Los Angeles Lakers early offseason in review (HW/bondom34/dbrandon/Slava)

[blind prophet]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

Not sure what you mean about under projecting. The Pelton RPM ones should add up to the number of wins in a season, so if it is systematically off it needs to be so in opposite ways to balance.

But for the Lakers you have
24.5 (Pelton RPM basis)
25 ESPN summer forecast
23.3 (Some guy on Reddit using bpm -
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/4zdfhx/oc_201617_nba_strength_of_schedule_bpm_win/ )


Thats a pretty tight prediction cluster, where as our reviews went 21, 26, 30, 30.

For what it is worth, I could find one line looking for the Lakers online at 29 with the under getting all the money but the line not corrected yet. My guess is when all of the season ones come out the Lakers will be at 26 or 27, but we will see.

I don't want to come off as a Laker hater, but without any changes in the Kings roster, I've got them 28-29 wins

They look to have the Kings at 34.5

[HartfordWhalers]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

I think 20 wins would be baseline for success.

Anything more would be a great season.

I have keeping their pick the baseline. Ingram is young and physically raw enough that any production you get from them now is a bonus, but Russell should have some expectations. In theory those two could play so well that the pick is lost and it is still a successful season.

[blind prophet]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

I think 20 wins would be baseline for success.

Anything more would be a great season.

I have keeping their pick the baseline. Ingram is young and physically raw enough that any production you get from them now is a bonus, but Russell should have some expectations. In theory those two could play so well that the pick is lost and it is still a successful season.

But 20 wins the completely average nothing extraordinarily good/bad happens scenario.

When you are on the bottom, its kind of hard to get much worse, with good trends it won't take much to grab a couple of wins.

But if someone is suggesting closer to 25 than to 20 I'm going to have to call it rose colored glasses phenomena at this point.

[Slava]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

Not sure what you mean about under projecting. The Pelton RPM ones should add up to the number of wins in a season, so if it is systematically off it needs to be so in opposite ways to balance.

But for the Lakers you have
24.5 (Pelton RPM basis)
25 ESPN summer forecast
23.3 (Some guy on Reddit using bpm -
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/4zdfhx/oc_201617_nba_strength_of_schedule_bpm_win/ )


Thats a pretty tight prediction cluster, where as our reviews went 21, 26, 30, 30.

For what it is worth, I could find one line looking for the Lakers online at 29 with the under getting all the money but the line not corrected yet. My guess is when all of the season ones come out the Lakers will be at 26 or 27, but we will see.

My bad there, the total wins in a model should add up. I'd probably take the under on 29 too, when I made the prediction for the Lakers review I did not keep the schedule in mind and the Lakers probably have the toughest schedule, especially in the opening months so there's a good chance they might shut up shop and play the rookies as early as January.

[Mystical Apples]

25-30 wins isn't likely but possible from improved shooting and usage balance alone. LAL is going from 0 front court spacing and 1 player >35% from 3P (Russell) to ~ 6 players >33% and Deng at PF. Minor details, but Russell can't space the floor for himself while running PnR with Roy Hibbert. Overall, Mozgov isn't very good but as a Roller he's light years ahead of Hibbert.


LAL's sneaky advantage, relatively speaking, is multiple above average PnR handlers who can also provide off-ball floor spacing. Movgov with Deng at PF will allow LAL to get away with 3 guard lineups against slower perimeter teams (and 2nd units). They'll get worked defensively more than not, but the increased offensive efficiency would mitigate the disadvantage with better halfcourt defensive organization.

Alas the conundrum - Julius Randle.

[Slava]

Pelton's RPM projections have the Lakers at around 24 wins and the general trend made it seem like it was under projecting for most teams by about 5 wins, I'd take that as the baseline. So arguing that 20 wins is too big a leap is a bit of a lost cause.

I think 20 wins would be baseline for success.

Anything more would be a great season.

I have keeping their pick the baseline. Ingram is young and physically raw enough that any production you get from them now is a bonus, but Russell should have some expectations. In theory those two could play so well that the pick is lost and it is still a successful season.

Who do you have the Lakers being better than if you think they end up 4-5th worst? I have Brooklyn and Philly as the bottom two no matter what and its hard for me to see a team worse than the Lakers unless Sacramento go into the season with no PG on roster and Collison misses a dozen games or more due to suspension.

[blind prophet]

I think 20 wins would be baseline for success.

Anything more would be a great season.

I have keeping their pick the baseline. Ingram is young and physically raw enough that any production you get from them now is a bonus, but Russell should have some expectations. In theory those two could play so well that the pick is lost and it is still a successful season.

Who do you have the Lakers being better than if you think they end up 4-5th worst? I have Brooklyn and Philly as the bottom two no matter what and its hard for me to see a team worse than the Lakers unless Sacramento go into the season with no PG on roster and Collison misses a dozen games or more due to suspension.

The Kings are vulnerable, my 28-29 wins assumes the Collison hit won't be much.

Now they can jump up if we do something, but its possible they can slide even further back.

I've still got the Lakers ahead of the Nets, and most likely Philly, Philly has some variance risk there, but on a wager I think the Lakers may be a game or two better.

[Slava]

I have keeping their pick the baseline. Ingram is young and physically raw enough that any production you get from them now is a bonus, but Russell should have some expectations. In theory those two could play so well that the pick is lost and it is still a successful season.

Who do you have the Lakers being better than if you think they end up 4-5th worst? I have Brooklyn and Philly as the bottom two no matter what and its hard for me to see a team worse than the Lakers unless Sacramento go into the season with no PG on roster and Collison misses a dozen games or more due to suspension.

The Kings are vulnerable, my 28-29 wins assumes the Collison hit won't be much.

Now they can jump up if we do something, but its possible they can slide even further back.

I've still got the Lakers ahead of the Nets, and most likely Philly, Philly has some variance risk there, but on a wager I think the Lakers may be a game or two better.

Its pretty damn hard to win games when you don't have a perimeter shot creator and Collison is the only capable one on the Kings roster. So assuming the hit won't be much is a bit naive. That was the reason I went hard on the Kings in my review. It'd help if you had other off guard ball handlers but neither Afflalo nor Temple/McLemore are worth much with the ball in their hands.

[blind prophet]

Who do you have the Lakers being better than if you think they end up 4-5th worst? I have Brooklyn and Philly as the bottom two no matter what and its hard for me to see a team worse than the Lakers unless Sacramento go into the season with no PG on roster and Collison misses a dozen games or more due to suspension.

The Kings are vulnerable, my 28-29 wins assumes the Collison hit won't be much.

Now they can jump up if we do something, but its possible they can slide even further back.

I've still got the Lakers ahead of the Nets, and most likely Philly, Philly has some variance risk there, but on a wager I think the Lakers may be a game or two better.

Its pretty damn hard to win games when you don't have a perimeter shot creator and Collison is the only capable one on the Kings roster. So assuming the hit won't be much is a bit naive. That was the reason I went hard on the Kings in my review. It'd help if you had other off guard ball handlers but neither Afflalo nor Temple/McLemore are worth much with the ball in their hands.

I'm talking about the potential suspension.

I'm still 6 games under what the predictions suggest too. I don't think that's naive.

[Mystical Apples]

Who do you have the Lakers being better than if you think they end up 4-5th worst? I have Brooklyn and Philly as the bottom two no matter what and its hard for me to see a team worse than the Lakers unless Sacramento go into the season with no PG on roster and Collison misses a dozen games or more due to suspension.

The Kings are vulnerable, my 28-29 wins assumes the Collison hit won't be much.

Now they can jump up if we do something, but its possible they can slide even further back.

I've still got the Lakers ahead of the Nets, and most likely Philly, Philly has some variance risk there, but on a wager I think the Lakers may be a game or two better.

Its pretty damn hard to win games when you don't have a perimeter shot creator and Collison is the only capable one on the Kings roster. So assuming the hit won't be much is a bit naive. That was the reason I went hard on the Kings in my review. It'd help if you had other off guard ball handlers but neither Afflalo nor Temple/McLemore are worth much with the ball in their hands.

That weakness aside, ball movement should be interesting. 2nd unit iterations of Gay, Richardson, I. Cousins, McLemore, Koufos and WCS could devolve into blinking contests.

[Slava]

That weakness aside, ball movement should be interesting. 2nd unit iterations of Gay, Richardson, I. Cousins, McLemore, Koufos and WCS could devolve into blinking contests.

Richardson isn't exactly shy so there will be a lot of questionable shots from him and Gay post ups.

[HartfordWhalers]

I think 20 wins would be baseline for success.

Anything more would be a great season.

I have keeping their pick the baseline. Ingram is young and physically raw enough that any production you get from them now is a bonus, but Russell should have some expectations. In theory those two could play so well that the pick is lost and it is still a successful season.

Who do you have the Lakers being better than if you think they end up 4-5th worst? I have Brooklyn and Philly as the bottom two no matter what and its hard for me to see a team worse than the Lakers unless Sacramento go into the season with no PG on roster and Collison misses a dozen games or more due to suspension.

If the Lakers are just 3rd, they lose the pick over half the time.

[LakersLegacy]

Deng is a good player but he is almost the age Kobe was when he tore his Achilles. He was a bad signing.

Mosgav filled a need.

The Lakers drafted great.
A big step in the right direction w Luke.
Addition by subtraction with Scott.

I would have liked to keep Hibbert for that price but Mozgav is a big upgrade. The Lakers will turn some heads in 2018 but we need a year to come together.

Expect another rebuilding year. I'm pumped on Ingram. Just pay Young to go away. Don't waste a pick.

[DanishLakerFan]

My two cents:

I think it's almost impossible to gauge the Lakers' offseason without looking at specific dates:

Prior to free Agency:
Hired Luke, fired Byron, drafted Ingram and Zubac. Grade: A+. Can't see how you can possible do any better than they did. Simmons would have been nice, but he was off the board and Ingram is a cleaner fit. Zubac looks like a steal. Luke was the hottest young coach in the nba.

Free Agency:
They had their sights on Whiteside, Durant etc. but early on they realized that these guys werent interested, so instead they made a decision to build on their youth and put quality veterans around them. In that regard, Deng and Mozgov were good options. Deng amazingly haven't slowed down much and is ideal as a mentor and a 3s/D do-it-all-wing and Brian Shaw knew Mozgov from his stint in Denver and he's also a really good mentor. Generally, the idea to build around the youth is fine, but the problem is that the deals they gave out were so ridiculous that it basically removed their chances of making big moves, such as trying to trade for Westbrook. I understand that after two off-seasons where guys flew off the board early in free agency they didn't want to wait, but they could have done a lot better - or at least gotten the same guys at smaller price-tag. Grade: D.

Late free Agency:
Westbrook renegotiated his deal, effectively taking him off the 2017 free agency class that currently doesn't really include any game-changing players - other than Curry and Griffin, who likely will stay put. In other words, despite being able to having upwards of 40M next summer, there aren't a lot of guys that are worth that kind of money, which makes the signings of Deng and Mozgov less damaging. Overall: B-.

Going forward, i expect them to win 25-30 games but focus on playing the right way and i think we'll see a team that really is going in the right direction. They may still end up with a poor record and might even land yet another top 3, which would be awesome. I think Ingram and Russell are the only guys that are untouchable and they will be looking to deal everyone else. I think they'll target Boogie Cousins in 2018 or perhaps sooner, if they can get him via free Agency.

25 to 30?

Not a chance.

There's not an EZ out in the west. The non playoff teams are still gonna be tough, and the East is more stable than it was.

If you get 20 wins, I'd be impressed

Last season it was 17 and i think the team will be better this season so it could be 18 or 30 (or 13) depending on Mozgov and Dengs health and level of play, Russell/Randle’s improvement and a bunch of other factors. But the amount of wins really doesn’t matter all that much in my opinion. With Mozgov and Deng, the Lakers have decided to build the team around the rookies and their development is far more important than the amount of Ws they get. As a fan you want to see your team win, but i can also root for the potential and direction of the team, which has been difficult these last couple of seasons.

[Karmaloop]

If you get 20 wins, I'd be impressed

To me, that's absolutely mind boggling. Teams generally don't outproduce their talent level, so you'd expect plus or minus a few games in terms of true W/L record, but nothing crazy. Saying that getting 20+ wins is the high point would indicate that you think the team is either worse or the same. Which one is it? Because both seem outrageous to me. As it's been discussed ad nauseam, Byron Scott's ineptitude costed the Lakers several potential wins, Kobe Bryant shooting the team out of many games cost us any chance of wins, and we've gotten a better overall roster last year. If the Lakers don't eclipse that 20 win plateau, then something has gone horribly wrong.

[HartfordWhalers]

20 seems low to me, but I also could see the Lakers close out the season 2-20 or something like that.

[Kings2013]

Biggest thing for me was Russell showing out in summer league. To me he teetered on unathletic/tweener with impact in question, but he looked top pick worthy in SL, and that's an important building block

[bwgood77]

I voted B. Draft was an A. Free agency was probably a C, but I don't know what options they had. More than the price of the contracts I'm more bothered by the length. But with so many young guys, it's imperative imo to have a couple vets around for them to learn from. And these two vets have played on championship teams and they know how to be role players and with young guys that probably all want to be more than role players, it is important to demonstrate how important doing the little thing and playing a role that helps the team and not just yourself. Dollar of contracts I was originally thinking C- or you could argue lower but given what I think they bring from a mentoring standpoint I say C for that, and the Clarkson deal was fair given the market.

[SkyHookFTW]

A good draft and getting rid of Scott should be worth at least a "C".

[Karmaloop]

A good draft and getting rid of Scott should be worth at least a "C".

...but it doesn't count since that's what they were expected to do.