Lavine is....

[dougthonus]

I don't think it will be a set back at all, if we move him. That money can be spent on another player, or players and the scoring he provides will be picked up collectively. I think Lauri immediately benefits as he just doesn't mesh well with Zach.. and some other players will likely benefit from more touches also.

It's a possibility.

In the end, I think the Bulls effectively need to more or less get all new players or we need to find out their existing players are much better than we thought and were held back by coaches.

I think that unless we make genius level moves in the draft and FA that we are in for a long rebuild. There isn't a single compelling piece on this roster right now, and the draft is so weak that it doesn't feel likely we'll get one there either.

[FriedRise]

Interesting take on Zach being the #1. I never get the sense that he thinks that he should be the #1 or that the Bulls is his team, so not sure where that narrative is coming from? Were there comments that he said that would suggest that? I never got the "whose team is this?" situation like that Butler vs Rose thing that the media stirred up back in the day.

Zach is our #1 player by default because no one else on the roster is as good as him at putting the ball in the basket. He's the only player who continually gets game-planned against and double/triple-teamed on a nightly basis. He's easily at the top of the opposing team's scouting report and gets matched up with the other team's best defender. Lauri used to be in that conversation too until teams realize they can just run their regular sets and tolerate Lauri's 27mpg/10ppg. Coby was up there too for a second until teams adjusted and then he went in a slump. But for a good stretch of time, Zach was the only player we had who was the Bulls' constant offensive threat. Teams never have to worry about scoring from Wendell, Dunn, Hutch, Shaq, Young, Kornet, Felicio, Gafford, Sato, or even Otto being in the game.

Not saying that he's an elite playmaker or anything (far from it, though I think he's willing), but you'd be crazy if you were Zach, look up and down our roster for the past 2/3 seasons, see a bunch of these bums and think: you know what, I think tonight I'm just gonna keep making plays for Dunn, Shaq, Hutch, and Ryan Archidiacono. A contested Zach 3 is still a better shot than a wide open corner 3 from like half the guys on our roster.

[pipfan]

Let's try this-on how many teams would Lavine be the #1 scoring option (not best player)
No-Miami, ATL, Wash, Milw, Sixers, BRK, Bos, LAL, LAC, Suns, GS, Port, Utah, Minny, Hou, Dallas, Memphis, NO, Den
Maybe-Tor, Indy, Sac, OKC, SA
Yes-Char, Orl, Chi, Det (Blake is done), Clev, NY

So, he is obviously a below average 1st option, but at least 6 teams have worse 1st options
If we did the same for 2nd option, he would be the best on well over half the teams in the league

[Ebo21]

The reason you don’t trade Zach (at this stage) is because he is well liked by other players around the league. Most of these young guys coming in we’re kids watching him win slam dunk contest 2x. It might seem trivial but it actually does carry weight. We know it’s a buddy buddy league. One all-star appearance for Zach turns the tide for the Bulls and immediately puts us back on the radar as a favorable FA destination.

He’s still young enough to be a key secondary piece on a competing eastern conference team. I see his long term impact similar to Jrue Holiday. He’s not the guy you say is your franchise player, but he’s a guy you can say is the leader of your team.

[sonny]

#5. If he learns to play defense possibly #2.

Defense won't make him an All Star in this league. Winning will.

Trouble is, he's not a winning player and everybody knows it.

[MGB8]

I don't think it will be a set back at all, if we move him. That money can be spent on another player, or players and the scoring he provides will be picked up collectively. I think Lauri immediately benefits as he just doesn't mesh well with Zach.. and some other players will likely benefit from more touches also.

It's a possibility.

In the end, I think the Bulls effectively need to more or less get all new players or we need to find out their existing players are much better than we thought and were held back by coaches.

I think that unless we make genius level moves in the draft and FA that we are in for a long rebuild. There isn't a single compelling piece on this roster right now, and the draft is so weak that it doesn't feel likely we'll get one there either.

See, here is where I think things are starting to diverge. For example, are we sure that "Lauri doesn't mesh with Zach" as opposed to "Boylen played Lauri in a very confining role that limited his effectiveness --- which combined with the evolution of the NBA towards perimeter play generally may have made Lauri less effective as a 4, because his size advantage isn't really evident when he's guarded by 3's (playing the 4 spot) and they can successfully limit his movement, while he has some issues defending on the wing?"

Given that Zach was a material net positive on offense, against opposing starters, about 4.5 points better per 100 possessions, and that he's improving on both ends each year, moving him just to move him seems silly.

Now, he's certainly not untouchable - no one on the roster is - so for value, sure. But no one is trading value to the Bulls for a player right now - as Doug noted, given the performances of the last couple years, most of the player stocks are deflated - IMO, due to Boylen, somewhat artificially so.



Edit/Add: When Zach went out at the end of the year, Lauri's play didn't pick up (though Lauri missed the first game that LaVine was out - a weird 2 point win against Dallas where Porter came back and had 18 points and Denzel had one of his random good games). Point production didn't really decline, but some of that was Otto Porter coming back at the exact same time. Then you had random good games on offense by Shaq Harrison (interrupted by stinkers) and offensively middling games by Valentine. I don't think you can expect a "random step up" by middling to generally poor offensive players to just replace Zach's production over a longer stretch.

[dougthonus]

See, here is where I think things are starting to diverge. For example, are we sure that "Lauri doesn't mesh with Zach" as opposed to "Boylen played Lauri in a very confining role that limited his effectiveness --- which combined with the evolution of the NBA towards perimeter play generally may have made Lauri less effective as a 4, because his size advantage isn't really evident when he's guarded by 3's (playing the 4 spot) and they can successfully limit his movement, while he has some issues defending on the wing?"

Given that Zach was a material net positive on offense, against opposing starters, about 4.5 points better per 100 possessions, and that he's improving on both ends each year, moving him just to move him seems silly.

Now, he's certainly not untouchable - no one on the roster is - so for value, sure. But no one is trading value to the Bulls for a player right now - as Doug noted, given the performances of the last couple years, most of the player stocks are deflated - IMO, due to Boylen, somewhat artificially so.

I think people drastically inflate the Boylen effect. I hope I'm wrong and that our players are simply a lot better htan they have shown due to lack of health, continuity, consistency in lineups, poor coaching, or whatever other little reasons exist that all clearly have some impact, but none of them seem to be as likely as these guys just aren't good.

LaVine is the only guy on the team that even has a combination of athleticism/skill that makes sense for him to obviously be a good player. Lauri theoretically could be, except we've seen he can't take advantage of small guys while he's on offense and those guys can kill him when he's on defense, nor can he play center, so I don't see where his competitive advantage comes from.

Maybe a guy like Coby White just becomes the next Damian Lillard shooting wise and is a star, but unless our guys just learn to shoot lights out, there really isn't much to say about them. They don't have any obvious advantages and simply massively improving shooting is something you might as well say about any players in the league. Anyone could theoretically do that and anyone who does will be much more valuable.

[sonny]

The problem is will Lavine defer if they get a #1 option? Lavine believes he's the alpha. It would have to be a big star like Giannis to come over for him to defer. If it's someone younger or borderline fringe all-star like Lavine, I don't think he will let that new person be the #1 option. That's why I say it's best to trade him Lavine now while he has some good value. Bulls will take a step back but they are in perfect position to take advantage of these next 2 drafts which will be very strong.

Trade him now. Bulls will never be a winning team as long as he is one of our primary ball handlers. He is of the mindset that this is his team. He wants the ball and he wants to be the leader. He needs to go to a team like the Nets with Kyrie and KD... or the Lakers with Lebron and AD.. somewhere that already has an established #1 (and #2). On a team like that he has to fall into place as a 6th man or 3rd option on offense. Those teams already have primary ball handlers and #1's, so Lavine will have no choice other than take the role he is given. Here with the Bulls, he wants to run the show and unless the Bulls sign a max player like KD or Lebron (not happening), Zach is never going to hand the reins over to another player and you just are not winning anything with him running the show. We need intelligent, high IQ guards.

When has Zach every shown an unwillingness to not let someone be a #1?

Who is this player that we've had that Zach should've given the reins to?

Lauri?
WCJ?
Porter?
Dunn?

Who else should be the #1 on the team?

Who should have been running the show if not the best player on the team?

Is it Zach's fault or management's that Zach is the team's best option?

[MGB8]

See, here is where I think things are starting to diverge. For example, are we sure that "Lauri doesn't mesh with Zach" as opposed to "Boylen played Lauri in a very confining role that limited his effectiveness --- which combined with the evolution of the NBA towards perimeter play generally may have made Lauri less effective as a 4, because his size advantage isn't really evident when he's guarded by 3's (playing the 4 spot) and they can successfully limit his movement, while he has some issues defending on the wing?"

Given that Zach was a material net positive on offense, against opposing starters, about 4.5 points better per 100 possessions, and that he's improving on both ends each year, moving him just to move him seems silly.

Now, he's certainly not untouchable - no one on the roster is - so for value, sure. But no one is trading value to the Bulls for a player right now - as Doug noted, given the performances of the last couple years, most of the player stocks are deflated - IMO, due to Boylen, somewhat artificially so.

I think people drastically inflate the Boylen effect. I hope I'm wrong and that our players are simply a lot better htan they have shown due to lack of health, continuity, consistency in lineups, poor coaching, or whatever other little reasons exist that all clearly have some impact, but none of them seem to be as likely as these guys just aren't good.

LaVine is the only guy on the team that even has a combination of athleticism/skill that makes sense for him to obviously be a good player. Lauri theoretically could be, except we've seen he can't take advantage of small guys while he's on offense and those guys can kill him when he's on defense, nor can he play center, so I don't see where his competitive advantage comes from.

Maybe a guy like Coby White just becomes the next Damian Lillard shooting wise and is a star, but unless our guys just learn to shoot lights out, there really isn't much to say about them. They don't have any obvious advantages and simply massively improving shooting is something you might as well say about any players in the league. Anyone could theoretically do that and anyone who does will be much more valuable.

We played without a legitimate wing most of last season - playing Satoransky as the 3 for defensive purposes. We took away the strength's of Lauri's game and basically pigeon holed him into an almost Matt Bullard type role; while we used him a bit more inside early on, he and Carter got in each other's way. The entire offensive scheme was a mess and the 3 guard lineups almost silly in their ineffectiveness. It was designed towards some idealized "analytics" rather than around the players the Bulls actually had. Ditto the defense, by the way.

I don't know why you say that Lauri can't play center - I think that's 100% incorrect. The Celtics play the 6'8 Daniel Theis at center. Houston plays Robert Covington. Golden State went with Green and 6'6 Paschalle, 6'9 twig Kevon Looney and 6'9 pogo-stick Marquese Chriss. Old man Dirk played center before he retired. Lauri can't play *traditional* center, sure, but he played some last year and some of those lineups where the most effective that the Bulls had (White-LaVine-Porter-Thad-Lauri), in limited minute samples.

If the Bulls players were superstar quality or naturally super-high BBall IQ - then, yeah, Boylen's impact would be minimal.

But for a team that's less than that - the Boylen vs. not Boylen effect I think is tremendous. Take a look at the Spurs with Murray, White, Derozan, an aging Alrdige and aging Rudy Gay, plus Patty Mills. That Spurs teams - sans Aldrige even - made a run at the playoffs in the bubble. I think that under Boylen that team has a similar record to the Bulls.

[Dez]

and yet the team is consistently better with him off the floor. same players

They aren't.

But they are. That is a FACT. Consistently. His entire career. Again this past season he was a net negative (-4). The Bulls were actually better a 4 pt differential per 100 possessions without Lavine. That is really saying something because the team was terrible to begin with so to get that much worse with your supposed "best player" on the floor is really bad.

http://www.82games.com/1920/19CHI6.HTM#onoff

So if you just sat down and watched the Bulls this season you would say Chicago was better without LaVine on the floor?

[Shill]

I think LaVine could potentially be a lead scorer, but he can't be the lead decision-maker if that makes sense.

His ceiling is probably a #2.

[kodo]

Just so we're on the same page, let's be clear that both Lavine & Lauri have shown large sample sizes of being largely positive.
The Bulls staring lineup is positive,
+7.8 Sato/Dunn/Lavine/Lauri/Wendell

+7.8 points per 100 is unusually positive for a bad team. And it's not a small sample size, it's the most used lineup.
NY's most used lineup is -6.6.
CLE's most used lineup is -9.1.
GSW's most lineup is -3.3.
MIN's most used lineup is -7.7.

Logically, most losing teams' most used lineup is going to be negative obviously. Not Chicago. +7.9 isn't that far from Boston's most used lineup, +8.3. Chicago starts losing as soon Boylen sends his first set of substitutions in.

Can Lavine & Lauri be part of a different team construction where they are strongly positive instead of negative? The answer is yes, because we have data showing that...on the Bulls.

Why the Bulls go through an epic collapse as soon as the starting lineup changes, we can't know for sure. But I would assume most of the board will say some combination of coaching and extremely bad roster construction.

[dice]

When you speak of "not bailing" my impression is that you are thinking mainly about trades. But there were other players that were simply allowed to walk, or traded away for basically nothing, both with the goal of staying out of the Lux Tax.

For every name that you mention I can mention another name that was clearly a mistake not to pay.

go right ahead

FYI

I don't respond to quotes that are taken out of context for negative purposes.

Never have.

i took nothing out of context. never have. i truncated your post because the remainder had no relation to what i was responding to. big difference. and an obvious one

i could have removed the paragraph prior to the part in bold and it STILL wouldn't be taken out of context

you said that they bulls have failed to pay several players that they should have, but you're not interested in providing those names. that's what's happening here, but instead you choose to try to distract with nonsense accusations of me taking what you said out of context. there IS no additional context necessary. it's a very cut and dried point

[dice]

They aren't.

But they are. That is a FACT. Consistently. His entire career. Again this past season he was a net negative (-4). The Bulls were actually better a 4 pt differential per 100 possessions without Lavine. That is really saying something because the team was terrible to begin with so to get that much worse with your supposed "best player" on the floor is really bad.

http://www.82games.com/1920/19CHI6.HTM#onoff

So if you just sat down and watched the Bulls this season you would say Chicago was better without LaVine on the floor?

if you're paying attention to which team is scoring and which isn't, then yes. of course. but you don't even have to watch . you just have to look at the scoreboard when lavine is playing vs when he's not. that can be a fluke over the course of weeks or even months. it's never a fluke year after year

[dice]

The reason you don’t trade Zach (at this stage) is because he is well liked by other players around the league. Most of these young guys coming in we’re kids watching him win slam dunk contest 2x. It might seem trivial but it actually does carry weight. We know it’s a buddy buddy league. One all-star appearance for Zach turns the tide for the Bulls and immediately puts us back on the radar as a favorable FA destination.

He’s still young enough to be a key secondary piece on a competing eastern conference team. I see his long term impact similar to Jrue Holiday. He’s not the guy you say is your franchise player, but he’s a guy you can say is the leader of your team.

i don't see lavine being the #1 guy on team good enough to entice players to play with him, no matter how magical his recruiting abilities. there are very few guys who have that ability. ironically, jimmy butler helped to entice dwyane wade to take less money to play here for a mediocre team. wish he hadn't

[greenl]

He's a 5 for me. Hugely talented offensively, but his bbiq holds him back. I can see him going through his career without making the playoffs until he reaches his 30's and settles for a lesser role.

One of the comps on Lavine at draft time was JR Smith. I can't help thinking how accurate that is.

[Jcool0]

He's a 5 for me. Hugely talented offensively, but his bbiq holds him back. I can see him going through his career without making the playoffs until he reaches his 30's and settles for a lesser role.

One of the comps on Lavine at draft time was JR Smith. I can't help thinking how accurate that is.

I cant help thinking how random that comparison is.

[dice]

Actually, Basketball Reference has him at net negative -5. Bottom right is the net total difference. Not sure why they have him 1.0 pt worse, at -5.0 than 82games does at -4.0. Either way, the team was better without him.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01/on-off/2020

No, they don't. Their BPM has him at 2.4 for 2019-20 - with +3.2 on offense and -0.8 on defense. See below, under "advanced stats." https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html

You are misusing the "on-off" subset of data in that what you are pointing to is the "raw" plus minus, that is not adjusted in comparison to the average player (as a way of trying to adjust for opponent quality).

OK. You're using BPM. In your post, you stated a positive +/-. I assumed you were just talking about his raw +/- on/off numbers. Not a fan of BPM because of the way they adjust. I wish they just left RPM alone instead of changing into a offensive only stat. It's the same problem we have with Box Plus/Minus.

BPM does not use play-by-play data. it is not truly a plus-minus stat, so it's name is misleading. here is the formula:

Raw BPM = a*ReMPG + b*ORB% + c*DRB% + d*STL% + e*BLK% + f*AST% - g*USG%*TO% + h*USG%*(1-TOV%)*[2*(TS% - TmTS%) + i*AST% + j*(3PAr - Lg3PAr) - k] + l*sqrt(AST%*TRB%)

3PAr = percentage of FG attempts that are 3pt attempts
Tm = team
Lg = league

it is the best of the box score stats, but according to a study i saw it is only about 70% as predictive as an advanced plus-minus stat

as for RPM, the changes they made were basically an acknowledgement that defensive +/- stats are very noisy from season to season and thus create too many wacky single-season results. and RPM aspires to be a stat that the lay person can look at and have confidence that is is a reflection of how good a particular player was in a particular season. thus, by making the changes they did, those single-season results LOOK better (particularly to the many who focus on scoring ability), but it also sacrifices much of the unique value that advanced plus-minus stats are supposed to bring to the table. plus, there has always a box score component to RPM anyway. before this season's changes, i've read that it started each season as a box score stat and gradually mixed in play-by-play plus-minus data until there was a 50/50 split by the end of the season. so it was always a somewhat bastardized advanced plus/minus stat, and now even more so. i find it of little value at this point. probably not much better than BPM

the reality is that any pure advanced plus-minus stat IS GOING TO PRODUCE WEIRD OUTLIERS for a single season. the sample size simply isn't sufficient. i've read that 5000 minutes of play are required for the results to "stabilize" or whatever (2 full seasons for a typical nba starter), but that's obviously not a magic number. the more data the better. but if you chart a player's CAREER, it's a beautiful way to see the progression of that player's true impact on winning. of course, it doesn't factor in clutch performance, but anyway...

luckily, there is another regressed plus-minus stat that has come out in the past couple of years that seems to do a better job than RPM ever did: PIPM. it attempts to modulate some of the wild swings that come with this sort of stat. for example, it mutes the impact of opponent 3pt %, which the creator has determined is very much random and not particularly impacted by individual players on the defensive end. it is a pure RAPM stat with minor adjustments to reduce randomness, basically

anyway, at the risk of blowing gaskets, here are the offense/defense PIPM results for lavine/booker/trae (talented scorers who are defense-challenged) and sato (role player) over their careers:

sato

2017 (2.58) 0.22 spot minutes as rookie
2018 0.33 (0.23)
2019 0.19 (0.16)
2020 0.42 (0.58)

consistently average nba player on both ends of court over career so far. borderline starter/backup

trae

2019 2.33 (3.41) - slow start offensively rookie year, came on later in year
2020 5.02 (3.69) - became elite offensively, still one of the worst defenders in the league

almost certainly a net positive player with room to grow (offensively at least - maybe he can become smarter and more opportunistic defensively as well)

lavine

2015 (2.00) (2.94) - truly awful as a rookie, but drafted as a talented project
2016 (0.41) (3.07)
2017 (0.25) (1.38) - season shortened by injury in minny, but clearly no longer one of the worst players in the league
2018 injured
2019 0.35 (1.37)
2020 1.49 (2.55)

still probably a net negative impact on winning despite significant offensive improvement and some degree of defensive improvement. great in the clutch this year, though

booker

2016 (1.13) (2.17)
2017 1.02 (2.20)
2018 0.49 (2.05)
2019 2.49 (3.76)
2020 3.58 (2.45)

steady offensive improvement over career, now at least CLOSE to elite impact offensively. consistently very bad defensively. probably a positive impact player at this point, but not deserving of all-star consideration if impact on winning is a factor

https://www.bball-index.com/current-pipm/

again, we should not be fixating on single season numbers with this sort of stat. it's value is mainly in providing a trajectory of a player's true impact on winning over the course of his career. role is also a significant factor. if for example, you task a guy like sato with shooting 20 times a game, his impact is going to deteriorate. because that's not the kind of player he is. and if you reduced the usage of a zach lavine, his numbers might improve. and probably would...assuming that indeed he is not, as most people feel, suited to be "the man" on a winning team

[dice]

He's a 5 for me. Hugely talented offensively, but his bbiq holds him back. I can see him going through his career without making the playoffs until he reaches his 30's and settles for a lesser role.

One of the comps on Lavine at draft time was JR Smith. I can't help thinking how accurate that is.

I cant help thinking how random that comparison is.

another excellent shooting dunk champ with low IQ and taken in the middle of the first round

[johnnyvann840]

No, they don't. Their BPM has him at 2.4 for 2019-20 - with +3.2 on offense and -0.8 on defense. See below, under "advanced stats." https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html

You are misusing the "on-off" subset of data in that what you are pointing to is the "raw" plus minus, that is not adjusted in comparison to the average player (as a way of trying to adjust for opponent quality).

OK. You're using BPM. In your post, you stated a positive +/-. I assumed you were just talking about his raw +/- on/off numbers. Not a fan of BPM because of the way they adjust. I wish they just left RPM alone instead of changing into a offensive only stat. It's the same problem we have with Box Plus/Minus.

BPM does not use play-by-play data. it is not truly a plus-minus stat, so it's name is misleading. here is the formula:

Raw BPM = a*ReMPG + b*ORB% + c*DRB% + d*STL% + e*BLK% + f*AST% - g*USG%*TO% + h*USG%*(1-TOV%)*[2*(TS% - TmTS%) + i*AST% + j*(3PAr - Lg3PAr) - k] + l*sqrt(AST%*TRB%)

3PAr = percentage of FG attempts that are 3pt attempts
Tm = team
Lg = league

it is the best of the box score stats, but according to a study i saw it is only about 70% as predictive as an advanced plus-minus stat

as for RPM, the changes they made were basically an acknowledgement that defensive +/- stats are very noisy from season to season and thus create too many wacky single-season results. and RPM aspires to be a stat that the lay person can look at and have confidence that is is a reflection of how good a particular player was in a particular season. thus, by making the changes they did, those single-season results LOOK better (particularly to the many who focus on scoring ability), but it also sacrifices much of the unique value that advanced plus-minus stats are supposed to bring to the table. plus, there has always a box score component to RPM anyway. before this season's changes, i've read that it started each season as a box score stat and gradually mixed in play-by-play plus-minus data until there was a 50/50 split by the end of the season. so it was always a somewhat bastardized advanced plus/minus stat, and now even more so. i find it of little value at this point. probably not much better than BPM

the reality is that any pure advanced plus-minus stat IS GOING TO PRODUCE WEIRD OUTLIERS for a single season. the sample size simply isn't sufficient. i've read that 5000 minutes of play are required for the results to "stabilize" or whatever (2 full seasons for a typical nba starter), but that's obviously not a magic number. the more data the better. but if you chart a player's CAREER, it's a beautiful way to see the progression of that player's true impact on winning. of course, it doesn't factor in clutch performance, but anyway...

luckily, there is another regressed plus-minus stat that has come out in the past couple of years that seems to do a better job than RPM ever did: PIPM. it attempts to modulate some of the wild swings that come with this sort of stat. for example, it mutes the impact of opponent 3pt %, which the creator has determined is very much random and not particularly impacted by individual players on the defensive end. it is a pure RAPM stat with minor adjustments to reduce randomness, basically

anyway, at the risk of blowing gaskets, here are the PIPM results for lavine/booker/trae (talented scorers who are defense-challenged) and sato (role player) over their careers:

sato

(2.58) 0.22 spot minutes as rookie
0.33 (0.23)
0.19 (0.16)
0.42 (0.58)

consistently average nba player on both ends of court over career so far. borderline starter/backup

trae

2.33 (3.41) - slow start offensively rookie year, came on later in year
5.02 (3.69) - became elite offensively, still one of the worst defenders in the league

almost certainly a net positive player with room to grow (offensively at least - maybe he can become smarter and more opportunistic defensively as well)

lavine

(2.00) (2.94) - truly awful as a rookie, but drafted as a talented project
(0.41) (3.07)
(0.25) (1.38) - season shortened by injury in minny, but clearly no longer one of the worst players in the league
injured
0.35 (1.37)
1.49 (2.55)

still probably a net negative impact on winning despite significant offensive improvement and some degree of defensive improvement. great in the clutch this year, though

booker

(1.13) (2.17)
1.02 (2.20)
0.49 (2.05)
2.49 (3.76)
3.58 (2.45)

steady offensive improvement over career, now at least CLOSE to elite impact offensively. consistently very bad defensively. probably a positive impact player at this point, but not deserving of all-star consideration if impact on winning is a factor

https://www.bball-index.com/current-pipm/

again, we should not be fixating on single season numbers with this sort of stat. it's value is mainly in providing a trajectory of a player's true impact on winning over the course of his career. role is also a significant factor. if for example, you task a guy like sato with shooting 20 times a game, his impact is going to deteriorate. because that's not the kind of player he is. and if you reduced the usage of a zach lavine, his numbers might improve. and probably would...assuming that he indeed he is not, as most people feel, suited to be "the man" on a winning team

Wow. thanks. I know a lot went into that post. Very informative.