Young core all star potential

[Kilroy]

Melo was already 'Melo' at 23 though... He was putting up All-Star Numbers and cementing himself as a top 5 or 10 player in the league... Averaging 26/7/3... And leading his team to the playoffs as the first option...


I think that comparison is a little disrespectful to Melo and what he was in his prime... And it also represents a ridiculously high ceiling for a 23yo Sophomore player... Kuz is probably today, about what he's always going to be.

That said, if he plays like he did last night with a good balance between 3s and finishing at the rim, and adds a lot to his defense, he can be a solid role player on a championship team.

His numbers today are pretty close to where Klay Thompson's numbers were at 23... That's probably his ceiling. Which is actually WAY better for us than 'the next Melo.'

[Speedlot]

You are using FG% while I'm using his scoring efficiency. Heck even his TS% is average atm. He can do nothing else on the floor. He can't playmake, he can't rebound, and he can't play defense. Those are all facts atm.

SO SAY that instead of calling him an inefficient volume scorer. Because scoring is not his problem right now. At least you've retreated to his "TS is average".

Did you mean he is a volume scorer with average efficiency ? I'll allow you to retract to this and we can end our debate. Please don't strawman random stuff that doesn't matter. I am arguing the point you made about his efficiency. His scoring numbers are really good.

I'm not arguing for or against his other things that you keep bringing up.

[Landsberger]

Melo was already 'Melo' at 23 though... He was putting up All-Star Numbers and cementing himself as a top 5 or 10 player in the league... Averaging 26/7/3... And leading his team to the playoffs as the first option...


I think that comparison is a little disrespectful to Melo and what he was in his prime... And it also represents a ridiculously high ceiling for a 23yo Sophomore player... Kuz is probably today, about what he's always going to be.

That said, if he plays like he did last night with a good balance between 3s and finishing at the rim, and adds a lot to his defense, he can be a solid role player on a championship team.

His numbers today are pretty close to where Klay Thompson's numbers were at 23... That's probably his ceiling. Which is actually WAY better for us than 'the next Melo.'

We can debate where Kuzma is on the development curve but we agree that his type of value to a team is WAY better than a "Melo" type of player. The reason this would be disrespectful to Melo is that he seemed to care more about his averages than the team. Kuz seems to be fitting into a role which we wondered about coming into this year. That's more valuable than another Melo.

He may be the only one other than Bron and McGee at the moment that has a level of comfort in his position. The 3's with him are going to come in bunches I believe. What we saw last night when he used the threat of the 3 to set up the driving hoops was growth from last year.... subtle but noticeable. He wouldn't have done that last year most likely.

[Landsberger]

You are using FG% while I'm using his scoring efficiency. Heck even his TS% is average atm. He can do nothing else on the floor. He can't playmake, he can't rebound, and he can't play defense. Those are all facts atm.

These stats in a vacuum are worthless. He's not typically touching the ball in a position to make plays. The entire offense is being run through..... from top to bottom.... Bron, Ingram, Ball, Rondo, Stephenson and Hart.... then you may get to Kuzma. The only time he dribbles more than 3 times is if he's leading the break. Situations mean something don't they? That said he's "making plays" (assists) at a higher rate than Ingram.

Rebounding: Last year he had the second most double digit rebounding games for us. He was only a few behind Randle. I believe he had the 2 highest rebounding totals as well. I'd say it's the situations that have changed this year over he being useless as a rebounder. He's often switching in this ludicrous scheme and out at the 3 point line when shots go up. I'd also say he's not diving in as much as he could as well but to say that he's basically useless and that it's a "fact" based on some "advanced" stat void of situations is not really a fact.

The debate of shooting % being antiquated is interesting. The rate at which one decides to shoot and the rate that one makes the shot is no longer important? Total Shooting Percentage: Points/(2 x (FGA + 0.44 x FTA)) is a metric that was created to off set shooting percentages that were lower due to a players choice to shoot more lower percentage shots (3's) than higher percentage shots. It's more of a "points per shot" metric than a shooting percentage metric. As with most stats they are used for contract negotiations and internet arguments primarily when applied without understanding the circumstances in which the underlaying data was established. If you are a good 3 point shooter you will have a very high TS% as it's weighted to points per shot. Conversely, if you are a big who shoots 4 times a game at a very high shooting % it will be high as well. Often the leaders in this category are Bigs and the top 3 point shooters. Not a rule but in sifting through the last few years it seems to be the case. 2016's leader was Tyson Chandler for example.

So.... is it really important in a players value in a team situation? Depends on how you look at it. I'd say if you have a guard who is here to spread the floor and break down defenses it has some value as long as the shooting % from distance are used in concert with it.

I'll put it this way as a guy who's coached a little in the past. If you are at the end of the game and you need a 3 pointer to tie or win I wouldn't use a stat that includes FT% and midrange shooting to set up that play..... I'd want my best 3 point shooter to get the primary look. Same for a play in a 1 point game.... give me the person who can shoot the highest % shot. Of course this is oversimplifying it but a "points per shot" statistic isn't really relevant to those situations.

No known stat includes a true evaluation of situational play. There is not enough data kept to do that.

[iamworthy]

What metric are we using to measure the young cores success or failure? Currently we have the rpm thread with unflattering numbers. We have PER, and just general opinions that guys are under performing. Is it possible for us to all agree on something that says, when X happens he's under performing or just flat out not working out?

[Sedale Threatt]

Unfortunately there is no magic bullet for basketball, as is the case with baseball and something like WAR. For me it's just a composite of four or five different measures, stuff like PER and RAPM and win shares. None of them individually are anywhere close to perfect, but I find that they're usually close enough in the ballpark that they're still valuable when taken together.

Take PER: A lot of people crap on it, and rightfully so I suppose. It's based on box score stats that aren't necessarily useless but definitely can be. (One player's 10 assists can be significantly more valuable than another's.) And then those box score stats are weighted, a subjective process in and of itself. Way smarter people than me can provide much more detailed critiques than that.

Then again, when I look at the players who have led the league in that stat over the years I see a metric sh*t ton of Jordan, Kareem and LeBron, and that jibes pretty well with the eye test. There will always be weird outliers here and there, but if you look at the league leaders in those categories, it's usually the same bunch of names you'd expect, if not necessarily in the order that you'd expect. (Same with RAPM: Guys were crapping on that too, but look at the current top 10, and putting order aside, tell me any of those 10 names are particularly surprising, with the possible exception of Kyle Lowry.)

Like, none of us need anything to tell us that Giannis is an absolute beast, but you look at his advanced stuff, and sure enough he's absolutely crushing it. Mediocre players don't do that.

With our young guys, it's pretty much the same way. None of them have been playing anywhere close to great, and that's backed up pretty much across the board when you take all that stuff together.

[Michael Lucky]

Let's be honest here. LeBron is one of the main reasons why our young core hasn't been improving or is underperforming. It's a simple question of usage and freedom to play the style they are most comfortable with.

That doesnt absolve them completely since players generally find ways to become better, but in this instance it is definitely slowing progress.

[lakerz12]

The average age of an All Star is around 27.5 years old.

So there is still a lot of time to see what potential these guys can reach.

Each other them, including Hart, has the talent to make at least one all star game. Multiple all star? That's a lot tougher.

It's going to come down to who is smart enough to practice the right things and get better. And also some good fortune on situation and health. Overall too soon to tell.

[-Spyda-]

The average age of an All Star is around 27.5 years old.

So there is still a lot of time to see what potential these guys can reach.

Each other them, including Hart, has the talent to make at least one all star game. Multiple all star? That's a lot tougher.

It's going to come down to who is smart enough to practice the right things and get better. And also some good fortune on situation and health. Overall too soon to tell.

Not in Lakers uni. We have no time to wait.
You have Dec 15 and the offseason that's it.
99.9% half or even all of the young guys will be traded.

[dockingsched]

The average age of an All Star is around 27.5 years old.

So there is still a lot of time to see what potential these guys can reach.

Each other them, including Hart, has the talent to make at least one all star game. Multiple all star? That's a lot tougher.

It's going to come down to who is smart enough to practice the right things and get better. And also some good fortune on situation and health. Overall too soon to tell.

Average age of an all star isn’t the number you should be after, should be average age of first time all stars. That’ll give you an idea of what age players can be expected to reach all star level.

[Landsberger]

The average age of an All Star is around 27.5 years old.

So there is still a lot of time to see what potential these guys can reach.

Each other them, including Hart, has the talent to make at least one all star game. Multiple all star? That's a lot tougher.

It's going to come down to who is smart enough to practice the right things and get better. And also some good fortune on situation and health. Overall too soon to tell.

Average age of an all star isn’t the number you should be after, should be average age of first time all stars. That’ll give you an idea of what age players can be expected to reach all star level.

Yup..... simple average means that for every 34 year old LeBron there would need to be a 20 year old All Star to get to the 27 year old average. For every 30 year old there is a 24 year old and so on.... It's a poor evaluator of young players growth. A better one is look at the top 10 picks over the last 15 years and count the All Stars.... do it again with the top 5 picks. Do an analysis based on their PT and the record of their team (opportunity to play). Take that and overlay it with All Stars.

To me the All Star moniker is silly. A lot more Lakers will be All Stars than Pacers for example based on fan base alone.

[lakerz12]

The average age of an All Star is around 27.5 years old.

So there is still a lot of time to see what potential these guys can reach.

Each other them, including Hart, has the talent to make at least one all star game. Multiple all star? That's a lot tougher.

It's going to come down to who is smart enough to practice the right things and get better. And also some good fortune on situation and health. Overall too soon to tell.

Average age of an all star isn’t the number you should be after, should be average age of first time all stars. That’ll give you an idea of what age players can be expected to reach all star level.

No, considering the question is whether one can be a multiple time all star. The average age of all stars tells us around what age someone is most likely to make an all star team.

The study I got that number from evaluated the data of decades of all star teams. This idea of a 34 Year old LeBron skewing the data is dumb. A 19 Year old Kobe is in the data too. That's why it's an average over many years. It eliminates the influence of the outliers.

My obvious point is that the guys in question are significantly below that age.

For what it's worth, I think the average age of first time all stars would also be around 27. But you're welcome to figure out what it is.

[Landsberger]

First you say for every older All Star there are the younger ones to create the average..... then you stated that you thought that the average age for first timers is 27 or so. Which is it? Hard to have an average of 27 when the "first time" all stars are 27.....

The overall thought you are putting out there is that it's way too early to evaluate these guys. I say that most of the All Stars over the years were obviously going to be All Stars within a couple years of being in the league.

If the data you were posting is from the history of the NBA All Star game then it has a significant bias for older players built in..... especially if it's before the influx of High School and "one and done" players. Kareem was an All Star year one.... when he was 22. He couldn't be younger. So if a player didn't make the All Star game for say 2 years on average then they were 24 or so. Today's younger All Stars would be pulling that average down but not by much considering the amount of data prior to allowing the kids in.

Finally, the league had fewer teams in the early 80's and many fewer teams in the mid 70's so to be an All Star you had to be one of the top Stars in the League. Also there was a time when every team had to be represented in the All Star game.

My guess is if you looked at the more watered down (more teams) era of the one and done players the average would move down considerably.

[dockingsched]

Fourth of season has gone by and I can’t say I feel like anyone on the roster has the potential to one day be an all star caliber player.

[myersia]

Fourth of season has gone by and I can’t say I feel like anyone on the roster has the potential to one day be an all star caliber player.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[TyCobb]

If only we had per 36 tweets like with Russell.

[JazzUte88]

I am an outsider fan that follows the Lakers, but LeBron is stunting the development of Ball, Ingram, etc. It's been more and more LeBron ball I feel lately.

[Landsberger]

I am an outsider fan that follows the Lakers, but LeBron is stunting the development of Ball, Ingram, etc. It's been more and more LeBron ball I feel lately.

You gotta go take it when you have a great veteran on your team. That's the problem more than "stunting" in my opinion. Ingram and Ball have been the center of their teams to this point in their BB lives. They have had all of the accolades with little of the results as they are young and everyone is seeing their own version of their future greatness. A truly great player challenges guys like this with their very presence. They are trying to adjust to not being the center of their universe. Kuzma is a little different. He's a little more mature and he's never experienced the ESPN led hype machine until after he got here. He seems to have molded what he can do to fit Bron-Ball better than the other two at the moment.

Ball's biggest issue is that Bron is better than him at what he does best. Same with Ingram. They need to find a way to add value while not having touches where they are most comfortable. That's not "stunting"..... it's more about adjusting.

[thomas1897]

The young core players have not arrived at allstar status. First principle is how are these guys going to compliment their games to Lebron. The offense is facilitated through him. Basketball IQs are important and are exercised to promote improvement which develops into winning games. Having a team loaded with allstars helps but does not always win championships.

[Landsberger]

The young core players have not arrived at allstar status. First principle is how are these guys going to compliment their games to Lebron. The offense is facilitated through him. Basketball IQs are important and are exercised to promote improvement which develops into winning games. Having a team loaded with allstars helps but does not always win championships.

Well said. So far, Kuzma has adjusted the best to Bron. Ingram seems to be competing with him for touches which is not great because Bron is so much more efficient with the ball. That said, Ingram can play off the ball and has shown to do it in stretches. Ball is the one who's really struggling at present with the off the ball role. He's great on the break with the ball but with Bron I'm not sure that's who we are anymore.