The Zach Lavine Problem

[Repeat 3-peat]

All I want is ownership to allow the tank to happen.

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

They are allowing it to happen. The real question is how long will they allow it to occur for. I don't believe for second that this rebuild was signed off for it to be a multi-year thing with several cracks at top 3 picks over several seasons.

It may happen naturally if players don't develop, but it won't be the plan.

I believe(their plan) this will be a 1 year rebuild. They'll land a top 3 pick and will add vets via FA that will help the team get in the postseason(which won't be hard as the East has weaken even more so)

But how this team develops it's players, it wouldn't shock me one bit if they become a doormat.

[Stratmaster]

I bet if we asked Bulls fans what they thought of Zach before this trade, I really doubt 8 out of 10 would be as as gushing and optimistic as so many are now simply because he put on a Bulls uniform. But that's how it goes.

This is exactly what is going on. It's the same thing that is happening with Dunn and Markannen. We're overlooking their (serious) flaws because they're new pieces. I get it. Fresh faces bring fresh optimism, but that shouldn't mean we overlook certain obvious and real constraints these players are likely to have.

Who is overlooking their flaws? Did somebody pick these guys all as future superstars and I missed it? What ceiling are you seeing posted that is unrealistic?

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app

[Rerisen]

This is my favorite part, we have a Wolves fan explaining what he saw in watching all the Timberwolves games that he did, and then we have a Bulls fan that is looking only at the numbers and saying he's wrong. It's maddening.

On/off is a fun stat to look at, but it completely discounts any changes in style of play or things that change when the player is injured and misses roughly half the season.

Zach played the entire previous season, with very similar stats, and the results were the same as far as his impact. Poor.

Of course some Minny fans liked him, or just had hopes for his future, while others thought less. Any fanbase has split opinions. There were even discussions on their forum last year whether they were better off without him. Does that mean you just pick whichever side you would like to be true and go with that? I go with the facts and objective evidence until seeing logical reasoning to do otherwise. So far I've only seen an argument that Wiggins was the problem (he's not good either) that was causing Zach's impact to look bad, and yet the numbers suggest the exact opposite.

[Paxson43]

This is my favorite part, we have a Wolves fan explaining what he saw in watching all the Timberwolves games that he did, and then we have a Bulls fan that is looking only at the numbers and saying he's wrong. It's maddening.

On/off is a fun stat to look at, but it completely discounts any changes in style of play or things that change when the player is injured and misses roughly half the season.

Zach played the entire previous season, with very similar stats, and the results were the same as far as his impact. Poor.

Of course some Minny fans liked him, or just had hopes for his future, while others thought less. Any fanbase has split opinions. There were even discussions on their forum last year whether they were better off without him. Does that mean you just pick whichever side you would like to be true and go with that? I go with the facts and objective evidence until seeing logical reasoning to do otherwise. So far I've only seen an argument that Wiggins was the problem (he's not good either) that was causing Zach's impact to look bad, and yet the numbers suggest the exact opposite.

I personally trust people that have watched him play the majority (if not all?) of his NBA games as opposed to someone who is relying on numbers. That's just me... numbers are great but they never, ever should tell the full story.

Regardless... I see an ascending, explosive, 22 year old kid that is turning into an outstanding 3 point shooter.

[Rerisen]

I personally trust people that have watched him play the majority (if not all?) of his NBA games as opposed to someone who is relying on numbers. That's just me... numbers are great but they never, ever should tell the full story.

Except people that watch all the games have different opinions. There is a post by a Minnesota fan early in the trade thread that was incredibly negative on Zach. So now you are left in utter confusion because that is the nature of eye test. 10 people see 10 different things.

If you want to say there are multiple contexts that can affect various numbers, yes indeed there are. But you have to actually know what the contexts are and explain why they make the numbers wrong. So far no explanations have been convincing or held up to scrutiny.

[Paxson43]

I personally trust people that have watched him play the majority (if not all?) of his NBA games as opposed to someone who is relying on numbers. That's just me... numbers are great but they never, ever should tell the full story.

Except people that watch all the their games have different opinions. There is a post by a Minnesota fan early in the trade thread that was incredibly negative on Zach. So now you are left in utter confusion because that is the nature of eye test. 10 people see 10 different things.

I don't agree that 10 people see 10 different things, but I understand your general point from that comment. I personally think that some fans are more informed/having a better eye for what they are watching than others. Regardless, the overwhelming consensus I gathered from their board seems to be that he's a a humble, hard-working, ascending talent, that is fun to watch due to his ridiculous athleticism. Major complaint I have seen has to do with his defense, but I think getting stronger and switching into our system should help. We'll see...

[WindyCityBorn]

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

They are allowing it to happen. The real question is how long will they allow it to occur for. I don't believe for second that this rebuild was signed off for it to be a multi-year thing with several cracks at top 3 picks over several seasons.

It may happen naturally if players don't develop, but it won't be the plan.

I believe(their plan) this will be a 1 year rebuild. They'll land a top 3 pick and will add vets via FA that will help the team get in the postseason(which won't be hard as the East has weaken even more so)

But how this team develops it's players, it wouldn't shock me one bit if they become a doormat.

This is no one year rebuild. I say a minimum of three years even if struck gold with Markkanen and our pick next year.

[Stratmaster]

This is exactly what is going on. It's the same thing that is happening with Dunn and Markannen. We're overlooking their (serious) flaws because they're new pieces. I get it. Fresh faces bring fresh optimism, but that shouldn't mean we overlook certain obvious and real constraints these players are likely to have.

It's only thing we have. Are we going to start call on people who are optimistic or those who try feel themselves better making optimistic prognosis for Bulls future? Even if it is likely false one. Do you want this board to be in state of depression even during offseason? Let people be, otherwise this board will slowly start to die.

if the Bulls cared what fans think, it would have been the optimists that enabled all this crap we have seen. The board should have been depressed imo, bad stuff was happening. Optimists didn't want to face any of it. If they want to keep it up, so be it. I'm certainly not advocating depression. I'm advocating holding this team accountable. Optimists go farther in life. That's also reality. But if they get stuck with bad partners, I believe it does no service not to challenge.

Now, I share the outlook that Zach Lavine is not that good really. In that he should not be regarded as a centerpiece of a rebuild, or even guaranteed a roster spot in 2 years. The FO is selling this now. Is anybody interested in challenging this? I was wrong about my belief that Lavine would be flipped at the deadline before the Bulls would pay him mega millions to play on a bad team. Doesn't seem right. Granted he is certainly young enough to grow into those mega millions, and perhaps the centerpiece of a great team. Not going to preclude it. But I'm not betting on it. Should people be cheerleading for this in confidence? I think it's crazy. But the Bulls have almost done nothing I wanted them to do until the Butler trade. They want to put all their chips on Lavine, that's their business. As usual, they seem to have no long term vision anymore,or at least one that is based on solid decision-making. That's they way the approached the draft in not considering a point guard because they had Dunn and Payne in place already battling for the starting job. Is an optimist picking up on this?

who said the bulls are putting all their chips on Lavine? Maybe I'm just not used to reading these threads on my mobile and I'm missing posts but I feel like there's a huge disconnect between what the "optimists" are saying and what the "pessimists" are debating.

Lavine is young and most young players come back fine from an ACL injury. Lauri hasn't even seen an nba court yet. Dunn had an underwhelming.... scratch that... bad rookie season in 17 mpg. I think I will wait a bit before declaring them all busts. That's pretty much my optimists view.

It seems like the responses are "none of them are going to be superstars, and lavine had negative on off stats on a doormat team".

Seems everyone is just talking past each other. Or maybe it is just me. There is a ton of upside for the 3 players the Bulls got. More so than what the team had entering the off-season.

Players don't have to be superstars or busts. 99% of NBA rotation players fall somewhere along the sliding scale in the middle.

If every move and every player is judged on whether they're the next Superstar this is going to be a really long tank. The first season of it hasn't even started and we are already lamenting we haven't picked up the franchise player yet.

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

All I want is ownership to allow the tank to happen.

Are they not allowing the rebuild to happen? It's not like Paxson traded Butler without Reinsdorf being involved.

By saying that, you absolve Reinsdorf for his involvement with Rondo and Wade. It's like, can this guy ever take a bullet?

What did Rondo and Wade cost the bulls so far? I mean other than money they had to spend.

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app

[Rerisen]

seems to be that he's a a humble, hard-working, ascending talent, that is fun to watch due to his ridiculous athleticism.

I haven't argued against any of that, Zach does have potential.

All I've done is point out the reality of the impact numbers that show so far in his career Zach has been a negative to his team. Or as a minimum statement of true fact, that they've played worse as a team with him on the floor.

It seems we aren't supposed to talk about that though or risk being impugned as doing some kind of hatering, or we are instantly to believe all those are totally wrong and the opposite is true, without having a good reason to believe so, just because he now wears a Bulls uniform.

[kulaz3000]

seems to be that he's a a humble, hard-working, ascending talent, that is fun to watch due to his ridiculous athleticism.

I haven't argued against any of that, Zach does have potential.

All I've done is point out the reality of the impact numbers that show so far in his career Zach has been a negative to his team. Or as a minimum statement of true fact, that they've played worse as a team with him on the floor.

It seems we aren't supposed to talk about that though or risk being impugned as doing some kind of hatering, or we are instantly to believe all those are totally wrong and the opposite is true, without having a good reason to believe so, just because he now wears a Bulls uniform.

You're not wrong, but in the same regard, he has never been given the same opportunity to play the type of role that he likely will be getting with the Bulls. So though we can look to his past impact on a different team, and a different role, but his role will be different on the roles, and the same with his impact. That's not to say it would end up with a more positive impact, it could be worse than it was with the Wolves, but it just remains to be seen.

You could say the same for Jimmy, he really only came into his own once given the opportunity with Derrick being down and when Derrick was 'healthy' those two really never gelled all that well, so a similar argument could be made that with more talent on the team, Jimmy could end up faltering some also, and take away the impact from the younger talents like Wiggins or KAT.

I'll be following both teams closely because I'm a huge fan of Butler, and of course I want to see how the young players develop on my beloved Bulls team.

[Stratmaster]

I personally trust people that have watched him play the majority (if not all?) of his NBA games as opposed to someone who is relying on numbers. That's just me... numbers are great but they never, ever should tell the full story.

Except people that watch all the their games have different opinions. There is a post by a Minnesota fan early in the trade thread that was incredibly negative on Zach. So now you are left in utter confusion because that is the nature of eye test. 10 people see 10 different things.

I don't agree that 10 people see 10 different things, but I understand your general point from that comment. I personally think that some fans are more informed/having a better eye for what they are watching than others. Regardless, the overwhelming consensus I gathered from their board seems to be that he's a a humble, hard-working, ascending talent, that is fun to watch due to his ridiculous athleticism. Major complaint I have seen has to do with his defense, but I think getting stronger and switching into our system should help. We'll see...

I would say the twolves fan who posted seemed to have a pretty good handle on all of the context, and explained it precisely and concisely.

That's how you decide which eye test you pay attention to.

On the flip side I don't trust the conclusion of anyone based on stats only, including myself, who hasn't watched a significant sample of a team or player. That's when I post things like "I see he has a negative on/off, I wonder why?" As compared to quoting advanced stats as likely proof of a future outcome and vehemently defending an opinion formed based on those stats.

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app

[Paxson43]

seems to be that he's a a humble, hard-working, ascending talent, that is fun to watch due to his ridiculous athleticism.

I haven't argued against any of that, Zach does have potential.

All I've done is point out the reality of the impact numbers that show so far in his career Zach has been a negative to his team. Or as a minimum statement of true fact, that they've played worse as a team with him on the floor.

It seems we aren't supposed to talk about that though or risk being impugned as doing some kind of hatering, or we are instantly to believe all those are totally wrong and the opposite is true, without having a good reason to believe so, just because he now wears a Bulls uniform.

... He has never been given the same opportunity to play the type of role that he likely will be getting with the Bulls. So though we can look to his past impact on a different team, and a different role, but his role will be different on the roles, and the same with his impact. That's not to say it would end up with a more positive impact, it could be worse than it was with the Wolves, but it just remains to be seen.

You could say the same for Jimmy, he really only came into his own once given the opportunity with Derrick being down and when Derrick was 'healthy' those two really never gelled all that well, so a similar argument could be made that with more talent on the team, Jimmy could end up faltering some also, and take away the impact from the younger talents like Wiggins or KAT.

I'll be following both teams closely because I'm a huge fan of Butler, and of course I want to see how the young players develop on my beloved Bulls team.

Bingo.

[Rerisen]

For the record in 2017.

Timberwolves with Zach playing: 16-31 (.340%)
Timberwolves without Zach : 15-20 (.428%)

This was a headline in the Star Tribune during the season:

Why have the Wolves been better without Zach LaVine?

The paper postulates it could be his bad defense, poor fit, or that he might be best as a 6th man. Or the team just got hot without him, but that doesn't explain his on/off in the games he was healthy for.

[Rerisen]

You're not wrong, but in the same regard, he has never been given the same opportunity to play the type of role that he likely will be getting with the Bulls. So though we can look to his past impact on a different team, and a different role, but his role will be different on the roles, and the same with his impact. That's not to say it would end up with a more positive impact, it could be worse than it was with the Wolves, but it just remains to be seen.

Even if doesn't improve at all, I suspect he will end up a positive impact on the Bulls just because the level of talent and competition will be so low, that he will obviously be one of our best players.

It will be interesting to see how much daylight though there is between his raw and his RPM which works harder to notice if a guy is just the tallest in a pack of shorties so to speak.

It's also possible he will be quite rusty for many months upon coming back and the Bulls won't find out that much about Zach this year. Which would suit the long term fine actually as the team needs to tank, and it might help the Bulls sign him to a contract that won't be so ridiculous.

As right now I think it would actually be a bad thing if he played most of the year, ran up the stats with 20+ PPG but on a terribly losing team, then we handed him some Harrison Barnes like contract without really knowing his true value to a good team.

[Rerisen]

I would say the twolves fan who posted seemed to have a pretty good handle on all of the context, and explained it precisely and concisely.

That's how you decide which eye test you pay attention to.

On the flip side I don't trust the conclusion of anyone based on stats only, including myself, who hasn't watched a significant sample of a team or player. That's when I post things like "I see he has a negative on/off, I wonder why?" As compared to quoting advanced stats as likely proof of a future outcome and vehemently defending an opinion formed based on those stats.

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app

Don't think any serious NBA fan ever uses 'stats only'. I'm sure I've seen Zach play about 20 games in his career.

If I were to dig up the fan that gave a negative view on Zach, he also had a very reasonable presentation for his view, that could just as easily be accepted as the guy that tried to blame it all on Wiggins, which didn't hold up in the numbers at all.

See that's the great thing about contextual arguments, they can often be checked out. And in that case, when Zach was on the floor without Wiggins, his team actually did worse than their average performance. So it wasn't a good explanation for 'Why All The Numbers Are Wrong'

I don't claim that they can't be all wrong (though its rare) , just that I'm still waiting for a good explanation why they are.

[kulaz3000]

For the record in 2017.

Timberwolves with Zach playing: 16-31 (.340%)
Timberwolves without Zach : 15-20 (.428%)

This was a headline in the Star Tribune during the season:

Why have the Wolves been better without Zach LaVine?

The paper postulates it could be his bad defense, poor fit, or that he might be best as a 6th man. Or the team just got hot late in the season, but that doesn't explain his on/off in the games he was healthy for.

I've read this numerous time, and though it's evidence to a point, but man do I feel it's unfair.

Thib's system has been repeated so many times as being notoriously difficult to understand and get your head around, and being that the team was so young it was going to take time for them to understand and get the system, so the fact that the Wolves started winning later on in the season, and with LaVine being injured seems to me at least more like coincidence and timing.

Again, my argument against your statistics is obviously hypothetical whereas your situation is what actually happened, but I firmly believe that the Wolves with LaVine would have shown improvement later in the season regardless.

To be honest, I can't really make a whole judgement on LaVine because I admit I really haven't watched him in game all that many times, so I'm curious to see for myself to judge his impact when he starts playing for the Bulls.

[Rerisen]

One thing that should be interesting with Zach, is if he can keep his efficiency up if our PG talent is very poor.

As he'll likely be our 1st option when he returns, compared to say Jimmy (Ast 41%), Zach was assisted much more at 60% and may have a harder time here finding good shots, esp on his 3 pointers, which you usually need to be set up for to shoot a high percentage.

[jump]

What strikes me is how many posters write off LaVine because of his negative team impact numbers, but find reasons to ignore Mirotic's positive team impact numbers.

I understand the disappointment of this team over the past four years, but that's why we are rebuilding. They rode that horse till it dropped. Now, it's time to start over. But the negativity around here is over the top.

[fleet]

One thing that should be interesting with Zach, is if he can keep his efficiency up if our PG talent is very poor.

As he'll likely be our 1st option when he returns, compared to say Jimmy (Ast 41%), Zach was assisted much more at 60% and may have a harder time here finding good shots, esp on his 3 pointers, which you usually need to be set up for to shoot a high percentage.

Fantastic question I don't recall being brought up before. Raw numbers inflate when you are the tallest shorty as you say. How good he actually is will be interesting to break down.