chrispatrick wrote:Betta Bulleavit wrote:I see what you are saying. However, I've also stood firmly against metrics like RPM as it pertains to their use as an end all be all stat. I feel the same way about WAR in baseball as well so I'm not biased in that way. I just don't buy the idea that in one particular stat effectively tells the whole story of who a player is. They are fine as tools used in conjunction with other data and observation....but by themselves, they mean very little to me.
Next, understand that if we are turning to stats, it's important that we not act like Lavine turned into some insane chucker last year coming back from injury. He averaged 14.8 shots per game versus just over 15 the year before (admittedly, you have to adjust for MPG here as well).....
---
I'm generally more on-board with the questioning of advanced stats when sample size is small. It's even hard to draw too much of a conclusion from a single season.
What's concerning about LaVine is how remarkably consistent over 4 years his teams have been crushed when he's on the court, while performing substantially better without him. At some point, the sample size is large enough that you have to give serious consideration to the fact that teams might be better with no LaVine than with LaVine (even for free).I'm not sure how many more years you wait for him to become a player whose teams don't get killed when they are on the floor playing basketball. I'm in the fool me 4 years, shame on you, fool me 5 years, shame on me category.
Exactly.
Most of the scoreboard impact related stats are worthless on a game by game basis, but once you have a large sample size (like four NBA seasons and over 6600 minutes) with so many different lineups and different opposing lineups, the become quite reliable.
Regarding the quote in blue...
When you do adjust Lavine did take a LOT more shots last year. 19.5 per 36 vs. just 14.6 the prior year. Also, his usage went from 21.7 to 29.5. An extreme jump. So he really become quite the chucker and ball hog in his 24 games with the Bulls.
When you have such a massive usage rate, take a ton of shots and you are very inefficient with a TS% of below .500 and a PER of 14.6, your team is bound to be very very bad. And the Bulls were. To the tune of losing by 13.2 pts per 100 possessions when Zach was on the floor (that is like late career Carlos Boozer bad). This cannot be denied even by the biggest apologists. I mean, you would think a player coming off an injury would defer more to his teammates.
