Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

[dougthonus]

Harrell is "clearly" a better player?? He's different, that's for sure. An undersized non-shooter who doesn't pass the ball isn't exactly every GM's dream these days.

He scores more efficiently and at higher volume, and since Lauri does absolutely nothing useful whatsoever other than score, it makes Harrell better, since he's better at scoring. On top of that, Harrell is likely a much better defender. I'd say better for sure, but not sure I've seen enough of him to be certain on the 'much' better part.

[ZOMG]

Harrell is "clearly" a better player?? He's different, that's for sure. An undersized non-shooter who doesn't pass the ball isn't exactly every GM's dream these days.

He scores more efficiently and at higher volume, and since Lauri does absolutely nothing useful whatsoever other than score, it makes Harrell better, since he's better at scoring. On top of that, Harrell is likely a much better defender. I'd say better for sure, but not sure I've seen enough of him to be certain on the 'much' better part.

It would be hilarious to put Harrell on the Bulls and see him suffer. He's a hustle guy who absolutely can't create any type of opportunities for himself. A product of his environment over the last couple of years.

In that sense, he really is the perfect ring chaser. A guy who plays with superstars and looks great.

[dougthonus]

It would be hilarious to put Harrell on the Bulls and see him suffer. He's a hustle guy who absolutely can't create any type of opportunities for himself. A product of his environment over the last couple of years.

In that sense, he really is the perfect ring chaser. A guy who plays with superstars and looks great.

Well he was a more efficient / higher volume scorer than Lauri for three straight years, even prior to having any stars there (two of those years).

You know whom also can't create any plays for himself? Lauri Markkanen. He just gets his points by standing around the perimeter and attacking close outs vs rolling to the rim and fighting on the glass. Neither of them are guys who put pressure on the defense, initiate offense, or generate significant gravity.

So I don't think you're wrong about Harrell per se, but I think you're overstating what Lauri does on offense by a pretty big amount if you think it is more valuable. Then you still have the fact that Harrell is more useful on defense.

[ZOMG]

It would be hilarious to put Harrell on the Bulls and see him suffer. He's a hustle guy who absolutely can't create any type of opportunities for himself. A product of his environment over the last couple of years.

In that sense, he really is the perfect ring chaser. A guy who plays with superstars and looks great.

Well he was a more efficient / higher volume scorer than Lauri for three straight years, even prior to having any stars there (two of those years).

You know whom also can't create any plays for himself? Lauri Markkanen. He just gets his points by standing around the perimeter and attacking close outs vs rolling to the rim and fighting on the glass. Neither of them are guys who put pressure on the defense, initiate offense, or generate significant gravity.

So I don't think you're wrong about Harrell per se, but I think you're overstating what Lauri does on offense by a pretty big amount if you think it is more valuable. Then you still have the fact that Harrell is more useful on defense.

Creating good scoring opportunities out of thin air is a star/superstar trait in the NBA. The most difficult thing in the game. I certainly don't expect it from a guy like Harrell - OR Lauri.

But I believe Lauri has tried to do exactly what he's been asked to over these three years. Often to his own detriment. In college, he played in the flow of the offense and scored easily. The team looked for him. His rookie year was pretty similar, actually - his job was to put the ball in the basket by any means necessary, and he did. Sure, he was a lot more inefficient than at Arizona, but that happens to almost every young big when they get to the League.

The arrival of Zach, however, had a huge effect on Markkanen. Suddenly he was more of a designated spacer, not involved in pick and rolls or occupying the high post since we had two consecutive non-shooters in that role - first RoLo and then Wendell. Lauri started looking more and more like he was out of rhythm out there. The ball rarely found him when he was open. It usually found him when it was too late, but he probably felt like he had to do something with it. Cue all the ridiculous post-ups from the perimeter and forced 3pt shots.

We all know his flaws. But give him a modern NBA offense with movement and sharing and I guarantee he'll thrive again.

[dougthonus]

We all know his flaws. But give him a modern NBA offense with movement and sharing and I guarantee he'll thrive again.

Okay, but what does that mean?

When he's thriving, he is still less efficient, lower volume, and doesn't initiate offense and hurts you on defense. I've not seen an argument you gave where Lauri thriving is helping you more than Harrell thriving (whom also certainly needs the right environment to thrive).

[PaKii94]

It would be hilarious to put Harrell on the Bulls and see him suffer. He's a hustle guy who absolutely can't create any type of opportunities for himself. A product of his environment over the last couple of years.

In that sense, he really is the perfect ring chaser. A guy who plays with superstars and looks great.

Well he was a more efficient / higher volume scorer than Lauri for three straight years, even prior to having any stars there (two of those years).

You know whom also can't create any plays for himself? Lauri Markkanen. He just gets his points by standing around the perimeter and attacking close outs vs rolling to the rim and fighting on the glass. Neither of them are guys who put pressure on the defense, initiate offense, or generate significant gravity.

So I don't think you're wrong about Harrell per se, but I think you're overstating what Lauri does on offense by a pretty big amount if you think it is more valuable. Then you still have the fact that Harrell is more useful on defense.

smh Lauri was assisted on a much lower percentage of his 2 point attempts compared to harrell. Lauri is a much better creator in comparison.

[PaKii94]

We all know his flaws. But give him a modern NBA offense with movement and sharing and I guarantee he'll thrive again.

Okay, but what does that mean?

When he's thriving, he is still less efficient, lower volume, and doesn't initiate offense and hurts you on defense. I've not seen an argument you gave where Lauri thriving is helping you more than Harrell thriving (whom also certainly needs the right environment to thrive).

Where do you qualify Lauri's "thriving"? When he was actually given opportunities as a first option he thrived to 26/13 with 73pa per game. Harrell's "thriving" doesn't come close to that.

[dougthonus]

smh Lauri was assisted on a much lower percentage of his 2 point attempts compared to harrell. Lauri is a much better creator in comparison.

That might be fair, but he's still lower volume, lower efficiency. Not sure what the numbers look like if you try to balance that out or how exactly you'd do that, but last season Harrell was 63% TS% vs 55% on higher volume of attempts. That's a very, very large tangible difference.

[sco]

We all know his flaws. But give him a modern NBA offense with movement and sharing and I guarantee he'll thrive again.

Okay, but what does that mean?

When he's thriving, he is still less efficient, lower volume, and doesn't initiate offense and hurts you on defense. I've not seen an argument you gave where Lauri thriving is helping you more than Harrell thriving (whom also certainly needs the right environment to thrive).

Where do you qualify Lauri's "thriving"? When he was actually given opportunities as a first option he thrived to 26/13 with 73pa per game. Harrell's "thriving" doesn't come close to that.

I always love ZOMG's passion because it stirs fun debate (even though I almost always disagree, but that's cool!).

I feel his (and "Team Finn's") love for Lauri. I wanted him to succeed when we picked him, but 3 strikes (years) and you're out in my book. Whatever Lauri is, he's not a potential allstar. And what this Bulls team needs is to add 2 allstars. Filling the roster with good players on long-term deals is the biggest obstacle to contending. I am on board with a mid-season pump and dump of Lauri...it probably won't get us more than a late 1st, but the opportunity cost of signing him for $16-$20M for the next four years is high.

[dougthonus]

Where do you qualify Lauri's "thriving"? When he was actually given opportunities as a first option he thrived to 26/13 with 73pa per game. Harrell's "thriving" doesn't come close to that.

In what? a 6-10 game sample size? Do you think Lauri can actually achieve 26/13? (Not sure what 73 "pa" is) If you do, then I absolutely agree, that would be way better than Harrell. I do not think Lauri could do that with any consistency. I give that about a 1% chance, but certainly, if he could, he'd be extremely valuable.

[ZOMG]

Okay, but what does that mean?

When he's thriving, he is still less efficient, lower volume, and doesn't initiate offense and hurts you on defense. I've not seen an argument you gave where Lauri thriving is helping you more than Harrell thriving (whom also certainly needs the right environment to thrive).

Where do you qualify Lauri's "thriving"? When he was actually given opportunities as a first option he thrived to 26/13 with 73pa per game. Harrell's "thriving" doesn't come close to that.

I always love ZOMG's passion because it stirs fun debate (even though I almost always disagree, but that's cool!).

I feel his (and "Team Finn's") love for Lauri. I wanted him to succeed when we picked him, but 3 strikes (years) and you're out in my book. Whatever Lauri is, he's not a potential allstar. And what this Bulls team needs is to add 2 allstars. Filling the roster with good players on long-term deals is the biggest obstacle to contending. I am on board with a mid-season pump and dump of Lauri...

My "love" for Lauri always gets exaggerated. I just think he's an intriguing player, much too intriguing to let go because of some vague frustration and the irrational fear that he'll cripple the team financially. So far he's never played in an offense that makes sense — or for a coach who actually has some authority and vision and isn't either a powerless cardboard cutout or a potato-headed idiot. (Wait, let me overrule myself: he did play for Sean Miller, who's smarter than Fred and Boylen combined and can actually design a working offense.)

When he's on, Lauri brings the most valuable commodity of the NBA: scoring. And he doesn't need to pound the ball to do it. It's just a question of getting him to stay "on". That will take care of itself if/when the Bulls offense starts resembling pro basketball.

it probably won't get us more than a late 1st, but the opportunity cost of signing him for $16-$20M for the next four years is high.

You do know that's very likely to happen though, don't you?

[Leslie Forman]

smh Lauri was assisted on a much lower percentage of his 2 point attempts compared to harrell. Lauri is a much better creator in comparison.

Really? We're gonna act like shooting assisted 3s is some irrelevant part of Lauri's game?

Harrell absolutely blows away Markkanen statistically, whether it's efficiency, on/off, whatever, so it's got to be intangibles where Lauri makes the edge.

Is it his awesome ballhandling? Passing? Defense? Motor? Leadership? Just all that non-stop winning he's been doing?

It would be hilarious to put Harrell on the Bulls and see him suffer. He's a hustle guy who absolutely can't create any type of opportunities for himself. A product of his environment over the last couple of years.

Well, there's certainly one thing we'll never, ever, have to worry about with Lauri - being a "hustle guy."

[ZOMG]

smh Lauri was assisted on a much lower percentage of his 2 point attempts compared to harrell. Lauri is a much better creator in comparison.

Really? We're gonna act like shooting assisted 3s is some irrelevant part of Lauri's game?

Harrell absolutely blows away Markkanen statistically, whether it's efficiency, on/off, whatever, so it's got to be intangibles where Lauri makes the edge.

Is it his awesome ballhandling? Passing? Defense? Motor? Leadership? Just all that non-stop winning he's been doing?

You're making Harrell sound like something other than a guy who cleans up after people. Hey, nothing wrong with being a garbageman. If you handle superstar garbage, you might get lucky one day. He did.

[dougthonus]

You're making Harrell sound like something other than a guy who cleans up after people. Hey, nothing wrong with being a garbageman. If you handle superstar garbage, you might get lucky one day. He did.

He's been more efficient and higher volume per minute for three straight years over Lauri and only played with a superstar for one year. I don't think "points are points", but I do think if you aren't creating shots and creating offense and initiating offense, drawing double teams, etc, then your points are less valuable than someone who does. Neither Harrell or Lauri do that. Lauri is more like Luol Deng on offense. He's fine, but you saw when we played the Heat, he couldn't provide any meaningful relief to Rose, because he couldn't create anything.

[Leslie Forman]

You're making Harrell sound like something other than a guy who cleans up after people. Hey, nothing wrong with being a garbageman. If you handle superstar garbage, you might get lucky one day. He did.

Lauri is just a glorified garbage man. Just catch and shoot 3s and drives to the rim when the defense parts like the Red Sea and gives him a wide open path. Absolutely nothing else.

If he was on the Clippers, he'd have been glued to the bench. JaMychal Green probably would have been ahead of him in the pecking order. He'd probably be stuck in Pat Patterson's spot there.

[Dez]

It would be hilarious to put Harrell on the Bulls and see him suffer. He's a hustle guy who absolutely can't create any type of opportunities for himself. A product of his environment over the last couple of years.

In that sense, he really is the perfect ring chaser. A guy who plays with superstars and looks great.

Well he was a more efficient / higher volume scorer than Lauri for three straight years, even prior to having any stars there (two of those years).

You know whom also can't create any plays for himself? Lauri Markkanen. He just gets his points by standing around the perimeter and attacking close outs vs rolling to the rim and fighting on the glass. Neither of them are guys who put pressure on the defense, initiate offense, or generate significant gravity.

So I don't think you're wrong about Harrell per se, but I think you're overstating what Lauri does on offense by a pretty big amount if you think it is more valuable. Then you still have the fact that Harrell is more useful on defense.

Creating good scoring opportunities out of thin air is a star/superstar trait in the NBA. The most difficult thing in the game. I certainly don't expect it from a guy like Harrell - OR Lauri.

But I believe Lauri has tried to do exactly what he's been asked to over these three years. Often to his own detriment. In college, he played in the flow of the offense and scored easily. The team looked for him. His rookie year was pretty similar, actually - his job was to put the ball in the basket by any means necessary, and he did. Sure, he was a lot more inefficient than at Arizona, but that happens to almost every young big when they get to the League.

The arrival of Zach, however, had a huge effect on Markkanen. Suddenly he was more of a designated spacer, not involved in pick and rolls or occupying the high post since we had two consecutive non-shooters in that role - first RoLo and then Wendell. Lauri started looking more and more like he was out of rhythm out there. The ball rarely found him when he was open. It usually found him when it was too late, but he probably felt like he had to do something with it. Cue all the ridiculous post-ups from the perimeter and forced 3pt shots.

We all know his flaws. But give him a modern NBA offense with movement and sharing and I guarantee he'll thrive again.

There is that hypocrisy again, when Lauri does what is asked of him and play his role (according to you) you defend him religiously but then turn around and criticise WCJ for doing the same thing even ridiculously claiming he's close being out of the league.

The ball found him plenty and he missed shots because he's a barely average shooter and weak as a toddler, stop blaming everybody else for Lauri's inability to improve his game.

[PaKii94]

Where do you qualify Lauri's "thriving"? When he was actually given opportunities as a first option he thrived to 26/13 with 73pa per game. Harrell's "thriving" doesn't come close to that.

In what? a 6-10 game sample size? Do you think Lauri can actually achieve 26/13? (Not sure what 73 "pa" is) If you do, then I absolutely agree, that would be way better than Harrell. I do not think Lauri could do that with any consistency. I give that about a 1% chance, but certainly, if he could, he'd be extremely valuable.

Lol my bad forgot the space there. I meant to say 7 3pt attempts which is valuable to stretch the floor. But we've discussed Lauri ad nauseum. You know where I stand between "healthy" Lauri and "injured" Lauri. Let's bookmark this thread for a month. I think if Lauri is healthy and actually gets decent usage will surprise some folks.

[FranchisePlayer]

Where do you qualify Lauri's "thriving"? When he was actually given opportunities as a first option he thrived to 26/13 with 73pa per game. Harrell's "thriving" doesn't come close to that.

In what? a 6-10 game sample size? Do you think Lauri can actually achieve 26/13? (Not sure what 73 "pa" is) If you do, then I absolutely agree, that would be way better than Harrell. I do not think Lauri could do that with any consistency. I give that about a 1% chance, but certainly, if he could, he'd be extremely valuable.

Lol my bad forgot the space there. I meant to say 7 3pt attempts which is valuable to stretch the floor. But we've discussed Lauri ad nauseum. You know where I stand between "healthy" Lauri and "injured" Lauri. Let's bookmark this thread for a month. I think if Lauri is healthy and actually gets decent usage will surprise some folks.

That's a very good idea.

This comparison between Lauri and Harrell is driving me nuts. Someone involved in this debate care to tell me why comparing especially Harrell for such length to Lauri is a legitimate discussion? Thanks!

[coldfish]

I'll just have to repeat myself from months ago. If you need someone to create your shots for you, Lauri gets a LOT of shots. The people who shoot more than him do some combination of:
- Getting hustle shots by moving around a lot, getting offensive rebounds or loose balls.
- Creating shots for themselves off the dribble or with some type of array of moves

There is no world where a guy get 15 fga per game by just drifting around. Kyle Korver is far more active off ball than Lauri, is a much better shooter than Lauri and the most shots he ever got per game was 11.4. His next highest was 9.3.

[Indomitable]

I'll just have to repeat myself from months ago. If you need someone to create your shots for you, Lauri gets a LOT of shots. The people who shoot more than him do some combination of:
- Getting hustle shots by moving around a lot, getting offensive rebounds or loose balls.
- Creating shots for themselves off the dribble or with some type of array of moves

There is no world where a guy get 15 fga per game by just drifting around. Kyle Korver is far more active off ball than Lauri, is a much better shooter than Lauri and the most shots he ever got per game was 11.4. His next highest was 9.3.

People fail to accept Lauri is at best a role player. I do not see a star. Every NBA player has highlights. He is a nice player but there is nothing special about him.

Saric a player who is seen as far below Lauri has the same exact



https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=saricda01&player_id2=markkla01
Has a slightly better 3pt percentage.[