to that year 4.


Basketball improvement is not linear. Take BI, who improved every year but saw significant gains in year 4. Players grow and change on different timelines. There are ups and downs on that path. I don’t have a million examples and don’t want to spend time pulling examples, but can remember Jayson Tatum struggling in year 2 following his excellent rookie season and playoffs.

dougthonus wrote: Your argument makes it sound like this is super common, and we should just ignore a full year of his most recent data, but that's not a good way to approach future predictive ability. It doesn't track well with other players. Your expectation is Lauri is going to be massively more efficient than at any point in his career and score massively more ppg than any point in his career after a year of significant decline. That has to be pretty uncommon because not a single example of it leaps to mind.


The idea that players have down years and bounce back seasons are incredibly common. I don’t even know how you can dispute this. I don’t think he will be massively better, I just said, at a minimum, he’s capable of recreating his second year numbers.

dougthonus wrote: So yes, I'm hanging on to year 3, because it is the rational thing to do. It is most predictive to use recent data, and I don't know of any rational reason not to hang on to it. You are throwing it out. Why? What rationale is there to do so? It doesn't make sense.


You think it’s irrational to ignore all other stats and stare only at the one bad year? You spent two years seeing what Lauri was capable of, then you saw a lot of that stop under one of the worst coaches in recent history. You saw his role change, but now that person is gone and a new coach emphasizing his use, both in the preseason and regular season.

So it’s weird to me to view a bad year in bad circumstances and completely turn. To say, well those past two years were all fantasy, and this new guy is the one we should expect going forward at age 23. That is not rational. It’s fine to look at recent performance, but you also need to review it in the context of the overall situation.

dougthonus wrote: Now if we get a month into this season, and Lauri is performing to your projections, then that year 3 becomes less and less valuable, and I totally will agree with you. Lauri is off to a great start. However, I'd also add he has played in games against three awful defensive teams and ones particularly awful to defend players like himself and the one team that was a sound defensive team held him in check to his one poor game. We'll just see where things go with him. I'm becoming more cautiously optimistic about Lauri as time goes on though. I will definitely change my opinion on Lauri if the data changes.


The point of contract extensions is to read and forecast future performance. If you wait, you’re overpaying, as it seems now you are starting to admit.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1092 » by dougthonus » Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:33 pm

cjbulls wrote:Basketball improvement is not linear. Take BI, who improved every year but saw significant gains in year 4. Players grow and change on different timelines. There are ups and downs on that path. I don’t have a million examples and don’t want to spend time pulling examples, but can remember Jayson Tatum struggling in year 2 following his excellent rookie season and playoffs.


Tatum's progress looks extremely linear when you look at it to me. I'm not asking for a million examples, but I literally know of none where a guy had this type of regression then made improvements significant enough to make him considerably better than his peak prior to regression which is what you are expecting Lauri to do.

I'm open to the idea that this could happen with Lauri. I just don't think it is the likely outcome. If I don't know of a single time something as happened, and you don't want to waste your time trying to find one, then that's fine. I certainly don't command how you spend your time and demand you go down the rabbit hole, but then you should also accept the idea that it isn't ridiculous to focus on this as a key point. That you are asking for Lauri to do something that you don't know of a single case of it ever happening before.

Its fair for me to say that's pretty unlikely.

The idea that players have down years and bounce back seasons are incredibly common. I don’t even know how you can dispute this. I don’t think he will be massively better, I just said, at a minimum, he’s capable of recreating his second year numbers.


You aren't saying he will have a bounce back season. You are saying he will be significantly better than he ever was in the past. Some of the projections you have made were significantly better than he ever was. I agree that a bounce back season is more likely than not and even some improvement on that season is a reasonable possibility. Heck, I think even massive improvement is in the realm of possibility. I just don't think its likely and won't value him as if its likely until I see it.

If I were to put it on a sliding scale, it'd be something like:
10% Further regression (most likely cause would be some injury, but could just be poor play)
30% Playing around last year's level
50% Playing around year 2 level (maybe a bit better or a bit worse)
10% Significant improvement from year 2 level

Overall, my expectation is some type of bounce back, just not on a path that puts him meaningfully better than year 2.

You think it’s irrational to ignore all other stats and stare only at the one bad year? You spent two years seeing what Lauri was capable of, then you saw a lot of that stop under one of the worst coaches in recent history. You saw his role change, but now that person is gone and a new coach emphasizing his use, both in the preseason and regular season.


Future data is always the most predictive. I'm not throwing out what he did two years ago, I'm very open that he could get back to that point, but my starting point on any player for each season will be based on last season and the trend they are on. When you have regression that is meaningful, that typically means you have reached a peak based on my experience. As I said, I'm open to counter examples of this, but I don't know of any.

So it’s weird to me to view a bad year in bad circumstances and completely turn. To say, well those past two years were all fantasy, and this new guy is the one we should expect going forward at age 23. That is not rational. It’s fine to look at recent performance, but you also need to review it in the context of the overall situation.


That isn't what I'm saying, so I agree. I don't think those years are worthless either.

The point of contract extensions is to read and forecast future performance. If you wait, you’re overpaying, as it seems now you are starting to admit.


Yes, you have to project what Lauri will be when you negotiate. Your projection on Lauri can vary considerably, and you might be right or wrong with whatever you project. I still don't project Lauri out to be a 20M per year player. I wouldn't pay 2nd year Lauri 20M per year, and I don't project him to be long term better than that (though I think that's a good version of him to expect in the future). I do think Lauri will most likely earn more than that in off-season negotiations, so I would likely trade him for as much as I can get while knowing the most likely scenario is I won't want to be high bidder in the off-season.

In the off-season, I had settled around 15-16M probably being what I would have offered Lauri if I were negotiating, and I think he would have said no to my peak offer. The most reasonable offer I could think of that I would have done that he may have liked would be 3/50 with a PO on the final year which gives him good security and generational wealth if he has a catastrophic injury and a pretty early out if he busts out and becomes a star.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
FranchisePlayer
Pro Prospect
Posts: 808
And1: 302
Joined: Oct 25, 2019
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1093 » by FranchisePlayer » Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:51 pm

dougthonus wrote:
cjbulls wrote:This is true as a general rule. But Lauri and BI have tracked somewhat similarly with Lauri only one year behind, and Lauri has already shown he is capable of more scoring. This isn’t me tracking PW to Kawhi. You’re still hanging onto that poor year 3 when even in the first few games we can already see Lauri’s role has changed and has resulted in him returning to his second year form with potential for more.


You noted that BI made continual improvements every year. Lauri has not done that. He significantly regressed last year. I'm continually hanging on to year 3 because it is the most recent year and most meaningful year in evaluation. If you swapped his year 3 and year 2, I would be much higher on him because it would show continual improvement.

So yes, I'm hanging on to year 3, because it is the rational thing to do. It is most predictive to use recent data, and I don't know of any rational reason not to hang on to it. You are throwing it out. Why? What rationale is there to do so? It doesn't make sense.


The season is still very young but in every game we see more and more of evidence that offensively Boylen mismanaged players and their development. The more data we get, the more we are inclined to think, even Lauri's devoted haters, that Boylen's full year and Lauri's 3rd was an anomaly.

The data is recent but flawed mostly because of Boylen since he never put Lauri in a position to succeed. And on top of that Lauri's nagging injuries which we do not know for certain to this day, I believe, if Boylen made him play through them. The Finnisher who we have seen this season so far looks like the 1st and 2nd year Lauri 2.0! The change in his play has been striking.

Call me biased but I don't see much of rationale in light of all of this to suggest his 3rd year is the year that represents him and his abilities in the most accurate way. I wouldn't exactly throw it out but wouldn't make much of a fuss about it.
MeloRoseNoah wrote:Comparing Markkanen the Euro soft bum to Eddy Curry Shaq Jr is an understatement and a drastic overvaluation of this Euro bust.
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,471
And1: 1,242
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1094 » by cjbulls » Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:57 pm

dougthonus wrote: Tatum's progress looks extremely linear when you look at it to me. I'm not asking for a million examples, but I literally know of none where a guy had this type of regression then made improvements significant enough to make him considerably better than his peak prior to regression which is what you are expecting Lauri to do.


Tatum’s PER went down and his TS% fell from great 58.6% to average 54.7%


dougthonus wrote: I'm open to the idea that this could happen with Lauri. I just don't think it is the likely outcome. If I don't know of a single time something as happened, and you don't want to waste your time trying to find one, then that's fine. I certainly don't command how you spend your time and demand you go down the rabbit hole, but then you should also accept the idea that it isn't ridiculous to focus on this as a key point. That you are asking for Lauri to do something that you don't know of a single case of it ever happening before.

Its fair for me to say that's pretty unlikely.


I am not saying Lauri is getting significantly better, whatever that means. As I just noted before, I said there is no reason to believe he can’t at least equal his second year numbers. From there, he’s 23 and we can project further growth as reasonable, but not some sort of guarantee. That’s why a contract in the 15-17M range made so much sense. It’s enough that he will probably never be a negative asset without a severe injury, yet can get a near max player for cheap if he blows up into 24/10 on good efficiency.

dougthonus wrote: If I were to put it on a sliding scale, it'd be something like:
10% Further regression (most likely cause would be some injury, but could just be poor play)
30% Playing around last year's level
50% Playing around year 2 level (maybe a bit better or a bit worse)
10% Significant improvement from year 2 level

Overall, my expectation is some type of bounce back, just not on a path that puts him meaningfully better than year 2.


And that’s where you lose me. Most players improve from age 23-27, so I don’t know why you’d think it will not happen for Lauri.

dougthonus wrote: Future data is always the most predictive. I'm not throwing out what he did two years ago, I'm very open that he could get back to that point, but my starting point on any player for each season will be based on last season and the trend they are on. When you have regression that is meaningful, that typically means you have reached a peak based on my experience. As I said, I'm open to counter examples of this, but I don't know of any.


The bolded is not true. The most obvious example being injury. But we also have guys that struggled in the bubble. Guys like Siakam, Ball or the Bucks generally. Should we assume those struggling players/teams are the new norm? Or perhaps we need to see more context to explain the changes. Lauri’s context explains the regression, certainly better than he peaked at age 22 for no reason, which is highly improbable.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1095 » by dougthonus » Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:13 pm

FranchisePlayer wrote:The season is still very young but in every game we see more and more of evidence that offensively Boylen mismanaged players and their development. The more data we get, the more we are inclined to think, even Lauri's devoted haters, that Boylen's full year and Lauri's 3rd was an anomaly.


We'll see as time goes on. I don't mean that in the "haha, just wait and you'll be wrong" way that people normally say we'll see. I mean the season is still really young and the data doesn't have much meaning yet.

The data is recent but flawed mostly because of Boylen since he never put Lauri in a position to succeed. And on top of that Lauri's nagging injuries which we do not know for certain to this day, I believe, if Boylen made him play through them. The Finnisher who we have seen this season so far looks like the 1st and 2nd year Lauri 2.0! The change in his play has been striking.

Call me biased but I don't see much of rationale in light of all of this to suggest his 3rd year is the year that represents him and his abilities in the most accurate way. I wouldn't exactly throw it out but wouldn't make much of a fuss about it.


I don't think the 3rd year represents him best. I think when a player has significant regression, that you have probably seen their peak (or near enough). As such, I expect Lauri used different can be year 2 Lauri again or slightly better. I don't expect significant improvements beyond that point.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
FranchisePlayer
Pro Prospect
Posts: 808
And1: 302
Joined: Oct 25, 2019
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1096 » by FranchisePlayer » Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:22 pm

FriedRise wrote:Through four games, Lauri might be primed to have a bounce back year. These are his P36 numbers compared to last year:

Image

His FGA needs to be higher given how efficient he's been (66% TS), but his shooting and rebounding numbers are up across the board. It doesn't look like he's gonna improve on things that he was never very good at (steals, blocks, offensive rebounding, defense), but what's most encouraging to me is his much higher free throw attempts because he's been super aggressive attacking the rim. He's almost doubling last year's average in FTA. His total rebounding is also higher - almost matching the years when he had Robin Lopez boxing out everybody - so he's been battling on the boards too.

We obviously need to see if any of this will sustain - let's say for the next two months - but if he continues to play as aggressively as he has these first four games, I don't see why it won't. The 3P% will most likely drop, but if he can keep attacking and going to the line, it shouldn't affect his scoring output all that much. I hope this calf contusion isn't gonna make him miss too much time.


Very good analysis on his situation.

I actually hope he misses a lot of time due to the injury, only to make sure that he continues to play 100% fit.
MeloRoseNoah wrote:Comparing Markkanen the Euro soft bum to Eddy Curry Shaq Jr is an understatement and a drastic overvaluation of this Euro bust.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1097 » by dougthonus » Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:22 pm

cjbulls wrote:Tatum’s PER went down and his TS% fell from great 58.6% to average 54.7%


His volume went up. I wouldn't necessarily call that a regression, certainly not a notable one.

I am not saying Lauri is getting significantly better, whatever that means. As I just noted before, I said there is no reason to believe he can’t at least equal his second year numbers. From there, he’s 23 and we can project further growth as reasonable, but not some sort of guarantee. That’s why a contract in the 15-17M range made so much sense. It’s enough that he will probably never be a negative asset without a severe injury, yet can get a near max player for cheap if he blows up into 24/10 on good efficiency.


I think a contract at 15M would have made plenty of sense and would have been fine doing it. I also think that he can equal his second year numbers.

And that’s where you lose me. Most players improve from age 23-27, so I don’t know why you’d think it will not happen for Lauri.


Most players make incremental improvements over that time. Most really good players have made their major strides in volume/efficiency/skills by the age of 23. I agree that Lauri may continue to make incremental improvements in versatility, defensive reads, etc over time (and likely will), but I don't think we'll see massive changes to his TS% / volume / ability to initiate offense / etc, the major things that take a player from one tier to another in terms of talent.

The bolded is not true. The most obvious example being injury. But we also have guys that struggled in the bubble. Guys like Siakam, Ball or the Bucks generally. Should we assume those struggling players/teams are the new norm? Or perhaps we need to see more context to explain the changes. Lauri’s context explains the regression, certainly better than he peaked at age 22 for no reason, which is highly improbable.


I noted in an early post that I excluded significant injury from that statement. You are also now using very small sample sizes when talking about the bubble. I would say that any sample size (bubble or otherwise) that occurs like the bubble did (after a long break away from the team, out of normal context and for a very limited number of games) would be pretty suspicious for any meaningful use.

Again, you keep telling me I'm wrong but fail to come up with one comparable great player that's like this. At the very least it is uncommon or either of us could name several off the top of our heads. It doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means it shouldn't be viewed as likely. Lauri bouncing back to year 2 form? That seems well within the realm of reason. It may not happen, just like Michael Carter Williams and Tyreke Evans peaked super early in their careers, but its certainly very plausible, especially given the coaching.

I mean I'm not rooting against Lauri. The best outcome for Bulls fans is that all of our players turn into superstars, I wish that for all of them including Lauri. My expectation for Lauri is probably somewhere around year 2 stats.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 48,786
And1: 8,653
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1098 » by dougthonus » Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:30 pm

FriedRise wrote:Through four games, Lauri might be primed to have a bounce back year. These are his P36 numbers compared to last year:

Image

His FGA needs to be higher given how efficient he's been (66% TS), but his shooting and rebounding numbers are up across the board. It doesn't look like he's gonna improve on things that he was never very good at (steals, blocks, offensive rebounding, defense), but what's most encouraging to me is his much higher free throw attempts because he's been super aggressive attacking the rim. He's almost doubling last year's average in FTA. His total rebounding is also higher - almost matching the years when he had Robin Lopez boxing out everybody - so he's been battling on the boards too.

We obviously need to see if any of this will sustain - let's say for the next two months - but if he continues to play as aggressively as he has these first four games, I don't see why it won't. The 3P% will most likely drop, but if he can keep attacking and going to the line, it shouldn't affect his scoring output all that much. I hope this calf contusion isn't gonna make him miss too much time.


No doubt he has had an excellent start to the season.

I know I come off as a Lauri hater sometimes, but I just have my expectations set as to what I think will happen. I know what I think will happen will not happen. If it did, I'd be betting in vegas and making millions of dollars instead of talking with you on this forum.

I hope Lauri has an amazing year, and I think he's off to the best start on the team so far. Most encouraging is his level of aggressiveness compared to last year. His hot shooting from three has also been great. I think hoping for his level of efficiency to remain the same will mean he'll need to draw a few more fouls since his 3p% and 2p% are probably both a little higher than we can expect him to maintain, but its a great start.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
cjbulls
Analyst
Posts: 3,471
And1: 1,242
Joined: Jun 26, 2018

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1099 » by cjbulls » Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:32 pm

dougthonus wrote: Again, you keep telling me I'm wrong but fail to come up with one comparable great player that's like this. At the very least it is uncommon or either of us could name several off the top of our heads. It doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means it shouldn't be viewed as likely. Lauri bouncing back to year 2 form? That seems well within the realm of reason. It may not happen, just like Michael Carter Williams and Tyreke Evans peaked super early in their careers, but its certainly very plausible, especially given the coaching.

I mean I'm not rooting against Lauri. The best outcome for Bulls fans is that all of our players turn into superstars, I wish that for all of them including Lauri. My expectation for Lauri is probably somewhere around year 2 stats.


It’s not a failure but I don’t want to expend the effort of trial and error, and then have you nitpick why a drop in PER and TS% is ok as long as their per36 points increased slightly. If Lauri progresses this year and returns to a normal trajectory, no one outside of highly engaged Bulls fans will remember he had a dip under Boylen.

But if you insist, all of these players saw a year with a significant dip in PER in their first few years.

Kemba
DeRozan
Oladipo
DeAndre Jordan
Klay Thompson
PhilLeotardo
Junior
Posts: 347
And1: 219
Joined: Sep 23, 2020

Re: Lauri:' I can make the comeback' 

Post#1100 » by PhilLeotardo » Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:33 pm

FranchisePlayer wrote:
FriedRise wrote:Through four games, Lauri might be primed to have a bounce back year. These are his P36 numbers compared to last year:

Image

His FGA needs to be higher given how efficient he's been (66% TS), but his shooting and rebounding numbers are up across the board. It doesn't look like he's gonna improve on things that he was never very good at (steals, blocks, offensive rebounding, defense), but what's most encouraging to me is his much higher free throw attempts because he's been super aggressive attacking the rim. He's almost doubling last year's average in FTA. His total rebounding is also higher - almost matching the years when he had Robin Lopez boxing out everybody - so he's been battling on the boards too.

We obviously need to see if any of this will sustain - let's say for the next two months - but if he continues to play as aggressively as he has these first four games, I don't see why it won't. The 3P% will most likely drop, but if he can keep attacking and going to the line, it shouldn't affect his scoring output all that much. I hope this calf contusion isn't gonna make him miss too much time.


Very good analysis on his situation.

I actually hope he misses a lot of time due to the injury, only to make sure that he continues to play 100% fit.


This is sarcasm, yes? My detector is a tad dulled as of late lol

Return to Chicago Bulls