Is Zach Lavine too one dimensional?

[Rerisen]

It struck me the other day that for scoring over 18 Pts a game, Zach Lavine's all around production (via PER) seemed incredibly low, at just ~14. Most players PER is not lower than their PPG by that much.

I ran it by at Basketball Reference, using 18 pts/36 as the scoring cut-off and 20 minutes a game for play time, as not really interested in bench sparkplugs with lower minutes, since we are looking for foundational pieces.

The results were that Zach Lavine ranked LAST in the NBA among players with those filters, 44/44. Behind Derrick Rose, Dwayne Wade, and Harrison Barnes (and a few other young guys like Wiggins and Booker).

https://tinylink.net/QXohq

This is worrying for his future, as it doesn't seem that likely he'll improve much at say rebounding, steals, or even Assists, which actually went backward so far in his career as Minny moved him off ball. He could improve his scoring volume even more I'd wager. But as of yet, as mostly just a volume scorer not offering much else, to not be registering a positive on offense and contributing so lowly all around, suggests some limited potential. I compared him to guys like Kevin Martin or Allan Houston in the past, and I think that is a fair style type to predict for him, rather more realistic as a specialist.

One might argue that if a player's 'One Dimension' is scoring, well that's a pretty big dimension of the game. And yes it is. But I'd recall Ben Gordon, pretty darn good scorer, yet got called one dimensional like crazy. A player like that is probably best suited as your 3rd option, at best maybe 2nd *scoring* option, but not your 2nd best overall player, and certainly not your best on any strong contender.

[SimonFish]

yes and jimmy butler got traded for garbage like this. **** garpax

[meekrab]

Yes. And he just had an ACL injury so that one dimension is going to shrink. We tanking now, this isn't a bad thing.

(Yes it's totally a bad thing that we traded Butler to tank when we could tank with Butler, but that's water under the bridge.)

[tedwilliams1999]

It's certainly not ideal, that LaVine's production levels are so low in various areas other than scoring points, but it's also not unprecedented. Derozan is one example, of a guy who scored at a similar rate, and yet had even lower PER rates than LaVine. Derozan's points per 36 averages during his first 5 years were 14.3/17.8/17.2/17.7/21.4, while his PER levels were 12.5/14.5/12.8/14.7/18.4.

Derozan also had similar assist, rebound, and stocks numbers when compared to LaVine's first several seasons, but he was no where near as efficient at his one talent (scoring). If Demar can make the leap to becoming a 20+ PER player, while being a top 2 guy on his playoff team, LaVine certainly can as well. It only takes gradual improvements to rebound, points, and assist numbers to improve a guy's PER.

Ideally it'd be great if LaVine ends up becoming our 3rd best player, because that'd mean that we have two more guys who are studs. In the mean time though, I don't see the sense in labeling LaVine's ceiling this early into his career. The advanced stats argument against him being a productive player is a valid one, but it's overplayed. A player's advanced stats can change quite drastically when he changes teams - just look at Kyle Lowry's numbers as one example of this.

Whatever the best case outcome is for LaVine's career, I'd say he has a great shot at reaching it, with his work ethic. I'm definitely very optimistic about his ceiling, though I do understand the cautious pessimism, given the advanced stats. But again, I'm never buying the advanced stats are poor = LaVine sucks argument. Without the eye test, or without watching film, all of those numbers are meaningless.

[Rerisen]

The Gordon comparison itself is surprisingly not that far off on a stats profile. The link is using BG career, if we did a peak season Zach would come off worse (Ben peaked at 18.2 PER), but wouldn't be so fair to Zach's age.



While this is not apparent on the surface since Zach is a lanky dunk champion, and Ben a little sharpshooter, in terms of what they actually do on the floor - mostly score, play bad defense, shoot a lot threes - its not so far off.

Ben was a bit higher volume in his prime, a better 3pt shooter (though volume is quite close) while Zach shoots a better percentage at 2 pointers, and takes a noticeable higher % of his shots at the rim (27% to 16% roughly).

However surprisingly Ben Gordon drew more fouls than Zach LaVine has.

On things like Rebounds, Assists, Steals, and Blocks, they are similarly mundane or anemic across the board.

The optimistic view would be Zach's size and physical talent offers him hope of much higher upside, but 3 years in, he hasn't leveraged these traits much at all.

[Rerisen]

Derozan also had similar assist, rebound, and stocks numbers when compared to LaVine's first several seasons,

Not so much rebounds, (4.8 per 36 even as a rookie). Then went slowly up, while Zach has saw his rebound per minute go down for 2 straight years, ugh.

A lot of what drove Demar's production hike was massive scoring increase combined with efficiency improvement.

But these are all areas Zach is already really good at and there probably isn't that much meat left on the bone there. Zach might reasonably be able to score 2-5 more points per game, esp on a bad team, but its unrealistic his efficiency can grow that much since anywhere around .600 is reaching the limits of the elite in the NBA and he's not that far off.

DeRozan's other area of gain was increasing assists per game. Interestingly, Zach started off handling the ball a lot, and then saw his role in that area greatly diminished. So going the opposite direction there.

I'm sure on a low talent Bulls team, he'll have opportunity to playmake a lot more, in terms of generating raw Assists, whether those will actually help the offense, well hopefully he'll grow, because Minny found that not to be his strong suit.

[tedwilliams1999]

Derozan also had similar assist, rebound, and stocks numbers when compared to LaVine's first several seasons,

Not so much rebounds, Demar rebounded his position more like you would expect of a lanky wing (4.8 per 36 even as a rookie). Then went slowly up, while Zach has saw his rebound per minute go down for 2 straight years, ugh.

A lot of what drove Demar's production hike was massive scoring increase combined with efficiency improvement.

But these are all areas Zach is already really good at and there probably isn't that much meat left on the bone there. Zach might reasonably be able to score 2-5 more points per game, esp on a bad team, but its unrealistic his efficiency can grow that much since anywhere around .600 is reaching the limits of the elite in the NBA and he's not that far off.

DeRozan other area of game was increasing assists per game. Interestingly, Zach started off handling the ball a lot, and then saw his role in that area greatly diminished. So going the opposite direction there.

I'm sure on a low talent Bulls team, he'll have opportunity to playmake a lot more, in terms of generating raw Assists, whether those will actually help the offense, well hopefully he'll grow, because Minny found that not to be his strong suit.

I agree with you, I do think the key to maximizing LaVine's potential is going to be scoring 2-5 points more, similarly to what Derozan has been able to do. How LaVine's play-making skills develop will certainly be interesting as well. Minnesota found that he understandably failed as a primary initiator, especially at such a young age, but I think it's definitely possible he can go back up to averaging 4-5 assists per game in his prime. I haven't watched that many Wolves games, but I'd be curious to see just why LaVine's assist numbers weren't better. Was he deferring to Wiggins and Towns too readily? Were his assist numbers that low because guys like Wiggins and Towns tended to score more unassisted baskets?

I'm very excited to see how he fits and develops with our group of guys vs theirs. We theoretically have a ton of shooting around LaVine, and he should have plenty of spacing to improve his pick and roll game. The one area we haven't touched on yet is free throw rate. LaVine, for being such an athletic slasher, has a pretty poor free throw rate. That's where Derozan has always had him beat. If Zach can improve on that, then I think the odds are in his favor of becoming an all-star. The defensive end is a whole different story, of course, but I'm pumped about his offensive potential.

[kingkirk]

It struck me the other day that for scoring over 18 Pts a game, Zach Lavine's all around production (via PER) seemed incredibly low, at just ~14. Most players PER is not lower than their PPG by that much.

I ran it by at Basketball Reference, using 18 pts/36 as the scoring cut-off and 20 minutes a game for play time, as not really interested in bench sparkplugs with lower minutes, since we are looking for foundational pieces.

The results were that Zach Lavine ranked LAST in the NBA among players with those filters, 44/44. Behind Derrick Rose, Dwayne Wade, and Harrison Barnes (and a few other young guys like Wiggins and Booker).

https://tinylink.net/QXohq

This is worrying for his future, as it doesn't seem that likely he'll improve much at say rebounding, steals, or even Assists, which actually went backward so far in his career as Minny moved him off ball. He could improve his scoring volume even more I'd wager. But as of yet, as mostly just a volume scorer not offering much else, to not be registering a positive on offense and contributing so lowly all around, suggests some limited potential. I compared him to guys like Kevin Martin or Allan Houston in the past, and I think that is a fair style type to predict for him, rather more realistic as a specialist.

One might argue that if a player's 'One Dimension' is scoring, well that's a pretty big dimension of the game. And yes it is. But I'd recall Ben Gordon, pretty darn good scorer, yet got called one dimensional like crazy. A player like that is probably best suited as your 3rd option, at best maybe 2nd *scoring* option, but not your 2nd best overall player, and certainly not your best on any strong contender.

Kevin Martin is actually a really good comparison. A more athletic version, of course, but I see it. Until he develops other aspects of his game, his ceiling is a Jamal Crawford level player, be it as a starter or from the bench.

[Rerisen]

I haven't watched that many Wolves games, but I'd be curious to see just why LaVine's assist numbers weren't better. Was he deferring to Wiggins and Towns too readily? Were his assist numbers that low because guys like Wiggins and Towns tended to score more unassisted baskets?

I've heard a few rationale's from Wolves fans, like the Wiggins/Lavine combo was just bad, or they just got hot when he was hurt (suspicious for Zach even if true), but none of these really held up to statistically scrutiny.

Even if all he does is become a solid scorer in the mold of a Gordon or Martin, that would still have some value, but would leave the Bulls still scrambling to locate probably 2 mega talents yet to ever become super competitive.

Right now I think the most important thing to see first before any of his game skills, and probably has been underplayed here or taken for granted, is how he recovers from his injury.

[logical_art]

The Gordon comparison itself is surprisingly not that far off on a stats profile. The link is using BG career, if we did a peak season Zach would come off worse (Ben peaked at 18.2 PER), but wouldn't be so fair to Zach's age.



While this is not apparent on the surface since Zach is a lanky dunk champion, and Ben a little sharpshooter, in terms of what they actually do on the floor - mostly score, play bad defense, shoot a lot threes - its not so far off.

Ben was a bit higher volume in his prime, a better 3pt shooter (though volume is quite close) while Zach shoots a better percentage at 2 pointers, and takes a noticeable higher % of his shots at the rim (27% to 16% roughly).

However surprisingly Ben Gordon drew more fouls than Zach LaVine has.

On things like Rebounds, Assists, Steals, and Blocks, they are similarly mundane or anemic across the board.

The optimistic view would be Zach's size and physical talent offers him hope of much higher upside, but 3 years in, he hasn't leveraged these traits much at all.

Zach really is lanky and doesn't have much size. He's still an undersized 2.

[wonderboy2]

Lol haven't this been discussed in great detail already. Anybody who watches basketball knows that Zach Lavine is one demensional. I'm not trying to knock Rerisen for making the thread but it seems pointless when someone list a bunch of stats and ask a question that he knows and everybody else knows. Everybody knows he not a good defender, everybody knows he's a scorer.

[RedBulls23]

It struck me the other day that for scoring over 18 Pts a game, Zach Lavine's all around production (via PER) seemed incredibly low, at just ~14. Most players PER is not lower than their PPG by that much.

I ran it by at Basketball Reference, using 18 pts/36 as the scoring cut-off and 20 minutes a game for play time, as not really interested in bench sparkplugs with lower minutes, since we are looking for foundational pieces.

The results were that Zach Lavine ranked LAST in the NBA among players with those filters, 44/44. Behind Derrick Rose, Dwayne Wade, and Harrison Barnes (and a few other young guys like Wiggins and Booker).

https://tinylink.net/QXohq

This is worrying for his future, as it doesn't seem that likely he'll improve much at say rebounding, steals, or even Assists, which actually went backward so far in his career as Minny moved him off ball. He could improve his scoring volume even more I'd wager. But as of yet, as mostly just a volume scorer not offering much else, to not be registering a positive on offense and contributing so lowly all around, suggests some limited potential. I compared him to guys like Kevin Martin or Allan Houston in the past, and I think that is a fair style type to predict for him, rather more realistic as a specialist.

One might argue that if a player's 'One Dimension' is scoring, well that's a pretty big dimension of the game. And yes it is. But I'd recall Ben Gordon, pretty darn good scorer, yet got called one dimensional like crazy. A player like that is probably best suited as your 3rd option, at best maybe 2nd *scoring* option, but not your 2nd best overall player, and certainly not your best on any strong contender.

Kevin Martin is actually a really good comparison. A more athletic version, of course, but I see it. Until he develops other aspects of his game, his ceiling is a Jamal Crawford level player, be it as a starter or from the bench.

Yeah, I do think Jamal Crawford is reasonable comparison.

With Kmart, he was able to get to the line, something Lavine doesn't do well.

[Repeat 3-peat]

He's going to be a whipping boy once he gets his max contract.

I sure hope I'm wrong and he improves.

[WindyCityBorn]

He's going to be a whipping boy once he gets his max contract.

I sure hope I'm wrong and he improves.

All three guys from the Butler trade have become whipping boys already. I'm not even enough sure why this deserves a new topic. It has been discussed to death since the trade.

[Rerisen]

Lol haven't this been discussed in great detail already. Anybody who watches basketball knows that Zach Lavine is one demensional. I'm not trying to knock Rerisen for making the thread but it seems pointless when someone list a bunch of stats and ask a question that he knows and everybody else knows. Everybody knows he not a good defender, everybody knows he's a scorer.

I don't think it would be common knowledge for most to expect he would rank last in the NBA in PER among all players at 18+ Pts, 20 mpg. That's quite extreme one dimensionality.

Also note, what was left unsaid in the title but I thought I conveyed in the post was, is he too one dimensional.... to be a foundational player for us. As in one of, or the, future franchise talent we can build around.

Of course right now we know his basic profile, but to what degree does this prohibit him from say, ever matching or surpassing Jimmy Butler, or someone like that, as the guy to build around.

IMO, his production and skills so far do preclude that, because to become that level of impact player, his offensive dimension would likely need to rise to James Harden levels, and that just seems extraordinarily difficult considering his vision and ball handling isn't close, and he doesn't have near the skill at drawing fouls.

So I would plot his best case something closer to say DeRozan, which is not a bad outcome, but DD is not really close to Harden as an impact player.

[Rerisen]

All three guys from the Butler have become whipping boys already. I'm not even enough sure why this deserves a new topic. It has been discussed to death since the trade.

Seems normal to have a thread on the front page discussing the team's most talented player.

Currently there is only one about 'showing love', but that suggested being positive only, didn't want to down it. Conversely by starting a new one, people could simply choose not to reply if they don't think its worth discussing, then it would sink rather quickly right, as opposed to adding pretty much nothing, while at the same time, giving it a free bump.

[WindyCityBorn]

All three guys from the Butler have become whipping boys already. I'm not even enough sure why this deserves a new topic. It has been discussed to death since the trade.

Seems normal to have a thread on the front page discussing the team's most talented player.

Currently there is only one about 'showing love', but that suggested being positive only, didn't want to down it. Conversely by starting a new one, people could simply choose not to reply if they don't think its worth discussing, then it would sink rather quickly right, as opposed to adding pretty much nothing, while at the same time, giving it a free bump.

There is 70 page thread mostly discussing the topic you started. Don't tell me you haven't seen it.

[Rerisen]

There is 70 page thread mostly discussing the topic you started. Don't tell me you haven't seen it.

And that thread is long dead at this point, hasn't had a post in 2 weeks. Obviously we aren't going to keep bumping an old Lavine thread to 100s of pages through the season.

So please stop backseat moderating.

[WindyCityBorn]

There is 70 page thread mostly discussing the topic you started. Don't tell me you haven't seen it.

And that thread is long dead at this point. Obviously we aren't going to keep bumping a single Lavine thread to 100s of pages through the season.

So please stop backseat moderating.

Long dead? It was active yesterday. But never mind. Sorry to interrupt your hot take. You really pointed out some things I didn't know. Very insight comment. Carry on.

[Rerisen]

Long dead? It was active yesterday. But never mind. Sorry to interrupt your hot take. You really pointed out some things I didn't know. Very insight comment. Carry on.

You're wrong. Here's the two biggest.

81 page Lavine Thread - last post July 19
41 page Lavine Thread - last post July 17

Your posts in this thread are the definition of lacking insight, as they offered none but to try and crap on a thread and derail it. Presumably because you are upset someone is putting forth a critiquing opinion.