The Prodigy wrote:
I'm trying to have a civil basketball debate so I don't see the need for the adversarial tone in your post.
Win shares are dependent on team performance. That is true. Would you care to share the team independent stats that show he is not a good player?
The adversarial tone isn't directed towards you, it's directed towards the Lakers for getting Lou.
I'm not dismissing win shares as a useful stat, I just think that using one stat to rationalize the signing is nonsense in general and misapplied in this specific case.
Eye test and an overall look at both advanced stats and simple stats show what he is. He's a scorer but not a particularly good shooter (again, inflated by high usage and gets to the line, both which will decline on the Lakers).
But he's not a versatile player because he ranks at the bottom in terms of passing and rebounding. He's a tiny shooting guard, without point guard skills. He's also not a great defender. There are just too many gaps in his game.
There is a certain precedence of successful role playing small guards like Derek Fisher, a lights-out shooting guard in a point guard's body and a tenacious defender at his prime. But Lou isn't that kind of player. He's not a 3 and D role player. He's also not a playmaker. He's got a specialized skill that doesn't really fit well with a team concept, at least not in one that we've seen yet. The penchant for hero ball is also particularly disheartening, because we know firsthand that it's not a formula for consistent success (and Lou is particularly terrible at it).
I guess a poor man's Allen Iverson is apt, except the history of the game has shown how difficult it is to win with a player like that, even an Allen Iverson. Hard to build around that guy, and perhaps even harder to incorporate that guy as a role player on a contending team.