Zach Lavine

[MGB8]

Thanks for pointing that out, but in Zach's case it doesn't seem to make much of a difference from what I see on BBR and Cleaning the Glass.

On a side note, 82games has been in a weird place for a few years. Historical tables still exist, but they don't bother providing an index to them, so you have to guess the URL or web archive it; but I love how they present the data. *shrugs*

I like 82games a lot, too. Including because they are transparent enough that you can see in their on off numbers that the total minutes reflect the entire season, rather than just time with the team. That said, if BBR is similar, it is possible that they use a similar method. Or they may not. Lack of transparency. Interestingly, Zach has a positive on/off for Chicago last year, negative for SacTown - per BBR. It is close to (though not same)as what you see on 82games.

Why wouldn’t Zach be positive last year in Chicago but negative in SacTown? Also, Chicago actually had a mildly better record post trade (tanking season) - and yet that positive remains. The question is more nuanced than folks are making it out to be.

chi was 18-24 with lavine
21-19 without

Yeah, I noted that Chicago had a better record post trade. Are you taking issue with “mildly”? He still had a positive plus Minus last year in Chicago - even factoring in (as 82games does, and seemingly BBR too - get more info from specific on/off tab for the player rather than scroll) the time when he wasn’t on the Bulls and they won a greater percentage of games.

So despite winning a greater share of games without Zach on the team, and thus presumably having positive team plus minus during the post-trade period - Zach still has a plus number. Suggesting the prior not as good record was in spite of of LaVine’s positive contributions. which makes sense - he was having a strong year but there was a lot of turmoil and playing of underperforming players in the first half, followed by benching Pat Williams, less Vuc, Ayo not trying to play through injury, Matas getting burn while the Bulls played a collection of tank8ng teams (coupled with non-tanking teams generally missing key players, like Jokic).

As for his play on Sactown - I can tell you as a Bulls fan that as soon as Ball went down, the LaVine-DDR combo was terrible. They need a strong PG to run the game, or else it devolves into some sort of my turn, your turn dynamic. SacTown trading away its PG to reunite DDR and LaVine made zero sense. Now you have the bad LaVine DDR on-court dynamic, and Schroeder isn’t the PG to clean that up IMO.

Anyway, LaVine is an excellent scorer. His defense is over maligned (he is not awful, just mid) and he can even be a 2ndary playmaker. But he is much more of a “finisher” than a creator - especially for others. His handle and decision making are not good enough to let him be your primary scorer, and it gets worse in the clutch. He is an overpaid very good #2/ elite #3 option - but next to a true #1 option, along with a player who runs the team (either a separate PG or the true #1) he would be lethal - and the contract wouldn’t hurt as much.

Orlando should have traded for him (at far less asset cost) than Bane, IMO.

[madskillz8]

Everybody's looking in the wrong column

just google a team's w/l's, the with/without, and before/after instead of measuring how high he jumps
the media made fun of it

he's the anti-cp3

chi was 18-24 with lavine
21-19 without

IMHO these raw W/L numbers are too close to indicate anything meaningful.

Let's add very very little context to these numbers: After all-star break, in 28 games, playoff-chasing Bulls has played 9 times against tanking/non-competing teams (with a record of 9-0).

Just take 76ers as an example: 20-32 before all star break, and 4-24 afterwards (4 times worse). Bulls with Lavine lost to Embiid-Maxey-Yabusele-PG-Oubre Jr.'s 76ers but Bulls without Lavine was indeed very successful against Adem Bona-Marcus Bagley-Jared Butler-Grimes-Walker's 76ers. Remove the against 76ers games from W/L numbers, it evens out.

There are other similar cases, e.g. Nets - 19-34 before all star break and 6-22 afterwards (2.5 times worse). Remove the Nets games too, to eliminate tanking effect from your analysis, now Bulls with Lavine has a better W/L...

Of course I'm not trying to say Bulls with Lavine was better. However, without any context, showing two close W/L numbers to claim the opposite simply makes no sense.

[durden_tyler]

GMs just have gotten smart. All athleticism and low IQ players will never get paid again in the league.

[Lalouie]

Everybody's looking in the wrong column

just google a team's w/l's, the with/without, and before/after instead of measuring how high he jumps
the media made fun of it

he's the anti-cp3

chi was 18-24 with lavine
21-19 without

IMHO these raw W/L numbers are too close to indicate anything meaningful.

Let's add very very little context to these numbers: After all-star break, in 28 games, playoff-chasing Bulls has played 9 times against tanking/non-competing teams (with a record of 9-0).

Just take 76ers as an example: 20-32 before all star break, and 4-24 afterwards (4 times worse). Bulls with Lavine lost to Embiid-Maxey-Yabusele-PG-Oubre Jr.'s 76ers but Bulls without Lavine was indeed very successful against Adem Bona-Marcus Bagley-Jared Butler-Grimes-Walker's 76ers. Remove the against 76ers games from W/L numbers, it evens out.

There are other similar cases, e.g. Nets - 19-34 before all star break and 6-22 afterwards (2.5 times worse). Remove the Nets games too, to eliminate tanking effect from your analysis, now Bulls with Lavine has a better W/L...

Of course I'm not trying to say Bulls with Lavine was better. However, without any context, showing two close W/L numbers to claim the opposite simply makes no sense.

unless the numbers are repeated over his entire career with 3teams

[HMFFL]

Everybody's looking in the wrong column

just google a team's w/l's, the with/without, and before/after instead of measuring how high he jumps
the media made fun of it

he's the anti-cp3

chi was 18-24 with lavine
21-19 without

IMHO these raw W/L numbers are too close to indicate anything meaningful.

Let's add very very little context to these numbers: After all-star break, in 28 games, playoff-chasing Bulls has played 9 times against tanking/non-competing teams (with a record of 9-0).

Just take 76ers as an example: 20-32 before all star break, and 4-24 afterwards (4 times worse). Bulls with Lavine lost to Embiid-Maxey-Yabusele-PG-Oubre Jr.'s 76ers but Bulls without Lavine was indeed very successful against Adem Bona-Marcus Bagley-Jared Butler-Grimes-Walker's 76ers. Remove the against 76ers games from W/L numbers, it evens out.

There are other similar cases, e.g. Nets - 19-34 before all star break and 6-22 afterwards (2.5 times worse). Remove the Nets games too, to eliminate tanking effect from your analysis, now Bulls with Lavine has a better W/L...

Of course I'm not trying to say Bulls with Lavine was better. However, without any context, showing two close W/L numbers to claim the opposite simply makes no sense.

Lavine has ONE winning season in his career. Year 2021-22.

This should change with Sacramento if they would use Domantas Sabonis properly and not as their 3rd or 4th option.

[dolphinatik]

Until Salaries are majority win/loss and incentive based the Lavines will Lavine. If you get paid the same to coast at your job or put in 70 hours a week overtime most ppl coach. If Lavine had an all NBA year it wouldnt surprise anyone, if he has an average year it wouldnt surprise anything. We has the tools but He just isnt that guy that has it turned all all the time.

[JonFromVA]

Everybody's looking in the wrong column

just google a team's w/l's, the with/without, and before/after instead of measuring how high he jumps
the media made fun of it

he's the anti-cp3

chi was 18-24 with lavine
21-19 without

IMHO these raw W/L numbers are too close to indicate anything meaningful.

Let's add very very little context to these numbers: After all-star break, in 28 games, playoff-chasing Bulls has played 9 times against tanking/non-competing teams (with a record of 9-0).

Just take 76ers as an example: 20-32 before all star break, and 4-24 afterwards (4 times worse). Bulls with Lavine lost to Embiid-Maxey-Yabusele-PG-Oubre Jr.'s 76ers but Bulls without Lavine was indeed very successful against Adem Bona-Marcus Bagley-Jared Butler-Grimes-Walker's 76ers. Remove the against 76ers games from W/L numbers, it evens out.

There are other similar cases, e.g. Nets - 19-34 before all star break and 6-22 afterwards (2.5 times worse). Remove the Nets games too, to eliminate tanking effect from your analysis, now Bulls with Lavine has a better W/L...

Of course I'm not trying to say Bulls with Lavine was better. However, without any context, showing two close W/L numbers to claim the opposite simply makes no sense.

LaVine also put up some of his best performances with Chicago against awful teams.

[guynumber45]

If the Nuggets did a Murray for Lavine swap, I think Lavine would easily be 3rd team All NBA playing off Jokic