Image ImageImage Image

the magic won the trade

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

User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 52,678
And1: 23,713
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#141 » by coldfish » Mon Apr 5, 2021 1:15 am

As of right now, the Bulls are a worse team record wise after the trade than before it. As long as that continues to be true, of course Orlando won the trade. If that changes, then we can have a more interesting discussion.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 37,812
And1: 10,345
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#142 » by dice » Mon Apr 5, 2021 1:31 am

Hugi Mancura wrote:
dice wrote:
Hugi Mancura wrote:
3 seasons? Did you read mine message? Did you read the bolded part? It seems you didn't because you try to counter mine claim for him being bad this season by bringing up 2 previous seasons.

advanced stats based on a partial season are of marginal value. to try and argue that vucevic is markedly worse this season than the previous 2 seasons is preposterous. his rebounding is slightly down from the 3 year average but everything else is good. even his BPM is slightly above his 3 year average. if the on/off numbers are markedly down it's random variation

in the short-term, impact on winning (measured by any advanced plus-minus measure) is not close to perfectly correlated with how good a player has been playing. it takes several thousand minutes of data for that to happen. vucevic has played 1600+ this season


If we start talking about statistical mathematics and how big sampling we need before results and it's error margin starts to be low enough to have acceptable results we would need millions samples

no. no we don't. i just told you that we need a several thousand minute sample to feel good about the results of an advanced plus-minus stat. that's at least 2 seasons of data for a typical starter. you can use a single season sample, but it's very noisy. you'll get the occasional really weird and obviously misleading result. using half a season is even less reliable. not totally worthless, but you've gotta take it with a large grain of salt and apply common sense

there's no way that vucevic has played markedly worse this season than over the prior 2 seasons. just no way. makes no sense
peter pumpkinhead told the truth
BeatDaCavs420
RealGM
Posts: 23,054
And1: 17,696
Joined: Mar 11, 2012
       

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#143 » by BeatDaCavs420 » Mon Apr 5, 2021 3:46 am

Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda
CobyWhite0
Junior
Posts: 431
And1: 347
Joined: Dec 28, 2020
 

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#144 » by CobyWhite0 » Mon Apr 5, 2021 4:18 am

BeatDaCavs420 wrote:Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda


1000% correct, as the post just above yours proved beyond a shadow of a doubt:

"the Bulls are a worse team record wise after the trade than before it. As long as that continues to be true, of course Orlando won the trade."

One can live with that logic, until one sees how 100% disingenuous it is:

"If that changes, then we can have a more interesting discussion."

If you buy that the Bulls are a worst record after the trade, it means OF COURSE the Magic won the trade, don't you have to also 100% buy that OF COURSE the Bulls won the trade if we wind up with a better record team wise after the trade?

Sorry for mentioning COMMON SENSE, but you can't have it both ways.

Worst record = bad trade, of course

If that changes (BETTER RECORD), we can have a more interesting discussion. :lol:

Sorry, but this is a person who obviously and blatantly has a double standard. If he didn't, "if that changes" would mean the Bulls won the trade, using his "worse record = OF COURSE Orlando won the trade".

Sorry but this is BS. Disingenuous, double-standard, losses matter but wins don't.
CobyWhite0
Junior
Posts: 431
And1: 347
Joined: Dec 28, 2020
 

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#145 » by CobyWhite0 » Mon Apr 5, 2021 4:22 am

BeatDaCavs420 wrote:Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda


Great post, you even have blatant proof:

As of right now, the Bulls are a worse team record wise after the trade than before it. As long as that continues to be true, of course Orlando won the trade. If that changes, then we can have a more interesting discussion.

You can't be any more blatantly anti-new rotation than that.
Am2626
Starter
Posts: 2,192
And1: 689
Joined: Jul 13, 2013

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#146 » by Am2626 » Mon Apr 5, 2021 4:37 am

CobyWhite0 wrote:
BeatDaCavs420 wrote:Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda


Great post, you even have blatant proof:

As of right now, the Bulls are a worse team record wise after the trade than before it. As long as that continues to be true, of course Orlando won the trade. If that changes, then we can have a more interesting discussion.

You can't be any more blatantly anti-new rotation than that.


I don’t see the Bulls winning any of the games they had been losing with the guys they had before the trade. The reality is that this has been the most difficult stretch of the season for this team. Over the last few games this team has been playing a lot better and they just beat the best team record wise in the Eastern Conference.

This whole thing about winning or losing this trade can’t be determined after a handful of games. This question really won’t be able to be answered until at the end of next year at the earliest. I will say that on paper I don’t know how anyone can think the Bulls didn’t get better.
TheAlanParsons
Freshman
Posts: 84
And1: 56
Joined: Mar 14, 2020
     

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#147 » by TheAlanParsons » Mon Apr 5, 2021 5:04 am

CobyWhite0 wrote:
BeatDaCavs420 wrote:Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda


1000% correct, as the post just above yours proved beyond a shadow of a doubt:

"the Bulls are a worse team record wise after the trade than before it. As long as that continues to be true, of course Orlando won the trade."

One can live with that logic, until one sees how 100% disingenuous it is:

"If that changes, then we can have a more interesting discussion."

If you buy that the Bulls are a worst record after the trade, it means OF COURSE the Magic won the trade, don't you have to also 100% buy that OF COURSE the Bulls won the trade if we wind up with a better record team wise after the trade?

Sorry for mentioning COMMON SENSE, but you can't have it both ways.

Worst record = bad trade, of course

If that changes (BETTER RECORD), we can have a more interesting discussion. :lol:

Sorry, but this is a person who obviously and blatantly has a double standard. If he didn't, "if that changes" would mean the Bulls won the trade, using his "worse record = OF COURSE Orlando won the trade".

Sorry but this is BS. Disingenuous, double-standard, losses matter but wins don't.


Really? Coldfish isn't being disingenuous at all!

The team traded future assets for a current asset. If the current asset doesn't even make the team better in the here and now, then obviously the trade was a disaster. If the current asset DOES make the team better in the here and now, then you have to consider how much better, vs how much of a hit the Bulls will take in the future based on what they gave up.

This doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
ZOMG
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,269
And1: 3,158
Joined: Dec 31, 2013

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#148 » by ZOMG » Mon Apr 5, 2021 6:10 am

DuckIII wrote:
ZOMG wrote:
CobyWhite0 wrote:
Wow, this is the best you can do? LOL.

I'm sorry Lauri is fading into obscurity, but come on LOL.

How have those Lauri takes aged? LOL.

I sometimes get a good LOL out of reading a post by someone on my "foe" list. This is one of those times LOL.


WTF is wrong with you?

I make a post about Aminu. NOTHING to do with Markkanen.

GTFO.


Look man, everyone in here knows that every post you write bagging on fans, Bulls players, coaching and management is a post about Lauri. You don’t need to agree because we all see it.


No. That post was 100% about Aminu's role in the trade and the fact that some people were saying he'd quickly become a contributor, even a starter - possibly even pushing some of the pre-trade frontcourt players to the bench. I thought that was laughable and replied that Aminu is so bad HE shouldn't even be in the rotation.

Well, he's already out of the rotation. I also said that Green is headed to the end of the bench (true) and that Brown is the only new guy outside of Vuc and Theis who has something of a chance to play meaningful minutes or even break into the starting lineup (certainly looks that way).

The above post was totally relevant to the subject of this very thread and the fact that you, as a mod, are trying to twist my words to something else is f**king unbelievable. The fact that I often (but not always) see things differently regarding Lauri doesn't mean I'm not allowed to discuss things NOT related to him on this forum.

Everyone's free to read my posts anyway they like and I don't care if I'm considered an annoying dude. That's an opinion. But I have the same right as anyone else to not be attacked when I make a post that's completely valid to the discussion in question.

CobyWhite0's post was an uncalled-for attack and if there's anyone here who needs a condescending talking-to by a mod, it's him.
Current status: ACTIVE
Former status: BANNED FOR DERAILING DISCUSSION
Hugi Mancura
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,478
And1: 836
Joined: Dec 05, 2017

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#149 » by Hugi Mancura » Mon Apr 5, 2021 11:24 am

BeatDaCavs420 wrote:Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda


So because some people don't think this was a good trade they shouldn't be counted as fans. So wanting the best for your team is not fandom? Human beings are different. They have different opinions about how team should improve to reach their goals and if this trade doesn't move your team towards that goal then why would you agree that this is a good trade. Example: if you think teams primary goal would have been to improve defense then was this a good trade? Some people might believe this trade improved Bulls defense and they are free to do so.

Bulls have been without development coaches god knows how long. And now you finally hire two development coaches and first thing Bulls do is get rid of all the young players and picks. Where is the logic in that? There are couple of ways to see how this trade wasn't so great, but does that really make people who bring these up non-fans?

Coby and Lauri gets most dirt from Bulls fans in here. Oh wait they want these two to fail, so they want Bulls to fail as long they stay with Bulls. So are they Bulls fans? Following this thought project you put up they are not Bulls fans. Or do these haters actually want to see Bulls improve their game the way they think is the right way?
sco
RealGM
Posts: 16,708
And1: 4,639
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#150 » by sco » Mon Apr 5, 2021 1:14 pm

Hugi Mancura wrote:
BeatDaCavs420 wrote:Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda


So because some people don't think this was a good trade they shouldn't be counted as fans. So wanting the best for your team is not fandom? Human beings are different. They have different opinions about how team should improve to reach their goals and if this trade doesn't move your team towards that goal then why would you agree that this is a good trade. Example: if you think teams primary goal would have been to improve defense then was this a good trade? Some people might believe this trade improved Bulls defense and they are free to do so.

Bulls have been without development coaches god knows how long. And now you finally hire two development coaches and first thing Bulls do is get rid of all the young players and picks. Where is the logic in that? There are couple of ways to see how this trade wasn't so great, but does that really make people who bring these up non-fans?

Coby and Lauri gets most dirt from Bulls fans in here. Oh wait they want these two to fail, so they want Bulls to fail as long they stay with Bulls. So are they Bulls fans? Following this thought project you put up they are not Bulls fans. Or do these haters actually want to see Bulls improve their game the way they think is the right way?

I hear you on the development thing, good point. IIRC, AK called this a development and assessment season. I think the staff put a lot of time and effort into developing White into a PG, Lauri into a guy who is worth keeping for $20M and Carter into a Horford like C. That said, I think to any of us fans who aren't wed to these guys (or family members of Lauri) it has been obvious that White isn't going to be a starting caliber PG this/next season, Lauri isn't on an allstar upward trajectory and Carter wasn't either.
:clap:
BeatDaCavs420
RealGM
Posts: 23,054
And1: 17,696
Joined: Mar 11, 2012
       

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#151 » by BeatDaCavs420 » Mon Apr 5, 2021 2:03 pm

Hugi Mancura wrote:
BeatDaCavs420 wrote:Im convinced some posters in this thread would rather see this trade fail just so they can say "Told ya so!". That is not a fan to me. That's a person with a agenda


So because some people don't think this was a good trade they shouldn't be counted as fans. So wanting the best for your team is not fandom? Human beings are different. They have different opinions about how team should improve to reach their goals and if this trade doesn't move your team towards that goal then why would you agree that this is a good trade. Example: if you think teams primary goal would have been to improve defense then was this a good trade? Some people might believe this trade improved Bulls defense and they are free to do so.

Bulls have been without development coaches god knows how long. And now you finally hire two development coaches and first thing Bulls do is get rid of all the young players and picks. Where is the logic in that? There are couple of ways to see how this trade wasn't so great, but does that really make people who bring these up non-fans?

Coby and Lauri gets most dirt from Bulls fans in here. Oh wait they want these two to fail, so they want Bulls to fail as long they stay with Bulls. So are they Bulls fans? Following this thought project you put up they are not Bulls fans. Or do these haters actually want to see Bulls improve their game the way they think is the right way?

My post was not directed at all posters with logical reasons as to why they think this trade is bad.(Coldfish for example has logical reasoning's and in the end I know he would love for this trade to work out.) My post was directed at posters who always have this negative mindset of this team rather it's about this trade or other moves in the past. Such about the players you mentioned and just wait if we decide to sign Lavine to a extension. They will be the first posters to tell you why it's awful and this team is going to fail along with Lavine. Granted everyone has their own opinion, but it just gets tiring seeing that negative mindset all the time and them getting more excited if the team fails then does good just so they can say "Told ya so!". To each their tho.
Ice Man
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 22,380
And1: 10,827
Joined: Apr 19, 2011

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#152 » by Ice Man » Mon Apr 5, 2021 3:00 pm

CobyWhite0 wrote:1000% correct, as the post just above yours proved beyond a shadow of a doubt:

"the Bulls are a worse team record wise after the trade than before it. As long as that continues to be true, of course Orlando won the trade."


The poster that you cite supported the trade.
Butler4thewin
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,403
And1: 452
Joined: Jan 07, 2017
   

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#153 » by Butler4thewin » Mon Apr 5, 2021 10:12 pm

it was a great trade for the bulls all star players arnt easy to come by in there prime.....if this season we manage to get into the playoffs and get these guys some battle experience next season with more experience a guy like pwill could start to make leapes ij development and put us into a serious contention role sooner then later .....not only that they might add anotjer impact player this offseason......this is universes better then what we use to have back when garpax ran things and basically ran a squad of bums and never improved the team with coaching or trades
MGB8
RealGM
Posts: 16,212
And1: 1,976
Joined: Jul 20, 2001
Location: Philly

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#154 » by MGB8 » Mon Apr 5, 2021 11:37 pm

For this season, I think the worst that the Bulls can realistically finish is 7th worst, with the Wolves, Rockets, Cavs, Magic, Pistons, and Wizards below them. I also think it’s likely that they stay ahead of the Thunder (without SGA), and they have a decent chance of staying ahead of the Raps (unless they decide to make a serious run and get ahead of the Kings, Pacers and Hornets.

So realistic high end (and barring play-in win and any draft implications), the Bulls could end up 12th worst.

The Bulls’ giving up a 7 through 12 (or worse via play in or jump up by a team behind them into the top 4) this year, and presumably a pick in the teens if not low 20s 2 years from now... plus WCJ... not buy low, but not so terrible, either.
User avatar
FranchisePlayer
Rookie
Posts: 1,117
And1: 389
Joined: Oct 25, 2019
 

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#155 » by FranchisePlayer » Wed Apr 7, 2021 7:08 pm

HomoSapien wrote:
I know, you've said you're not an expert at advance stats (I'm not one myself), but I'd specifically like to know what's causing our bad record with Lauri to be misleading. Regarding the eye test, what are you seeing that's different than me? It's undisputable that he's not rebounding well, doesn't set good screens, block shots/take charges, doesn't create for teammates, etc. If he's not scoring, he really doesn't bring much to the team.


To be misleading? That would require a pretty concrete correlation between his performance and the end result, wouldn't it?

Against Utah he scored 5 points on 5 shots and took 2 rebounds, didn't have any turnovers. Played only for 22 mins and the Bulls lost by 7. Did he really have a stronger impact in the loss than the rest of the players when in fact he played in periphery most of the game? Based on box score his input sounds pretty insignificant.In what plausible way do you isolate his performance from the rest and say Lauri's play and Bulls' loss went hand in hand?

Against GSW he scored 13 points on 9 shots and took 6 rebounds in 22 mins. FG% .556 and had the 4th best BPM. The Bulls lost by 14. Did he really have a stronger impact in the loss than the rest of the players? He shot more and with better accuracy and every starter had more TO's than him. So the better he plays, the more Bulls lose? Of course not. Since you claim the worse Lauri plays, the worse is the Bulls' record.

Saying the Bulls' record is worse when Lauri is on court is a misleading claim since the stats don't seem to coherently back that up. If they would, they'd be consistent. It's like saying "every time it rains, I feel depressed - so I blame the rain or think what can I do to the rain to make it stop depressing me". You do may feel every time depressed when it rains, yet there are so many factors outside the rain that you really have to do some thorough groundwork and reduce factors one by one to convince anyone that the rain itself is the underlying reason for your mental problems. Especially since common sense says it can't be unless you're hyper sensitive.

You talk a lot about eye test. Well, that's a very subjective thing. For example, to me Valentine is a hazard running with sneakers and doesn't pass my eye test very often. I don't know what's Bulls record when he is in the lineup but someone had to work really hard to be able to convince me he's passed the eye test better than Lauri this season. If the Bulls have a better record when he's playing than Lauri, uh oh okay, but does he have better stats or on what is that correlation based on?

To me Bulls' record when Lauri playing is just a coincidence. Two stats put together without any context. I quickly counted Felicio is 2-8. Is he the reason why the Bulls lose more when he's on court? He isn't a good player, not even average, but of course not. In 4 of those losses he's played less than 2 mins with zero shots and zero TOs. Based on eye test he probably doesn't do anything that moves the needle one way or the other, yet his stats indicate it's a guaranteed loss when he plays. Hogwash IMO.
MrSparkle wrote:I don't see a scenario here or there where Lauri becomes the "7-pick we thought he could be." If you remove his 3P ability, he's worse than Felicio by a mile.
User avatar
HomoSapien
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 29,675
And1: 19,211
Joined: Aug 17, 2009
 

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#156 » by HomoSapien » Wed Apr 7, 2021 7:26 pm

FranchisePlayer wrote:
To be misleading? That would require a pretty concrete correlation between his performance and the end result, wouldn't it?


He's dead last on the team in +/-. Why shouldn't we consider that a correlation to the bad record?

Against Utah he scored 5 points on 5 shots and took 2 rebounds, didn't have any turnovers. Played only for 22 mins and the Bulls lost by 7. Did he really have a stronger impact in the loss than the rest of the players when in fact he played in periphery most of the game? Based on box score his input sounds pretty insignificant.In what plausible way do you isolate his performance from the rest and say Lauri's play and Bulls' loss went hand in hand?


Playing 22 minutes and contributing 5 points and 2 rebounds is inherently a negative contribution, IMO. It means for 22 minutes you're essentially getting close to no contributions from one player on the court. Obviously, it's hard to win games if someone is just being invisible on the floor. If he's not scoring, rebounding, or playing + defense then what positive contributions is he making?

Against GSW he scored 13 points on 9 shots and took 6 rebounds in 22 mins. FG% .556 and had the 4th best BPM. The Bulls lost by 14. Did he really have a stronger impact in the loss than the rest of the players? He shot more and with better accuracy and every starter had more TO's than him. So the better he plays, the more Bulls lose? Of course not. Since you claim the worse Lauri plays, the worse is the Bulls' record.


Others pointed out that we lost momentum during the third quarter of that game when he checked in. Our deficit ballooned with him the court which is supported by a season-long trend that we're often objectively worse with him on the floor.

Saying the Bulls' record is worse when Lauri is on court is a misleading claim since the stats don't seem to coherently back that up.


Our record in addition to his +/- in my opinion do coherently back that up.

If they would, they'd be consistent. It's like saying "every time it rains, I feel depressed - so I blame the rain or think what can I do to the rain to make it stop depressing me". You do may feel every time depressed when it rains, yet there are so many factors outside the rain that you really have to do some thorough groundwork and reduce factors one by one to convince anyone that the rain itself is the underlying reason for your mental problems. Especially since common sense says it can't be unless you're hyper sensitive.


The stats only have to be consistent enough to suggest that the majority of the time the Bulls have been worse when Lauri plays. Are they worse 100% of the time in all instances? No, of course not. That's not how averages work.

For example, to me Valentine is a hazard running with sneakers and doesn't pass my eye test very often. I don't know what's Bulls record when he is in the lineup but someone had to work really hard to be able to convince me he's passed the eye test better than Lauri this season. If the Bulls have a better record when he's playing than Lauri, uh oh okay, but does he have better stats or on what is that correlation based on?


This is where context matters. Valentine plays significantly less and often only plays if Temple or White is unavailable. His impact on the floor (positive or negative) isn't a good comparison for what Lauri is expected to do. If Valentine was playing 29 minutes, we could have that debate. Similarly, if Lauri was limited to 18 minutes a game like Valentine we likely wouldn't be talking about this because the numbers would be insignifcant.

I quickly counted Felicio is 2-8. Is he the reason why the Bulls lose more when he's on court? He isn't a good player, not even average, but of course not. In 4 of those losses he's played less than 2 mins with zero shots and zero TOs. Based on eye test he probably doesn't do anything that moves the needle one way or the other, yet his stats indicate it's a guaranteed loss when he plays. Hogwash IMO.


I'm not even sure what the purpose of bringing this up is. Felicio only plays during garbage time. We both know this and we both know that context matters. Lauri has a significant enough sample size to ask why the team seems to underperform when he plays (and plays starter minutes specifically).
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
User avatar
FranchisePlayer
Rookie
Posts: 1,117
And1: 389
Joined: Oct 25, 2019
 

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#157 » by FranchisePlayer » Wed Apr 7, 2021 8:14 pm

HomoSapien wrote: He's dead last on the team in +/-. Why shouldn't we consider that a correlation to the bad record?


As I pointed out, he might have played well in games they lost and badly when they won. Otherwise you're just putting together two stats without any context.

HomoSapien wrote: Playing 22 minutes and contributing 5 points and 2 rebounds is inherently a negative contribution, IMO. It means for 22 minutes you're essentially getting close to no contributions from one player on the court. Obviously, it's hard to win games if someone is just being invisible on the floor. If he's not scoring, rebounding, or playing + defense then what positive contributions is he making?


Your point is he's the reason we lose more. That isn't a negative contribution relatively speaking if the guys next to you play worse. See the stats from that game. Why pin point Lauri's game if others contributed less?

HomoSapien wrote: Others pointed out that we lost momentum during the third quarter of that game when he checked in. Our deficit ballooned with him the court which is supported by a season-long trend that we're often objectively worse with him on the floor.


Others? Well, that's their opinion. Opinions are like a$$holes - we all have one. Are other a$$holes more valuable than others? I guess... Losing momentum sounds really vague and one player who's mostly off the ball is the biggest culprit in losing momentum? I don't think so.

HomoSapien wrote: Our record in addition to his +/- in my opinion do coherently back that up.


To me those two are both single stats, randomly put together, which in the first place I rarely even see used in the same sentence. I know you have followed bb longer than I so can you off the top of your head name many players who have been placed under the same scrutiny - how their poor +/- stats reflect on the record of the team? I know Lavine in the past has been criticized for not getting his team wins but very seldom if ever have I seen it argumented it's due to his bad +/- stat.

HomoSapien wrote: This is where context matters. Valentine plays significantly less and often only plays if Temple or White is unavailable. His impact on the floor (positive or negative) isn't a good comparison for what Lauri is expected to do. If Valentine was playing 29 minutes, we could have that debate. Similarly, if Lauri was limited to 18 minutes a game like Valentine we likely wouldn't be talking about this because the numbers would be insignifcant.


We were talking about eye test, or actually you started out with that theme, but now in this paragraph you moved on to expectations? Let's stick to the eye test. Even with less minutes Valentine's play means more pain to the eyes than Lauri's. He just makes so often and so blatant errors. Expectations may be less but his errors are well noticed and ridiculed more than not.

HomoSapien wrote: I'm not even sure what the purpose of bringing this up is. Felicio only plays during garbage time. We both know this and we both know that context matters. Lauri has a significant enough sample size to ask why the team seems to underperform when he plays (and plays starter minutes specifically).


The purpose was to show why stats can be misleading. Everyone knows the same stat can interpreted in many ways and on too many occasions people try to twist the stats to support their argument or agenda when in reality they should try and twist their argument and/or agenda based on the stats.

I think it would more fruitfull to try and specifically determine: in which games has Lauri's input played a significant role in getting the win and in which games he's clearly with his drastic mistakes or say well below average shooting been the culprit or in TOP3 for the loss? Using solely the averages leaves the conclusions very average, too.
MrSparkle wrote:I don't see a scenario here or there where Lauri becomes the "7-pick we thought he could be." If you remove his 3P ability, he's worse than Felicio by a mile.
User avatar
DJhitek
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,734
And1: 1,327
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
Location: Berto Center
       

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#158 » by DJhitek » Wed Apr 7, 2021 9:03 pm

Magic will win this trade if they hit on their picks. Otherwise, it’s a trade I would have never made from the Bulls perspective. But nobody has won the trade, whatever that really means.
chefo
Pro Prospect
Posts: 963
And1: 1,827
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#159 » by chefo » Wed Apr 7, 2021 9:08 pm

When using stats, it's always a good idea to make sure we don't confuse correlation with causation.

The first 20 or so games he played, Lauri had a modestly plus net rating as a starter at elite efficiency scoring-wise, despite sharing the floor for most of his time with Coby and Pat who over the first two+ months of the season were at a net rating level consistent with the worst rotational players in the league in the negative mid-teens, playing 30 min/game. That also coincided with WCJ having an opening stretch that included his worst games as a Bull.

To pin the first dozen or so losses on him when we had 2 guys playing like G-leaguers alongside him and another who played his worst hoops in 3 years as a pro is just disingenuous.

A bunch of the W he missed were the bum-slaying of the likes of Minny, Detroit, Houston, NO and the Magic. Odds are, if he dressed for 1 min as a starter, we'd still bum-slay these guys. So, if you add 7 Ws to his record, would that change people's opinion? It shouldn't.

The facts are these:

Lauri had a great stretch to open the season, especially in January before he got hurt, lost steam post the shoulder surgery and then fell off a cliff scoring-wise post-trade, when his touches are somewhere in the 2nd guy off the bench level.

When you have a guy scoring 18 ppg at a 60%+ TS, on fourth option touches no less, he's not the reason you're losing games, unless he's Trae Young bad on D, and Lauri is nowhere near that much of a defensive liability.

The reason the Bulls lost a bunch of winnable games to open the year is because we had 2.5 starters that the team would be better off if they didn't see more than 30 min combined, let alone 30 min each. The reason the Bulls lost a bunch of games over the last dozen is because they had their toughest stretch of the year and that happened to coincide with Zach playing hobbled and Lauri being demoted and his playing time being cut by near 30%.

The opposite is also true now--he'll not be the reason the Bulls will win going forward--not with him playing 20 min / game and coach D saying last night "don't expect him to be featured on O". He's been demoted to a low min role player and that's that. But to pin the losing on him make about zilch sense to me, for anybody who's watched the team play this year.
User avatar
Sinistar6
Starter
Posts: 2,156
And1: 69
Joined: Nov 18, 2003
Location: Chicago
       

Re: the magic won the trade 

Post#160 » by Sinistar6 » Wed Apr 7, 2021 9:49 pm

I don’t understand how anyone does not like this trade. I have been in on tank for 10 years and now, for the first time in a long time I like our core. It may be me getting old and seeing how our 5-20 picks have been bad so far, but give me a 20/10 multi-skilled 30 year old center over 2 10ish picks twice on Friday. Adding that to the talented youth and we are building something.
Next time the cult's spaceship lands we'll all be wearing black Starburys.

-mcwelk

Return to Chicago Bulls