Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Interesting, I would just about flip that. I hang 70% of Lauri’s performance on him. I’m hard pressed to think of many examples of scheme holding a player back as much as some think Boylen’s holding back Lauri. In a five man game, if you’re playing hard and thinking, opportunities generally find you.

And that’s Lauri’s problem, as far as I can tell: he doesn’t have the baseline of effort and IQ to buouy his performance through nagging injuries, fatigue, shooting slumps, less than optimal role and all the other obstacles every player deals with over an 82 game season. When the stars align for him, you get FebruLauri. But when a couple things go wrong and it’s time to punch the clock anyway, he fades.

I don’t know exactly what kind of physical and mental conditioning he needs, but I find it interesting that he’s able to spend summers in Finland with relatively little scrutiny on his offseason training. Maybe those days are over. Can’t imagine he’ll get the benefit of the doubt after this season.

I see they just let anyone become a mod...congrats!

I mean it's pretty clear at this point coaching is the issue. I'm not sure how anyone can say with a straight face that Boylen isn't thr problem. But yeah, let's blame the players, that's easier to grasp I guess for some.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

“It’s all the coach’s fault” is a harder concept to grasp than shared blame between player and scheme?

[kingkirk]

Boylen’s scheme isn’t maxisming Markkanen, but are we also meant to prepared all the open looks he was clanking in October and November is on Boylen too?

Listen to Ashy. Attributing all of Markkanen’s struggles on Boylen is cliché, easy and misguided.

[AKfanatic]

Boylen’s scheme isn’t maxisming Markkanen, but are we also meant to prepared all the open looks he was clanking in October and November is on Boylen too?

Listen to Ashy. Attributing all of Markkanen’s struggles on Boylen is cliché, easy and misguided.

Lauri’s struggles have a ton to do with himself. If it’s not injury, it’s him showing a very weak mentality and not knowing how to overcome his struggles with both his own shooting, and the offense he’s been directed to take part in.

Boylen has exasperated the problems by taking weapons away from Lauri. Markkanen isn’t a guy that gets himself hot by shooting the 3, he’s consistently gotten himself going over his career by taking advantage of the mid-range. Having that shot in his arsenal has allowed him to take advantage of defenders indecision when running out at him from 3... if they hesitate, he shoots from deep... having taken midrange shots earlier, he’s more likely to have that 3 in rhythm. If they close strong he pumps, and moves towards the free-throw region. At that point, it the D sags, he’d normally pop a mid-range shot, if the help D closes hard, he drives.

He had none of that in this offense. When is the last game fans have seen Lauri given the ball to operate around the baseline-midrange? He’s made a killing there over pass seasons, but now doesn’t get those attempts.

It’s as if a coach had Jordan and said no midrange shots. Sure MJ would still get his, he’s mentally a beast and would find a way. That lack of a strong mentality is where Lauri gets and deserves the majority of the blame for his struggles. Lauri is also a guy that won’t disobey the coaching, and with this coach, that’s a serious detriment to Lauri. He needs to really play ball, stop thinking about what the coach says you can’t do, and play instinctively doing what he does.

[kulaz3000]

Boylen’s scheme isn’t maxisming Markkanen, but are we also meant to prepared all the open looks he was clanking in October and November is on Boylen too?

Listen to Ashy. Attributing all of Markkanen’s struggles on Boylen is cliché, easy and misguided.

Attributing ALL of Lauri's struggles on Boylen, you're absolutely correct, is misguided, and quite frankly flat out wrong. However, how a team utilizes a player is a massive component on whether a player succeeds or fails, and let's be real, Boylen's use of Lauri has hindered more so than assisted in Lauri's development.

There are plenty of examples of players being stuck behind coaches who simply didn't allow development of a player and once they left and were utlized correctly, they blossomed, Tracy McGrady and J.O come to mind. Now you can make the argument that those players simply had way more potential, and they weren't even given the minutes and opportunities that Lauri has been provided so far in his young career, but the logic still applies, if not provided with the coaching and system to help strengthen and expand on a players capacities, they simply aren't going to be in a position to succeed. Then you have lesser talent like someone like Spencer Dinwiddie, in his first years his potential simply weren't utilized effectively, and once he was given a chance on the right team, with the right coach, he has continued to progress and blossom.

Argument against my argument is that great players find a way to be great, no matter their coaching and team situation, and the likelihood is that Lauri simply won't be a great player,still, I would still prefer to see him fulfill his potential whatever that may be on the Bulls, as opposed to on another team, which seems to be the most likely scenerio at this stage.

[kingkirk]

Attributing ALL of Lauri's struggles on Boylen, you're absolutely correct, is misguided, and quite frankly flat out wrong. However, how a team utilizes a player is a massive component on whether a player succeeds or fails, and let's be real, Boylen's use of Lauri has hindered more so than assisted in Lauri's development.

There are plenty of examples of players being stuck behind coaches who simply didn't allow development of a player and once they left and were utlized correctly, they blossomed, Tracy McGrady and J.O come to mind. Now you can make the argument that those players simply had way more potential, and they weren't even given the minutes and opportunities that Lauri has been provided so far in his young career, but the logic still applies, if not provided with the coaching and system to help strengthen and expand on a players capacities, they simply aren't going to be in a position to succeed. Then you have lesser talent like someone like Spencer Dinwiddie, in his first years his potential simply weren't utilized effectively, and once he was given a chance on the right team, with the right coach, he has continued to progress and blossom.

Argument against my argument is that great players find a way to be great, no matter their coaching and team situation, and the likelihood is that Lauri simply won't be a great player,still, I would still prefer to see him fulfill his potential whatever that may be on the Bulls, as opposed to on another team, which seems to be the most likely scenerio at this stage.

Tell what specifically within the scheme of the offense Lauri isn't allowed to do and what Boylen is doing to limit him?

Boylen's scheme is to have Markkanen space the floor weakside as much as possible given his threat as shooter, but beyond that, what is the scheme taking away from him that justifies all this?

I'm not a Boylen guy at all but I'm tired of him being scapegoated so much that Markkanen is allowed to go unscathed here.

How many times have we seen Markkanen try to drive and get completely owned doing so this season? That lack of feel isn't on the system. His bad shooting isn't on the system. He isn't catching on the move as much as he once was, but the system isn't denying him the opportunity to move without the ball, hit the glass etc.

Boylen has played his part, but Markkanen deserves the bulk of the blame for his own issues. If it were any other player, one who hadn't built up more goodwill with the fan base, the rhetoric would be different.

Markkanen has been given every opportunity to get his. He's simply too comfortable being a passenger. That's why he's stuck on the perimeter.

[TheGOATRises007]

I mean this idea that Boylen is killing Lauri is completely dispelled from Lauri's 1ST GAME of the season.

His 3 ball wasn't falling at all, but he was super aggressive in seeking out his shot and he had a fantastic game.

So clearly Boylen's system doesn't hinder him to that extent some say. He had a terrible shooting game from 3, but still produced. Lauri hinders Lauri.

[AKfanatic]

Can anyone here say that Lauri hasn’t been told not to take the midrange shot? There’s been multiple times where Lauri drives toward the midrange, and stops where he’d normally rise up, then suddenly stops and start searching for someone on the perimeter to pass it back out to.

It’s blatantly obvious when watching those possessions that he’s not playing instinctive, he’s thinking about what he’s supposed to do.

The system uses him as a catch and shoot stretch 4. When is the last time Lauri was used to set a screen in the midrange free-throw area, or baseline?

Watch vids of his hot streak last season of vids of his rookie season. Watch the difference in where he’s taking shots and how he’s being used. The differences are obvious and the lack of much of that usage is harming his game.

We know coaching has told him not to use those shots. We know coaching wants him to shoot 3’s or layups. Analytics has taken out instincts. It’s taken away a shot used to get rhythm.

Edit: and again, this doesn’t excuse Lauri. He is lacking aggression and seems to have almost accepted mentally, what he can and can’t do. He needs to get back on the floor and impose some will. Play his game and if he gets pulled and chewed out while succeeding, he will have taken the pressure off of himself and put it squarely on the FO and coaching staff.

[Dez]

I mean this idea that Boylen is killing Lauri is completely dispelled from Lauri's 1ST GAME of the season.

His 3 ball wasn't falling at all, but he was super aggressive in seeking out his shot and he had a fantastic game.

So clearly Boylen's system doesn't hinder him to that extent some say. He had a terrible shooting game from 3, but still produced. Lauri hinders Lauri.

What? A one game sample size doesn't dispel anything.

Even though his screens need work it is baffling why he's not used as the primary pick setter? He'd still attract defensive attention and create mismatches.

Boylen's schemes combined with Lauri's lack of off-ball movement/effort make for a poor season, if he was on the move as much as Kornet does off the ball he'd be a significantly better player this season.

I know defenses don't exactly respect Kornet but the guy works hard to get into positions to be a scoring threat.

[Louri]

What is the worst spot for 7 footer to get ball and then try to attack basket. 3p line. Where Lauri get ball 9/10 times at Boylen offense? 3p line. How 7 footer can attack to basket from that far away. To get pass while moving towards basket. How many times Lauri get ball when he is moving to basket?

[drosereturn]

Attributing ALL of Lauri's struggles on Boylen, you're absolutely correct, is misguided, and quite frankly flat out wrong. However, how a team utilizes a player is a massive component on whether a player succeeds or fails, and let's be real, Boylen's use of Lauri has hindered more so than assisted in Lauri's development.

There are plenty of examples of players being stuck behind coaches who simply didn't allow development of a player and once they left and were utlized correctly, they blossomed, Tracy McGrady and J.O come to mind. Now you can make the argument that those players simply had way more potential, and they weren't even given the minutes and opportunities that Lauri has been provided so far in his young career, but the logic still applies, if not provided with the coaching and system to help strengthen and expand on a players capacities, they simply aren't going to be in a position to succeed. Then you have lesser talent like someone like Spencer Dinwiddie, in his first years his potential simply weren't utilized effectively, and once he was given a chance on the right team, with the right coach, he has continued to progress and blossom.

Argument against my argument is that great players find a way to be great, no matter their coaching and team situation, and the likelihood is that Lauri simply won't be a great player,still, I would still prefer to see him fulfill his potential whatever that may be on the Bulls, as opposed to on another team, which seems to be the most likely scenerio at this stage.

Tell what specifically within the scheme of the offense Lauri isn't allowed to do and what Boylen is doing to limit him?

Boylen's scheme is to have Markkanen space the floor weakside as much as possible given his threat as shooter, but beyond that, what is the scheme taking away from him that justifies all this?

I'm not a Boylen guy at all but I'm tired of him being scapegoated so much that Markkanen is allowed to go unscathed here.

How many times have we seen Markkanen try to drive and get completely owned doing so this season? That lack of feel isn't on the system. His bad shooting isn't on the system. He isn't catching on the move as much as he once was, but the system isn't denying him the opportunity to move without the ball, hit the glass etc.

Boylen has played his part, but Markkanen deserves the bulk of the blame for his own issues. If it were any other player, one who hadn't built up more goodwill with the fan base, the rhetoric would be different.

Markkanen has been given every opportunity to get his. He's simply too comfortable being a passenger. That's why he's stuck on the perimeter.

Andrew Wiggins for example last game I guess? GS has a much better system where even G leaguers pass the ball to the open guy and Wiggins made a number of cuts which resulted in layups. Giving 1-2 more open looks is a huge difference upping his avg close to 20ppg.
The common theme in MIN and CHI is that their guards are lackluster in creating for others. They dont even have legit primary, secondary playmakers that other top teams have.

[the ultimates]

What is the worst spot for 7 footer to get ball and then try to attack basket. 3p line. Where Lauri get ball 9/10 times at Boylen offense? 3p line. How 7 footer can attack to basket from that far away. To get pass while moving towards basket. How many times Lauri get ball when he is moving to basket?

Then Lauri needs to roll to the basket or slip screens. Nobody is stopping him from doing it. That's not something that has to be called for him that should be innate.

[sco]

What is the worst spot for 7 footer to get ball and then try to attack basket. 3p line. Where Lauri get ball 9/10 times at Boylen offense? 3p line. How 7 footer can attack to basket from that far away. To get pass while moving towards basket. How many times Lauri get ball when he is moving to basket?

Then Lauri needs to roll to the basket or slip screens. Nobody is stopping him from doing it. That's not something that has to be called for him that should be innate.

Kingpin, no Kingpin. Lauri needs to learn 3 things to become a top 10 PF in the NBA. 1) Make 3's contested by little guys 2) Become an average defender 3) Learn how to get to the rim on drives without getting his pocket picked due to the league knowing he'll try that spin move that exposes the ball to defenders. When he can do those 3 things and still isn't a top 10 PF, then I worry about Kingpin's blundering system.

[Hangtime84]

Watch on YouTube

;feature=youtu.be

I think this comparable to Lauri has both our terrible in the post righty now and both overall are having disappointing years.

[ZOMG]

I mean this idea that Boylen is killing Lauri is completely dispelled from Lauri's 1ST GAME of the season.

His 3 ball wasn't falling at all, but he was super aggressive in seeking out his shot and he had a fantastic game.

So clearly Boylen's system doesn't hinder him to that extent some say. He had a terrible shooting game from 3, but still produced. Lauri hinders Lauri.

What? A one game sample size doesn't dispel anything.

Even though his screens need work it is baffling why he's not used as the primary pick setter? He'd still attract defensive attention and create mismatches.

Boylen's schemes combined with Lauri's lack of off-ball movement/effort make for a poor season, if he was on the move as much as Kornet does off the ball he'd be a significantly better player this season.

I know defenses don't exactly respect Kornet but the guy works hard to get into positions to be a scoring threat.

I CANNOT BELIEVE people are still wondering this.

Lauri is not used as a primary pick setter because he mostly plays with non-shooting 5's (Wendell or Gafford). Markkanen can space the floor for their pick and rolls but they can't do the same for him. This is the problem that has plagued the team for years now. First it was RoLo, now it's these guys. And we all know Lauri cannot play the 5 himself (which is no surprise, he never played the position even in college).

Frankly, it's incredible that the Bulls haven't been willing or able to find a center who can protect the rim AND space the floor a bit - before Kornet. And Lauri has spent very little time this season playing with him. Go figure.

Markkanen immediately fell into the floor spacer role in his rookie season, back when it was all about Dunn & RoLo pick and rolls. But Lopez was a super smart vet who knew all the tricks and occasionally managed to "make space" for Lauri even though he couldn't shoot. Wendell and Gafford are one-dimensional offensive players who don't know ANY tricks. They just roll to the basket, end of story. Lauri can't just "go inside" when that keeps happening.

[BigJimFinn]

I mean this idea that Boylen is killing Lauri is completely dispelled from Lauri's 1ST GAME of the season.

His 3 ball wasn't falling at all, but he was super aggressive in seeking out his shot and he had a fantastic game.

So clearly Boylen's system doesn't hinder him to that extent some say. He had a terrible shooting game from 3, but still produced. Lauri hinders Lauri.

What? A one game sample size doesn't dispel anything.

Even though his screens need work it is baffling why he's not used as the primary pick setter? He'd still attract defensive attention and create mismatches.

Boylen's schemes combined with Lauri's lack of off-ball movement/effort make for a poor season, if he was on the move as much as Kornet does off the ball he'd be a significantly better player this season.

I know defenses don't exactly respect Kornet but the guy works hard to get into positions to be a scoring threat.

I CANNOT BELIEVE people are still wondering this.

Lauri is not used as a primary pick setter because he mostly plays with non-shooting 5's (Wendell or Gafford). Markkanen can space the floor for their pick and rolls but they can't do the same for him. This is the problem that has plagued the team for years now. First it was RoLo, now it's these guys. And we all know Lauri cannot play the 5 himself (which is no surprise, he never played the position even in college).

Frankly, it's incredible that the Bulls haven't been willing or able to find a center who can protect the rim AND space the floor a bit - before Kornet. And Lauri has spent very little time this season playing with him. Go figure.

Markkanen immediately fell into the floor spacer role in his rookie season, back when it was all about Dunn & RoLo pick and rolls. But Lopez was a super smart vet who knew all the tricks and occasionally managed to "make space" for Lauri even though he couldn't shoot. Wendell and Gafford are one-dimensional offensive players who don't know ANY tricks. They just roll to the basket, end of story. Lauri can't just "go inside" when that keeps happening.

The one game where Lauri and Kornet started together, yet Lauri was still used as the statue on the wing and Kornet as the screener was the final drop for me in terms of Boylen. In his playbook, the 4 stands there and the 5 goes there and that's it. I guess when you have such a perfectly functioning system all you need is replaceable cogs. I was almost happy when Lauri was put on the injured list just to be saved the pain of watching the Bulls. I'd want him to get traded as much for my own sanity as for his career.

[PaKii94]

I applaud the effort but Niko is actually a bad example and doesn't fit the description. Also you're clustering it by volume and not by time. Injuries affect by time not volume. Niko was just naturally a volatile player. He had his ups and downs also but they were period swings not sustained bad play followed by sustained good play. The closest Lauri has come to him is his rookie season (where I said he was a volatile player lol). It's pretty easy to see once you look at the graphs. I'll share those later when I am back at my computer.

I look forward to seeing the graphs, because based on the monthly aggregates, he is literally in the exact same pattern. He is on for 3 months in a row then off for 3 months in a row for three straight years.

Okay as promised, here are the graphs. I added the trend lines by hand so they are kind of rough but putting it through some fancier python coding would result in the same (but neater) results:

Year 1 Niko:

Niko, his rookie season, did have a hot period earlier on but then gradually trended down. You can see his volatility throughout the season with spikes and drops. His overall average of 31.6% doesn’t really show what he’s capable of. This shows a trend of a usual good rookie player. They show out but then the league figures them out and a long 82 game schedule develops fatigue.

Year 2 Niko:

Second year niko was a bit more prepped for the grind but you can still see the volatility in his game. Everyone has volatility with the ups and downs of a season but Niko is a good example of a volatile player. After coming back from injury he was a bit more consistent (his ‘bad’ points weren’t as low as before). This portion was the first sighting of “march/April” niko
 
Year 3 Niko:

Year 3 niko is actually the closest to year 3 lauri… Interesting enough, that was the year he missed 4 chunks of time due to injury. I boxed them in black above. Niko’s volatility was the lowest so far this season besides the ups and downs due to injury. Then obviously we saw spring Niko again.

 
Year 4 Niko:

Niko when he was with the Bulls this year was a model for CONSISTENCY. That’s what we want from Lauri lol. Seems like he was pretty motivated by the Bobby punch. I didn’t follow him after he got traded but you can see he did dip down to ~30% and also again showed his volatility. I guess you can make an argument that this represents Lauri this season but in reverse… but I don’t think this was a normal up and down of the season for Niko. He obviously went to a new system/team and needed time to adjust. He ended up doing really well in the playoffs for NOP.
 
Now let’s look at year 3 Lauri:


(all these graphs are on the same scale btw so you can compare Niko to Lauri directly)
Year 3 Lauri doesn’t really match up with Niko year 1/2/4. It does match up a bit with year 3 (ie. Niko’s injury year) in that when Lauri is injured his percentages are consistently low and when not they are consistently high. The difference is Lauri imo has less volatility compared to Niko this year. He’s had his ups and downs also, but they are much tighter and are isolated in his own subsets. You don’t really see the big spikes or dips that you see with Niko.
The December shooting we saw, we haven’t seen from Lauri ever when considering the consistency. He’s had spikes for a few games but no sustained effort.

 
For a comparison sake, here is Year 1 Lauri:

Lauri starts off strong, dips down as all rookies do. The boxes represent when he took time off: back, baby, back. Coming back from the back injury time off, he starts heating up again. Then he has the baby, his percentages dip. The percentages start to rise again but then dip (back injury). Coming back from rest, he ends the year as a flame thrower.
 
Year 2 Lauri:

Year 2 Lauri was actually the closest to Niko’s volatility. He started off pretty volatile but was normalizing as the season went on. Then the fatigue stuff happened (which is a completely different subset). An excuse, but volatility does happen when you have a serious injury to your shooting elbow. Regardless, this is the best example in Lauri’s career for “ups and downs” during a season as far as shooting goes.
---
To bring it back to the original discussion, I still think Lauri’s career 3p% don’t show what type of shooter he is. The only times he has been “bad” at shooting without an injury excuse has been right at the beginning of the rookie season (which most rookies go through) and when he had his baby. Outside of that he’s been a good to great shooter.
Adding to that, I do think Lauri HAS improved as a shooter. This you can’t see with the overall numbers. December Lauri was the most consistent shooting he has ever accomplished in his career (which wasn’t a hot spike) and that was on the highest 3 point rate so far.

--
As a bonus, here is similar graphs but looking at TS%. I think it also tells a story that overall TS% won’t show (Sorry it’s labeled 3p% but it is TS%):
 
Year 2 Lauri:

Year two Lauri while volatile, had a clear trend upward which accumulated in a very consistent 60% TS around February. Then the fatigue issue happened and it dropped like a rock. This wasn’t a typical seasonal dip.
 
Year 3 Lauri:

Lauri started off the season poorly. No injury excuse there. But, he was still getting fts thus his TS% was hovering right under his career average even with putrid shooting percentages. A few games after that, oblique injury happened. Lauri became passive/soft/only perimeter shots Lauri. Unfortunately, Lauri when injured can’t hit his shots and his TS% tanked.
You can see it was rebounding relatively fast until December came along and now Lauri jumped to another subset. This is where I was clamoring for more usage. His efficiency was much too high for his limited usage.
As he got a few more shots and defenses started to game plan for him again, his high efficiency DID start to drop (hot streak peak), but it didn’t plummet or swing down (indicating not just a very hot streak). The volatility started shrinking and normalizing around 58-60%. Then the ankle injury happened, and you see it dips down again.

Year 1 Lauri:

Just to finish the set, here is year 1 TS%. This is much closer to showing the ups and downs of a season on a rookie player. He goes up and down with cold and hot spurts and never really consistently playing at a level. This is where you can say he was a volatile 55% TS player

I don't care enough about Niko to breakdown his TS% graphs but they pretty much show the up and down spikes of a high volatility player.

---

I guess the final point is the injuries that Lauri's faced have masked what he's capable of but It's still there. A flaw with Lauri is his game drops substantially with injury (which other players have smaller dips) so we need to hope for health for Lauri. Unfortunately, he is leaning towards injury prone in which case, it doesn't really matter what he can accomplish when healthy if he's always injured.

[dougthonus]

[
Okay as promised, here are the graphs. I added the trend lines by hand so they are kind of rough but putting it through some fancier python coding would result in the same (but neater) results:

A question, does each dot represent a 10 game rolling average? I had thought that's what you said.

First, thanks for all the graphs and all the work you did to make this thoughtful reply. I don't want to undermine your effort in this at all.

I do see what you mean a little bit, but here's a few problems I see with the argument.

I'm not sure the volatility matters if the overall percentage is the same. I mean all things being equal, you'd probably want not volatile performances and more reliability, but if you are reliably average then I'm not sure that is meaningfully better vs being volatilely average. It may even be worse because you are less subject to games where you single handedly win a game for your team and scare the hell out of opponents by seeing those games.

The argument though, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Lauri's consistency in terms of what he does represents your belief that he is as good as the highs and that the lows are caused only by external forces that aren't reasonably predictable (ie injury, fatigue). I don't think I agree with that interpretation that the lows are caused by forces we can't predict to repeat (ie, to me some feel like they were because he was simply cold, or if they were due to fatigue or nagging injuries not serious enough to keep him out of practice then those things are likely to recur still and be more permanent problems).

Finally looking at the data:

Year 1 Lauri has less game by game volatility, and I can get the argument of the rookie wall explaining the end of season dip but there is not a prolonged stretch of good shooting in it. His shooting was more consistent when it was poor and more volatile when it was good.

Year 2 Lauri is highly volatile at the beginning of the season, but he settles into less volatility as a poor shooter. None of this supports the idea that when everything is right, he will be consistently good, since there is high volatility during the good period and only consistency in the bad period.

Year 3 Lauri has a period where he is consistently poor followed by one where he is consistently good, but both are short and this is really the only period where he is consistent on good performance, but it isn't long enough to draw any conclusion from IMO (if this method were useful towards drawing one overall).

There really isn't a lot of data in here where Lauri is low volatility good shooter.

[Onibuh]

An important issue that's not being discussed is WHY Lauri wants out? Is it because of Boylen? Is he tired of losing? Hates the city of Chicago?

Don't think that is important.
Boylan isn't a longterm plan, even the FO might be gone soon. If he is tired of losing, he should start playing better like he showed in the past. If he hates the City, there is Nothing Holding him here other than a max contract - and he's not deserving of that.

Ideally, the Bulls trade him and don't have to pay for his Extension. He's not a unicorn, he's a big without good D.

[Ccwatercraft]

if he leaves I wont miss him, I'm not sure how the rumor started but if it's true the feeling is mutual

[PaKii94]

[
Okay as promised, here are the graphs. I added the trend lines by hand so they are kind of rough but putting it through some fancier python coding would result in the same (but neater) results:

A question, does each dot represent a 10 game rolling average? I had thought that's what you said.

First, thanks for all the graphs and all the work you did to make this thoughtful reply. I don't want to undermine your effort in this at all.

I do see what you mean a little bit, but here's a few problems I see with the argument.

I'm not sure the volatility matters if the overall percentage is the same. I mean all things being equal, you'd probably want not volatile performances and more reliability, but if you are reliably average then I'm not sure that is meaningfully better vs being volatilely average. It may even be worse because you are less subject to games where you single handedly win a game for your team and scare the hell out of opponents by seeing those games.

The argument though, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Lauri's consistency in terms of what he does represents your belief that he is as good as the highs and that the lows are caused only by external forces that aren't reasonably predictable (ie injury, fatigue). I don't think I agree with that interpretation that the lows are caused by forces we can't predict to repeat (ie, to me some feel like they were because he was simply cold, or if they were due to fatigue or nagging injuries not serious enough to keep him out of practice then those things are likely to recur still and be more permanent problems).

Finally looking at the data:

Year 1 Lauri has less game by game volatility, and I can get the argument of the rookie wall explaining the end of season dip but there is not a prolonged stretch of good shooting in it. His shooting was more consistent when it was poor and more volatile when it was good.

Year 2 Lauri is highly volatile at the beginning of the season, but he settles into less volatility as a poor shooter. None of this supports the idea that when everything is right, he will be consistently good, since there is high volatility during the good period and only consistency in the bad period.

Year 3 Lauri has a period where he is consistently poor followed by one where he is consistently good, but both are short and this is really the only period where he is consistent on good performance, but it isn't long enough to draw any conclusion from IMO (if this method were useful towards drawing one overall).

There really isn't a lot of data in here where Lauri is low volatility good shooter.

I'll get more detailed later when I have time but when evaluating time series data (what game by game basketball is), it's separated into noise,trends, outliers.

When I say volatility, it's an assessment on the noise. It's the game by game ups and downs that players go through (hot/cold streaks). The general baseline. A highly volatile player is just more extreme in the ups and downs. You don't know if you're getting a good performance or bad performance on a game to game basis (Niko or my go to example is JR smith). When the season values overall are looked at, they average between the ups and downs but that value doesn't really tell you what type of player you are getting on a game basis because that's more of a binary for highly volatile players. For consistent (low volatility) players, the average is much more trust-able, i.e. they are more than likely to shoot at the average. That's why low volatility players are preferred and the true stars are much less volatile.

Trends are the significant longer term changes. The way to classify these are changes outside of the noise. This can be when you notice a player getting better over time by A) increasing production/efficiency or B) reducing volatility in their game (or vice versa). This component also includes the injury aspect. A player hurts his elbow and his 3p% plummets. This is not volatility, that's a trend.

Outliers are very short term extreme changes. The blips in the radar. They appear out of nowhere and return quickly back to the norm (into the noise level) This is the hot streaks where nothing has changed from the baseline but a player just gets hot and hits shot out of nowhere. This is march/april Niko and the end of Lauri's rookie season 3pt shooting.

I'll respond to how this applies to the graphs above/and your comments later when I have more time. Yes each dot represents a rolling 10 game average. One thing to note: due to the nature of rolling averages, there is a delay/lag when it comes to abrupt changes (which is what you see with Lauri year 2 with the fatigue issue & with year 3 between nov & dec). So when you see a big drop/rise in a rolling average, that is truly a big swing game to game.