Zach Lavine: Offered 4/80 from Kings update p26 Bulls Matched

[Red Larrivee]

Zach has now cost the franchise an incredible three 1st round picks.

- Indications are that we could have kept the #16 had we taken Rubio instead of Lavine. That’s one.

-Rubio was then traded for a 1st which could have been us if we had acquired Rubio. That’s two.

- With his $20 million cap hit off the books, we easily could have done the Faried trade to land another 1st. That’s three.

GarPax are just horrid at this asset management thing.

You were whining that Chicago traded Mirotic for what turned out to be a late 1st, but now you're upset that Chicago didn't take Rubio over a younger and higher upside talent, so that they could trade that for what became a late first as well.

Which one is it?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I never whined about Chicago trading Mirotic for a late 1st. I whined about signing Niko in the first place.

The Pelicans also crushed us in that deal by getting Niko, a 2nd rounder, and dumping Asik's $$$.

You whined about both in a thread a few weeks ago. I remember asking you about it then.

If you value keeping #16 and acquiring #20 (what Rubio was traded for) over LaVine financially, that's cool. But from an upside perspective, it really doesn't make any sense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[TheSuzerain]

You were whining that Chicago traded Mirotic for what turned out to be a late 1st, but now you're upset that Chicago didn't take Rubio over a younger and higher upside talent, so that they could trade that for what became a late first as well.

Which one is it?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I never whined about Chicago trading Mirotic for a late 1st. I whined about signing Niko in the first place.

The Pelicans also crushed us in that deal by getting Niko, a 2nd rounder, and dumping Asik's $$$.

You whined about both in a thread a few weeks ago. I remember asking you about it then.

If you value keeping #16 and acquiring #20 (what Rubio was traded for) over LaVine financially, that's cool. But from an upside perspective, it really doesn't make any sense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yes it does. Lavine's upside is imaginary.

OG Anunoby and John Collins obviously have more upside than Lavine, both were available at #16.

Signing a 6th man for $20 million a year makes sense from an upside perspective? Give me the 3 1sts and future cap space every time.

[Red Larrivee]

Yes it does. Lavine's upside is imaginary.

OG Anunoby and John Collins obviously have more upside than Lavine, both were available at #16.

Signing a 6th man for $20 million a year makes sense from an upside perspective? Give me the 3 1sts and future cap space every time.

Of course we'll take one of the two best values that went in that range, because that's how it always works out in hindsight. Nevermind acting like the Nets and Nuggets won't make the same deal today based on it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Stratmaster]

I couldn't care less if Zach is the first option or not. I just want him to pass the ball if a teammate is open or has a more favorable matchup. Ignoring Markkanen like did last season should not be tolerated.

Not disputing your point, just an interesting tidbit. The best performing 5 man lineup with over 100 minutes on the court together (the were only 5 lineups with 100 or more minutes) last season included Lauri and Zach. With that said, from what I can tell on this little phone screen, they only played about 220 minutes on the floor together the whole season... the equivalent of about 7 games if they were starting together regularly.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[TheSuzerain]

Yes it does. Lavine's upside is imaginary.

OG Anunoby and John Collins obviously have more upside than Lavine, both were available at #16.

Signing a 6th man for $20 million a year makes sense from an upside perspective? Give me the 3 1sts and future cap space every time.

Of course we'll take one of the two best values that went in that range, because that's how it always works out in hindsight. Nevermind acting like the Nets and Nuggets won't make the same deal today based on it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The point is that the opportunity cost of Lavine is a very large cost. Somewhere in the magnitude of 3 1st round picks so far. Which will only rise when you think of the opportunity cost of the $20 million in cap hit for years 2019-2021.

So let's see if his play offsets those costs.

[Red Larrivee]

Yes it does. Lavine's upside is imaginary.

OG Anunoby and John Collins obviously have more upside than Lavine, both were available at #16.

Signing a 6th man for $20 million a year makes sense from an upside perspective? Give me the 3 1sts and future cap space every time.

Of course we'll take one of the two best values that went in that range, because that's how it always works out in hindsight. Nevermind acting like the Nets and Nuggets won't make the same deal today based on it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The point is that the opportunity cost of Lavine is a very large cost. Somewhere in the magnitude of 3 1st round picks so far. Which will only rise when you think of the opportunity cost of the $20 million in cap hit for years 2019-2021.

So let's see if his play offsets those costs.

The opportunity cost isn't three first round picks. You can argue two and financially it's not a comparison. Those deals are way cheaper over the next 3-4.

In terms of getting a player who might actually matter for your team is a different story. Whether you believe in his upside or not, it's still very high if he can make the proper improvement.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[johnnyvann840]

I couldn't care less if Zach is the first option or not. I just want him to pass the ball if a teammate is open or has a more favorable matchup. Ignoring Markkanen like did last season should not be tolerated.

Not disputing your point, just an interesting tidbit. The best performing 5 man lineup with over 100 minutes on the court together (the were only 5 lineups with 100 or more minutes) last season included Lauri and Zach. With that said, from what I can tell on this little phone screen, they only played about 220 minutes on the floor together the whole season... the equivalent of about 7 games if they were starting together regularly.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

A 100 minute sample for a 5 man lineup tells us absolutely nothing. In fact approx 30 of those minutes came in ONE game. The one game Lavine was efficient in and went off in against Minnesota. So you can see how easily that kind of data can be meaningless. Lauri only took 3 3 pt shots in that game and 7 shots total in that game. He played 36 minutes. 30 of them with Zach.

You are the one always pissing on +/- stats which is exactly what a 5 man lineup for 100 minutes is. You need like 2000 minutes to be able to tell anything from that. Or less in the case of RPM which adjusts for teammates and opponents and even then the stat has to taken in context and looked at in combination with other things.

You are taking a stat that you proclaim you don't believe in and you are using in the most worthless context possible. Looking at 5 man, even breaking down 2 or 3 man lineups can be very valuable, but not in 100 minute samples.

[Stratmaster]

I couldn't care less if Zach is the first option or not. I just want him to pass the ball if a teammate is open or has a more favorable matchup. Ignoring Markkanen like did last season should not be tolerated.

Not disputing your point, just an interesting tidbit. The best performing 5 man lineup with over 100 minutes on the court together (the were only 5 lineups with 100 or more minutes) last season included Lauri and Zach. With that said, from what I can tell on this little phone screen, they only played about 220 minutes on the floor together the whole season... the equivalent of about 7 games if they were starting together regularly.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

A 100 minute sample for a 5 man lineup tells us absolutely nothing. In fact approx 30 of those minutes came in ONE game. The one game Lavine was efficient in and went off in against Minnesota. So you can see how easily that kind of data can be meaningless. Lauri only took 3 3 pt shots in that game and 7 shots total in that game. He played 36 minutes. 30 of them with Zach.

You are the one always pissing on +/- stats which is exactly what a 5 man lineup for 100 minutes is. You need like 2000 minutes to be able to tell anything from that. Or less in the case of RPM which adjusts for teammates and opponents and even then the stat has to taken in context and looked at in combination with other things.

I purposely haven't been responding to your whining in this thread. Drop the hard-on. The small sample was part of my point.

So which is it? Was Lavine the reason Lauri wasn't getting the ball? Or was it too small sample size to matter? You can't have it both ways.

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[johnnyvann840]

Not disputing your point, just an interesting tidbit. The best performing 5 man lineup with over 100 minutes on the court together (the were only 5 lineups with 100 or more minutes) last season included Lauri and Zach. With that said, from what I can tell on this little phone screen, they only played about 220 minutes on the floor together the whole season... the equivalent of about 7 games if they were starting together regularly.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

A 100 minute sample for a 5 man lineup tells us absolutely nothing. In fact approx 30 of those minutes came in ONE game. The one game Lavine was efficient in and went off in against Minnesota. So you can see how easily that kind of data can be meaningless. Lauri only took 3 3 pt shots in that game and 7 shots total in that game. He played 36 minutes. 30 of them with Zach.

You are the one always pissing on +/- stats which is exactly what a 5 man lineup for 100 minutes is. You need like 2000 minutes to be able to tell anything from that. Or less in the case of RPM which adjusts for teammates and opponents and even then the stat has to taken in context and looked at in combination with other things.

I purposely haven't been responding to your whining in this thread. Drop the hard-on. The small sample was part of my point.

So which is it? Was Lavine the reason Lauri wasn't getting the ball? Or was it too small sample size to matter? You can't have it both ways.

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Well, we have 24 games and 420 minutes that Lavine and Lauri played together. We have 2020 minutes of Lauri total. So, 1600 minutes Lauri played without Zach and 420 minutes with Zach on the floor. Lauris shots per game and 3 pt attempts per game were down drastically and his efficiency and shooting %'s all took a big hit when Zach was on the floor. Zach and Lauri two man lineup together for 420 minutes the Bulls got beat by a whopping 13.2 pts per 100 possessions. Which is right around what the Bulls as a team got beat by whenever Lavine was on the floor. So, we can deduce from looking at all the data together and against other lineups, many other lineups and see that the Bulls as a team got worse by 6.3 pts worse, or beaten by 13.2 PP100 versus about 6.9 PP100 whenever Zach was off the floor. Bulls were bad last year, we know this, but with Zach on the floor they were about twice as bad in pt differential.

[Stratmaster]

A 100 minute sample for a 5 man lineup tells us absolutely nothing. In fact approx 30 of those minutes came in ONE game. The one game Lavine was efficient in and went off in against Minnesota. So you can see how easily that kind of data can be meaningless. Lauri only took 3 3 pt shots in that game and 7 shots total in that game. He played 36 minutes. 30 of them with Zach.

You are the one always pissing on +/- stats which is exactly what a 5 man lineup for 100 minutes is. You need like 2000 minutes to be able to tell anything from that. Or less in the case of RPM which adjusts for teammates and opponents and even then the stat has to taken in context and looked at in combination with other things.

I purposely haven't been responding to your whining in this thread. Drop the hard-on. The small sample was part of my point.

So which is it? Was Lavine the reason Lauri wasn't getting the ball? Or was it too small sample size to matter? You can't have it both ways.

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Well, we have 24 games and 420 minutes that Lavine and Lauri played together. We have 2020 minutes of Lauri total. So, 1600 minutes Lauri played without Zach and 420 minutes with Zach on the floor. Lauris shots per game and 3 pt attempts per game were down drastically and his efficiency and shooting %'s all took a big hit when Zach was on the floor. Zach and Lauri two man lineup together for 420 minutes the Bulls got beat by a whopping 13.2 pts per 100 possessions. Which is right around what the Bulls as a team got beat by whenever Lavine was on the floor. So, we can deduce from looking at all the data together and against other lineups, many other lineups and see that the Bulls as a team got worse by 6.3 pts worse, or beaten by 13.2 PP100 versus about 6.9 PP100 whenever Zach was off the floor. Bulls were bad last year, we know this, but with Zach on the floor they were about twice as bad in pt differential.

Gotcha. I need a thousand minutes to validate my numbers, but you only need 420.

Again, the sample size was the whole point. I obviously didn't communicate that well enough for you. However, you immediately came back and pointed it out yet now you're going to use these numbers as if they prove your point... despite the sample size.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[johnnyvann840]

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Here's what you're missing. Those stats you don't like, +/-, RPM, on/off, BPM... all the stats that directly correlate to the scoreboard (the most important thing of all)... are very valuable to assess whether they are individual, 2,3,4,or 5 man lineups. But ONLY with large sample sizes and when looked at in context with other things.

Point being, when a player has several season of the same net impact on the scoreboard, whether it's on/off or RPM they start to mean a lot. Same thing with certain lineups. RPM adjusts for teammates and other situational things where looking at lineups and then looking at an entire team that way you can tell what kind of impact a player is having when on the floor whether it is just him on the floor vs. the team without him... or him on the floor with other players specifically.

So using a sample for a 5 man lineup is worthless over 100 minute sample. Just too small. But take that 5 man lineup and look at it over an entire season of starting together and playing a couple thousand minutes together and look at it in context with the rest of the team and you have something meaningful.

I've said a number of times here how worthless plus minus and on/off numbers are on a game by game basis. But, over time they have great meaning.

[johnnyvann840]

Gotcha. I need a thousand minutes to validate my numbers, but you only need 420.

Again, the sample size was the whole point. I obviously didn't communicate that well enough for you. However, you immediately came back and pointed it out yet now you're going to use these numbers as if they prove your point... despite the sample size.

You still don't get it.. I'm using a 2020 minutes sample and taking a cross out of it of 420 minutes and just comparing what happened over 1600 minutes vs. the 420... When the ONLY DIFFERENCE really in those 420 mins, is one player (ZLavine) being on the floor with the exact same player and team. A player with extremely high usage who had a lot to do with dictating the play of said team.

CONTEXT.

[Stratmaster]

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Here's what you're missing. Those stats you don't like, +/-, RPM, on/off, BPM... all the stats that directly correlate to the scoreboard (the most important thing of all)... are very valuable to assess whether they are individual, 2,3,4,or 5 man lineups. But ONLY with large sample sizes and when looked at in context with other things.

Point being, when a player has several season of the same net impact on the scoreboard, whether it's on/off or RPM they start to mean a lot. Same thing with certain lineups. RPM adjusts for teammates and other situational things where looking at lineups and then looking at an entire team that way you can tell what kind of impact a player is having when on the floor whether it is just him on the floor vs. the team without him... or him on the floor with other players specifically.

So using a sample for a 5 man lineup is worthless over 100 minute sample. Just too small. But take that 5 man lineup and look at it over an entire season of starting together and playing a couple thousand minutes together and look at it in context with the rest of the team and you have something meaningful.

I've said a number of times here how worthless plus minus and on/off numbers are on a game by game basis. But, over time they have great meaning.

We agree on the sample size.

Dunn, Nwaba and Val were all -10 or worse in 2 man pairings with Lauri in much larger sample sizes.

Two man pairings are worthless. They don't tell you who else was on the court at the time. If you have the strongest bench in the league two-man pairings could easily make it look like your bench players are better than your starters.

I would suggest we look at who was playing point guard. I would also suggest that Lauri played a part in his own shot volume as well. Still, I believe he averaged almost 16 shots per 36.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Habs72]

A 100 minute sample for a 5 man lineup tells us absolutely nothing. In fact approx 30 of those minutes came in ONE game. The one game Lavine was efficient in and went off in against Minnesota. So you can see how easily that kind of data can be meaningless. Lauri only took 3 3 pt shots in that game and 7 shots total in that game. He played 36 minutes. 30 of them with Zach.

You are the one always pissing on +/- stats which is exactly what a 5 man lineup for 100 minutes is. You need like 2000 minutes to be able to tell anything from that. Or less in the case of RPM which adjusts for teammates and opponents and even then the stat has to taken in context and looked at in combination with other things.

I purposely haven't been responding to your whining in this thread. Drop the hard-on. The small sample was part of my point.

So which is it? Was Lavine the reason Lauri wasn't getting the ball? Or was it too small sample size to matter? You can't have it both ways.

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Well, we have 24 games and 420 minutes that Lavine and Lauri played together. We have 2020 minutes of Lauri total. So, 1600 minutes Lauri played without Zach and 420 minutes with Zach on the floor. Lauris shots per game and 3 pt attempts per game were down drastically and his efficiency and shooting %'s all took a big hit when Zach was on the floor. Zach and Lauri two man lineup together for 420 minutes the Bulls got beat by a whopping 13.2 pts per 100 possessions. Which is right around what the Bulls as a team got beat by whenever Lavine was on the floor. So, we can deduce from looking at all the data together and against other lineups, many other lineups and see that the Bulls as a team got worse by 6.3 pts worse, or beaten by 13.2 PP100 versus about 6.9 PP100 whenever Zach was off the floor. Bulls were bad last year, we know this, but with Zach on the floor they were about twice as bad in pt differential.

And how much of those minutes were Dunn outta lineup? Nothing to do with anything?

[johnnyvann840]

I purposely haven't been responding to your whining in this thread. Drop the hard-on. The small sample was part of my point.

So which is it? Was Lavine the reason Lauri wasn't getting the ball? Or was it too small sample size to matter? You can't have it both ways.

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Well, we have 24 games and 420 minutes that Lavine and Lauri played together. We have 2020 minutes of Lauri total. So, 1600 minutes Lauri played without Zach and 420 minutes with Zach on the floor. Lauris shots per game and 3 pt attempts per game were down drastically and his efficiency and shooting %'s all took a big hit when Zach was on the floor. Zach and Lauri two man lineup together for 420 minutes the Bulls got beat by a whopping 13.2 pts per 100 possessions. Which is right around what the Bulls as a team got beat by whenever Lavine was on the floor. So, we can deduce from looking at all the data together and against other lineups, many other lineups and see that the Bulls as a team got worse by 6.3 pts worse, or beaten by 13.2 PP100 versus about 6.9 PP100 whenever Zach was off the floor. Bulls were bad last year, we know this, but with Zach on the floor they were about twice as bad in pt differential.

Gotcha. I need a thousand minutes to validate my numbers, but you only need 420.

Again, the sample size was the whole point. I obviously didn't communicate that well enough for you. However, you immediately came back and pointed it out yet now you're going to use these numbers as if they prove your point... despite the sample size.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

The highlighted part of my post is where context starts to come into play. Do you see?

Jesus. You and I used to argue over Carlos Boozer (and Boozer vs. Taj Gibson at the same position for the same team) almost exactly the same way over the exact same stats. You said those numbers even over two, three, four seasons were meaningless and that on/off and RAPM, and lineup data was useless.

Well, the next season after you and I arguing the value of Boozer for 3 years.. Boozer was amnestied and paid practically nothing by LAL and within a year out of the league entirely.

[Stratmaster]

Gotcha. I need a thousand minutes to validate my numbers, but you only need 420.

Again, the sample size was the whole point. I obviously didn't communicate that well enough for you. However, you immediately came back and pointed it out yet now you're going to use these numbers as if they prove your point... despite the sample size.

You still don't get it.. I'm using a 2020 minutes sample and taking a cross out of it of 420 minutes and just comparing what happened over 1600 minutes vs. the 420... When the ONLY DIFFERENCE really in those 420 mins, is one player (ZLavine) being on the floor with the exact same player and team. A player with extremely high usage who had a lot to do with dictating the play of said team.

CONTEXT.

That was the only difference? You are looking at 2 man pairings which don't account for 3 of the players on the court...but Zach was the only difference.

But enough of this BS. My point was they hardly played together on the floor. My secondary point is that there was no consistent Bulls lineup last season. Only 1 lineup with over 200 minutes and it did not include Lavine. Only 5 with over 100 minutes (and I am counting 99:59 as over 100).

You can't draw any conclusions from his play last season.

With that said, of course the more volume shooters that are on the court the less shots per shooter. Pretty simple math there. Add in the fact that the whole purpose of Lavines minutes were for him to rehab and get his shot back.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Well, we have 24 games and 420 minutes that Lavine and Lauri played together. We have 2020 minutes of Lauri total. So, 1600 minutes Lauri played without Zach and 420 minutes with Zach on the floor. Lauris shots per game and 3 pt attempts per game were down drastically and his efficiency and shooting %'s all took a big hit when Zach was on the floor. Zach and Lauri two man lineup together for 420 minutes the Bulls got beat by a whopping 13.2 pts per 100 possessions. Which is right around what the Bulls as a team got beat by whenever Lavine was on the floor. So, we can deduce from looking at all the data together and against other lineups, many other lineups and see that the Bulls as a team got worse by 6.3 pts worse, or beaten by 13.2 PP100 versus about 6.9 PP100 whenever Zach was off the floor. Bulls were bad last year, we know this, but with Zach on the floor they were about twice as bad in pt differential.

Gotcha. I need a thousand minutes to validate my numbers, but you only need 420.

Again, the sample size was the whole point. I obviously didn't communicate that well enough for you. However, you immediately came back and pointed it out yet now you're going to use these numbers as if they prove your point... despite the sample size.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

The highlighted part of my post is where context starts to come into play. Do you see?

Jesus. You and I used to argue over Carlos Boozer (and Boozer vs. Taj Gibson at the same position for the same team) almost exactly the same way over the exact same stats. You said those numbers even over two, three, four seasons were meaningless and that on/off and RAPM, and lineup data was useless.

Well, the next season after you and I arguing the value of Boozer for 3 years.. Boozer was amnestied and paid practically nothing by LAL and within a year out of the league entirely.

Gee you were right once and I was wrong... which I have since admitted to numerous times... but sure lets talk about 5 years ago.

LaVine only played about 600 minutes last season. Yet somehow you now have a 2200 minute sample size that proves he was the reason Lauri wasn't getting shots.

You don't always get your way, but when you do you like having it both ways.

Just teasing there. Truce.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Ugly Duckling]

I think Zach's going to pleasantly surprise

[johnnyvann840]

I purposely haven't been responding to your whining in this thread. Drop the hard-on. The small sample was part of my point.

So which is it? Was Lavine the reason Lauri wasn't getting the ball? Or was it too small sample size to matter? You can't have it both ways.

As far as the plus-minus stats. You can look back at my opinions over the last several years. In every single case you will see the only place that I value plus-minus stats is with five-man lineups. They're not good for assessing individual play.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Well, we have 24 games and 420 minutes that Lavine and Lauri played together. We have 2020 minutes of Lauri total. So, 1600 minutes Lauri played without Zach and 420 minutes with Zach on the floor. Lauris shots per game and 3 pt attempts per game were down drastically and his efficiency and shooting %'s all took a big hit when Zach was on the floor. Zach and Lauri two man lineup together for 420 minutes the Bulls got beat by a whopping 13.2 pts per 100 possessions. Which is right around what the Bulls as a team got beat by whenever Lavine was on the floor. So, we can deduce from looking at all the data together and against other lineups, many other lineups and see that the Bulls as a team got worse by 6.3 pts worse, or beaten by 13.2 PP100 versus about 6.9 PP100 whenever Zach/ was off the floor. Bulls were bad last year, we know this, but with Zach on the floor they were about twice as bad in pt differential.

And how much of those minutes were Dunn outta lineup? Nothing to do with anything?

Well, let's see...

Dunn/Lauri/Zach played together for 256 minutes. But, what is more valuable is looking at ALL of Dunn and Lavine together because we have two different teams and many different lineups.

With just Dunn and Lavine together last season (we only have 370 minutes), but they were a staggering negative -18.4 PP100. Meaning whenever Dunn and Lavine played together, the Bulls got KILLED by 18.4 pts per 100. Dunn and Lavine together didn't work in Minnesota either.
This is where looking at Lavine isolated with EVERY player he played with can be used for context....

Notice that it doesn't matter who he was on the floor with. He made every player worse... You can go individually and see how every player on the Bulls performed with every other player on the Bulls and you start to see a common denominator with terrible lineups. Zach being that common denominator. Look at the pts column in the two man lineups..

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01/lineups/2018#all_lineups-2-man

[Stratmaster]

Well, we have 24 games and 420 minutes that Lavine and Lauri played together. We have 2020 minutes of Lauri total. So, 1600 minutes Lauri played without Zach and 420 minutes with Zach on the floor. Lauris shots per game and 3 pt attempts per game were down drastically and his efficiency and shooting %'s all took a big hit when Zach was on the floor. Zach and Lauri two man lineup together for 420 minutes the Bulls got beat by a whopping 13.2 pts per 100 possessions. Which is right around what the Bulls as a team got beat by whenever Lavine was on the floor. So, we can deduce from looking at all the data together and against other lineups, many other lineups and see that the Bulls as a team got worse by 6.3 pts worse, or beaten by 13.2 PP100 versus about 6.9 PP100 whenever Zach/ was off the floor. Bulls were bad last year, we know this, but with Zach on the floor they were about twice as bad in pt differential.

And how much of those minutes were Dunn outta lineup? Nothing to do with anything?

Well, let's see...

Dunn/Lauri/Zach played together for 256 minutes. But, what is more valuable is looking at ALL of Dunn and Lavine together because we have two different teams and many different lineups.

With just Dunn and Lavine together last season (we only have 370 minutes), but they were a staggering negative -18.4 PP100. Meaning whenever Dunn and Lavine played together, the Bulls got KILLED by 18.4 pts per 100. Dunn and Lavine together didn't work in Minnesota either.
This is where looking at Lavine isolated with EVERY player he played with can be used for context....

Notice that it doesn't matter who he was on the floor with. He made every player worse... You can go individually and see how every player on the Bulls performed with every other player on the Bulls and you start to see a common denominator with terrible lineups. Zach being that common denominator.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01/lineups/2018#all_lineups-2-man

Johnny, you replied to a post I made which had nothing to do with whether LaVine was a net positive or negative.

In fact, my post said I wasn't refuting anyone's points it was just an interesting tidbit. I then qualified in two different places the small sample size.

The only point it was really even in regard to was whether Lavine was taking all of Lauri's shots and how that dynamic might work out this coming year.

Again, my only point was they haven't played enough together and other than the obvious ( multiple volume Shooters on the court will mean less shots for all of them) we don't know what that dynamic is going to look like. I mean Jeesh, I hope Lauri doesn't take all of lavine's shots away from him.

If you want to keep complaining that lavine sucks, which I thought you said you were going to stop doing a minute ago, feel free. But don't act like I'm arguing against a point I wasnt even discussing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app