Lauri:' I can make the comeback'

[dougthonus]

On his passing, the issue here is his lack of moves and the fact that he is rather selfish. When he gets it, he takes a shot frequently. On the occasions that he does drive, he again shoots. He has no post game or mid game where he can work the ball, pull in defenders and hit cutters and he doesn't drive and dish much.

His selfishness and lack of creativity is why he has had a lower assist rate than such passing luminaries as . . . Luke Kornett.

In 18/19 his assist rate was lower than last year and again, he had one of the lowest on the team. He was tied with Felicio.

Reminds me of Deng and Nocioni complaining about not sharing the ball with the lowest assist rates on the team. On offense, Lauri reminds me a lot of Deng in the sense he can get you points, but he can't really generate offense. He can just get the ball in the basket when other people do 70% of the work first. Doesn't help others score, doesn't generate offense himself. Though Deng was a strong multipositional defender which made him much more valuable, and even Deng's value was pretty pedestrian really.

[coldfish]

On his passing, the issue here is his lack of moves and the fact that he is rather selfish. When he gets it, he takes a shot frequently. On the occasions that he does drive, he again shoots. He has no post game or mid game where he can work the ball, pull in defenders and hit cutters and he doesn't drive and dish much.

His selfishness and lack of creativity is why he has had a lower assist rate than such passing luminaries as . . . Luke Kornett.

In 18/19 his assist rate was lower than last year and again, he had one of the lowest on the team. He was tied with Felicio.

Reminds me of Deng and Nocioni complaining about not sharing the ball with the lowest assist rates on the team. On offense, Lauri reminds me a lot of Deng in the sense he can get you points, but he can't really generate offense. He can just get the ball in the basket when other people do 70% of the work first. Doesn't help others score, doesn't generate offense himself. Though Deng was a strong multipositional defender which made him much more valuable, and even Deng's value was pretty pedestrian really.

Good comparison. I would note that Deng routinely had the best +/- numbers on the team. He also moved off ball much better than Lauri. He was a plus rebounder for his position and I wouldn't understate his team defense. These little things add up.

Lauri has had a negative box score +/- for all three of his years.

[cjbulls]

On his passing, the issue here is his lack of moves and the fact that he is rather selfish. When he gets it, he takes a shot frequently. On the occasions that he does drive, he again shoots. He has no post game or mid game where he can work the ball, pull in defenders and hit cutters and he doesn't drive and dish much.

His selfishness and lack of creativity is why he has had a lower assist rate than such passing luminaries as . . . Luke Kornett.

In 18/19 his assist rate was lower than last year and again, he had one of the lowest on the team. He was tied with Felicio.

Reminds me of Deng and Nocioni complaining about not sharing the ball with the lowest assist rates on the team. On offense, Lauri reminds me a lot of Deng in the sense he can get you points, but he can't really generate offense. He can just get the ball in the basket when other people do 70% of the work first. Doesn't help others score, doesn't generate offense himself. Though Deng was a strong multipositional defender which made him much more valuable, and even Deng's value was pretty pedestrian really.

Again, not a big fan of Lauri, but scorers who play off the ball have value too. And they’re quite a bit harder to find than the on-ball types which raises their value some more.

[dougthonus]

Lauri has had a negative box score +/- for all three of his years.

Not sure if you are looking at his on floor vs off floor metrics, but it sounds from this quote you are looking at the raw numbers which are always heavily slanted against players on bad teams that play lots of minutes just due to the fact that the team itself has a negative plus minus overall the games.

[coldfish]

Lauri has had a negative box score +/- for all three of his years.

Not sure if you are looking at his on floor vs off floor metrics, but it sounds from this quote you are looking at the raw numbers which are always heavily slanted against players on bad teams that play lots of minutes just due to the fact that the team itself has a negative plus minus overall the games.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2020.html

Go to advanced. That's what I was referring to. 82 games used to have a +/- differential per 48, which was a better stat but I believe that site has been abandoned.

[dougthonus]

Again, not a big fan of Lauri, but scorers who play off the ball have value too. And they’re quite a bit harder to find than the on-ball types which raises their value some more.

Guys who create gravity off the ball are hard to find and rise all boats on the team. Lauri doesn't do that.

[dougthonus]

Lauri has had a negative box score +/- for all three of his years.

Not sure if you are looking at his on floor vs off floor metrics, but it sounds from this quote you are looking at the raw numbers which are always heavily slanted against players on bad teams that play lots of minutes just due to the fact that the team itself has a negative plus minus overall the games.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2020.html

Go to advanced. That's what I was referring to. 82 games used to have a +/- differential per 48, which was a better stat but I believe that site has been abandoned.

That BPM isn't related to floor metrics at all.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html#:~:text=Estimate%20a%20regressed%20minutes%20per,%2D%204.75%20%2B%200.175%20*%20ReMPG.

[cjbulls]

Again, not a big fan of Lauri, but scorers who play off the ball have value too. And they’re quite a bit harder to find than the on-ball types which raises their value some more.

Guys who create gravity off the ball are hard to find and rise all boats on the team. Lauri doesn't do that.

He does create gravity. Teams don’t slack off of him. But that wasn’t my point.

Putting up significant points without needing to dominate the ball is a valuable trait. You can’t have a bunch of player who generate usage with the ball in their hands. Lauri generates his offense largely within the flow of an offense. He may not be the creator, but it’s helpful to not have so many people who want to be the creator.

Now he has plenty of other limitations, but I view that piece as his one true strength, once you get past this restricts him from being a true “star”.

[coldfish]

Not sure if you are looking at his on floor vs off floor metrics, but it sounds from this quote you are looking at the raw numbers which are always heavily slanted against players on bad teams that play lots of minutes just due to the fact that the team itself has a negative plus minus overall the games.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2020.html

Go to advanced. That's what I was referring to. 82 games used to have a +/- differential per 48, which was a better stat but I believe that site has been abandoned.

That BPM isn't related to floor metrics at all.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html#:~:text=Estimate%20a%20regressed%20minutes%20per,%2D%204.75%20%2B%200.175%20*%20ReMPG.

rpm
19/20 = -0.48
18/19 = -1.33
17/18 = DNQ?

Is there another team metric you prefer?

[dougthonus]

He does create gravity. Teams don’t slack off of him. But that wasn’t my point.

I disagree, because he doesn't move around much. A guy can play 8 feet off him and still be a threat to cover a huge segment of the floor and get back to defend his spot.

Putting up significant points without needing to dominate the ball is a valuable trait. You can’t have a bunch of player who generate usage with the ball in their hands. Lauri generates his offense largely within the flow of an offense. He may not be the creator, but it’s helpful to not have so many people who want to be the creator.

I don't think that's really that valuable unless the way you point up significant points makes it easier for everyone else, because he still is taking a lot of shots and usage for his points. What you need are guys that make everyone score more efficiently, and guys whom can allow others to score more efficiently without the ball in their hands are really valuable. The fact that Lauri can score a good amount of points and only control the ball when he's taking the shot doesn't really do much for you if his threat to score a lot of points by catching a kick out doesn't alter the defense of the opposing team, and as noted above, I don't think it really does.

I don't think he's awful on offense or anything. I just don't think he moves the needle on offense a whole lot relative to his points. If he were moving and guys were chasing all over and he could just always rise up against short players on mismatches, or do things like that it would be different.

[dougthonus]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2020.html

Go to advanced. That's what I was referring to. 82 games used to have a +/- differential per 48, which was a better stat but I believe that site has been abandoned.

That BPM isn't related to floor metrics at all.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/bpm2.html#:~:text=Estimate%20a%20regressed%20minutes%20per,%2D%204.75%20%2B%200.175%20*%20ReMPG.

rpm
19/20 = -0.48
18/19 = -1.33
17/18 = DNQ?

Is there another team metric you prefer?

I wasn't disagreeing. I was just stating the stat you quoted isn't at all related to what you said it was.

[PaKii94]

I think the discussion boils down to what you think Lauri can do with USAGE. Last year he wasn't utilized well. period. It's like having a lambo and the only use you get out of it is clearing the snow off the driveway. It'd do a sh*t job of it but that doesn't mean it's not a highly valuable performance car.

The key to Lauri is above average volume offense on above average efficiency while being a neutral in everything else. If you park him in the corner as a spacer, you negate everything about him and hope he can make an impact in his "neutral" traits. Then if he gets injured the balance on the "neutral" traits tilts towards below average and you get the mess of a season that you saw last year.

Lauri has almost NEVER gotten #1 usage. We have done a disservice to him. At least give him the chance to crash and burn. Porzingis when he came in became the defacto #1 and was allowed to chuck up shots and learn his game. FFS Coby was allowed to chuck up shots! But when it comes to Lauri he needs to be a team player....and with Lauri's mentality, he will do what is asked even if it's a detriment to his individual performance.

To address FebruLauri, THAT WASN'T A HOT STREAK. His shooting percentages weren't HOT. That was Lauri finally getting #1 usage! If you go back and read the pressers from that year, going into training camp, hoiberg specifically said he geared the majority of the offense around Lauri as the totem pole. Unfortunately Lauri suffered that injury to his shooting elbow and was out for the first few months. The Bulls looked disorganized and undisciplined with Zach doing his usual hero ball game breaking things during that time.

By the time Lauri came back, Hoiberg was already fired. He never got the chance to fully implement his offense. If you remember that dark time when Boylen took over, the team was a mess. Boylen ground everything to a halt. He said the "team had to walk before they could run" etc. He started implementing his (flawed) boyball that we saw full force last season (shots in the paint and 3s)

In February, Boylen specifically said he put some of the offensive sets back in as an option...HOIBERG'S offensive sets. The offensive sets that FEATURED Lauri. and we saw what came of it. Then the fatigue stuff happened, everyone got shut down, and Bulls finally went full on tank.

Last year, the hope was Lauri would be FEATURED with lavine but that wasn't the case. Lauri did regress initially at the beginning of the season (and he did have that oblique injury but we've discussed that enough) but he recovered quite well after the initial troubles. The only problem was he didn't get USAGE. He was never featured. I think that changes this year with Billy.

p36:
First 20 games - 16.2ppg on 35/28 41.7 EFG%, 49.2 TS%, 14.0 FGA
Last 30 games - 18.8ppg on 47/38 58 EFG%, 60.6 TS%, 14.4 FGA

He started hitting his shots but his usage never went back up to a featured role. Give him a few more shots closer to a #1 usage role and you'll see him blossom again into an easily 20ppg scorer [16.1 FGA career average, 17 FGA soph year/FebruLauri]

[PaKii94]

He does create gravity. Teams don’t slack off of him. But that wasn’t my point.

I disagree, because he doesn't move around much. A guy can play 8 feet off him and still be a threat to cover a huge segment of the floor and get back to defend his spot.

FWIW I think basketball index had Lauri at 85+ percentile with it's shooting gravity metric. I have to go back and check the actual number but Lauri does indeed have gravity. but it circles back to the point of "he doesn't move around as much". Do you really think that's on him? NONE of the players moved around besides the ball handler. That's Boyball for you! It would be one thing if this team was running motion/cutting offense on full steam and Lauri decides to sit in the corner but it was obviously the scheme they were running.

All indication from training camp now is they will NOW finally have movement and cutting instead of spacing and waiting for the ball handler to create.

[dougthonus]

Lauri has almost NEVER gotten #1 usage. We have done a disservice to him.

Lauri doesn't create his own shot, at least not in volume at an efficient level. I think it is nuts to make that criticism about a guy who doesn't create his own shot. No team exists to try and get a guy shots. To be #1 in usage you have to create efficient offense in isolation, through double teams, etc...

[PaKii94]

Lauri has almost NEVER gotten #1 usage. We have done a disservice to him.

Lauri doesn't create his own shot, at least not in volume at an efficient level. I think it is nuts to make that criticism about a guy who doesn't create his own shot. No team exists to try and get a guy shots. To be #1 in usage you have to create efficient offense in isolation, through double teams, etc...

I have addressed this too. Lauri creates more shots at greater rate than 90% of other bigs including star bigs. The only ones creating more shots than him is Jokic and KAT. It's all about the usage. With bigs, they need to get the ball at the right spots for them, not park them in the corner and make them isolate from the 3 point line.

Regardless, again, he HASN"T been given the opportunity to create (besides FebruLauri) in favorable situations. I want to see him at least get the opportunity to crash and burn. You have already made a decision on him without even giving him the keys to succeed.

[dougthonus]

I have addressed this too. Lauri creates more shots at greater rate than 90% of other bigs including star bigs. The only ones creating more shots than him is Jokic and KAT. It's all about the usage. With bigs, they need to get the ball at the right spots for them, not park them in the corner and make them isolate from the 3 point line.

If Lauri were a star player, he wouldn't need people to do all this work for him, and when people did, the team would thrive instead of being very poor. Lauri can be better than he was last year, but there isn't a star ceiling lurking in there unless he comes back with radically different skills and starts hitting pull up and off the dribble threes on guys or somehow miraculously gained a step of athleticism, radically increased ball handling, or developed real court vision.

Regardless, again, he HASN"T been given the opportunity to create (besides FebruLauri) in favorable situations. I want to see him at least get the opportunity to crash and burn. You have already made a decision on him without even giving him the keys to succeed.

You don't need to put a Camry in the Daytona 500 to know its going to lose. We haven't tried to feature Chandler Hutchison in the offense and make him #1 in usage either. I don't need to see that to know it won't work.

[PaKii94]

I have addressed this too. Lauri creates more shots at greater rate than 90% of other bigs including star bigs. The only ones creating more shots than him is Jokic and KAT. It's all about the usage. With bigs, they need to get the ball at the right spots for them, not park them in the corner and make them isolate from the 3 point line.

If Lauri were a star player, he wouldn't need people to do all this work for him, and when people did, the team would thrive instead of being very poor. Lauri can be better than he was last year, but there isn't a star ceiling lurking in there unless he comes back with radically different skills and starts hitting pull up and off the dribble threes on guys or somehow miraculously gained a step of athleticism, radically increased ball handling, or developed real court vision.

Wth. Why are you expecting a GOAT level creation ability from Lauri to be a star player? Like I said, he creates more than other star bigs. He doesn't have the USAGE of star bigs though. The reason the team is poor is the other way around. THERE AREN'T PEOPLE DOING WORK FOR HIM.

This was from back in June:
viewtopic.php?p=83436597#p83436597

You need to break that down into 2 point shots vs 3 point shots. Lauri took a lot more 3s compared to KAT (shot distribution wise) so his assisted rate will automatically be a lot higher:

2 point assisted -- unassisted:
KAT: 50.5 -- 49.5
KP: 69.5 -- 30.5
Lauri: 53.5 -- 46.5
Dirk: 59 -- 41 (2011 championship year)
Bosh: 64 -- 36 (2012 championship year)

3 point assisted -- unassisted:
KAT: 81.6 -- 18.4
KP: 96.8 -- 3.2
Lauri: 99.1 -- 0.9
Dirk: 97 -- 3 (2011 championship year)
Bosh: 100 -- 0 (2012 championship year)

I think you are unfairly holding Lauri to a much higher standard than he should be held at. Like I said above, KAT is a gold standard but we shouldn't look down at Lauri if he can't match his shot creation abilities. Lauri is actually closer to KAT with his shot creation vs KP.

His assisted rates compare pretty favorably to other big men. It's his USAGE which was wayyy down. Which again, the reason it was down was due to injury. That's why I split the shot charts up between november and december to show a little bit more nuance.

You don't want to give a hurt/soft/passive Lauri who is finishing at 41% at the rim more shots. That's understandable. But when a dude is at 70% finishing at the rim, he should be utilized more.

The argument you are making doesn't make any sense. It would disqualify pretty much any big man in the league from being a star then.

Regardless, again, he HASN"T been given the opportunity to create (besides FebruLauri) in favorable situations. I want to see him at least get the opportunity to crash and burn. You have already made a decision on him without even giving him the keys to succeed.

You don't need to put a Camry in the Daytona 500 to know its going to lose.

And yet that Camry when given the slightest and only opportunity at the Daytona 500 in 2019 was a top 10 fin(n)isher. Maybe some more effort should be given to see if that Camry can build on it instead of judging it after it was stripped and rusted in Boylen's junkyard

[dougthonus]

Wth. Why are you expecting a GOAT level creation ability from Lauri to be a star player? Like I said, he creates more than other star bigs. He doesn't have the USAGE of star bigs though. The reason the team is poor is the other way around. THERE AREN'T PEOPLE DOING WORK FOR HIM.

I didn't realize that KAT and Jokic were GOAT level players now. If you want Lauri to lead the team in usage, and you want the whole team to operate around getting Lauri shots because he can't get them himself, then Lauri should be able to be the #1 option on a really good team right? I mean if not, what is the point about designing everything to benefit Lauri and make him the #1 option?

I see absolutely no way that happens with him. Also "bigs" is sort of a weird comparison, because Lauri doesn't play like a big, he plays like a perimeter player. There aren't that many bigs that play like perimeter players out there really, at least not until you get to pseudo bigs and positionless basketball SFs types that are playing PF like Otto Porter suiting up there. I'm not sure who your sample size is who you are comparing to and where you get the stats to really argue against it, but Lauri had ~69% of his shots assisted last year. What star player had less created for them and how much less?

And yet that Camry when given the slightest and only opportunity at the Daytona 500 in 2019 was a top 10 fin(n)isher. Maybe some more effort should be given to see if that Camry can build on it instead of judging it after it was stripped and rusted in Boylen's junkyard

Never use an analogy of a sport you don't know

[cjbulls]

Putting up significant points without needing to dominate the ball is a valuable trait. You can’t have a bunch of player who generate usage with the ball in their hands. Lauri generates his offense largely within the flow of an offense. He may not be the creator, but it’s helpful to not have so many people who want to be the creator.

I don't think that's really that valuable unless the way you point up significant points makes it easier for everyone else, because he still is taking a lot of shots and usage for his points. What you need are guys that make everyone score more efficiently, and guys whom can allow others to score more efficiently without the ball in their hands are really valuable. The fact that Lauri can score a good amount of points and only control the ball when he's taking the shot doesn't really do much for you if his threat to score a lot of points by catching a kick out doesn't alter the defense of the opposing team, and as noted above, I don't think it really does.

I don't think he's awful on offense or anything. I just don't think he moves the needle on offense a whole lot relative to his points. If he were moving and guys were chasing all over and he could just always rise up against short players on mismatches, or do things like that it would be different.

The whole point of offense is to generate efficient scoring, so it’s weird to say scoring isn’t valuable unless....

If a guy can generate 20 points efficiently, who cares if he makes the other guys better. That isn’t his role. Just like you don’t say a rebounder isn’t valuable unless he can shoot 3s (or insert other random trait). I could see why you’d like to have it, but it’s unfair to attach that requirement, unless you want him to be a “star”.

[dougthonus]

The whole point of offense is to generate efficient scoring, so it’s weird to say scoring isn’t valuable unless....

If a guy can generate 20 points efficiently, who cares if he makes the other guys better. That isn’t his role. Just like you don’t say a rebounder isn’t valuable unless he can shoot 3s (or insert other random trait). I could see why you’d like to have it, but it’s unfair to attach that requirement, unless you want him to be a “star”.

Well this gets into the nuance of how efficiently does he score and how much he gives up on the other end, but yeah, I agree, if you aren't looking for Lauri to be a star, the bar is much lower. However, when I brought up Harrell as a guy who scores more efficiently and in higher volume, people got all kinds of upset about how he's a glorified garbage man, so it does make a bit of difference how much gravity you create, how much of that scoring is repeatable and requires the defense to adjust, etc... That said, if you want to sell me on the idea that Lauri can be a starting caliber player, you won't find much of an argument. I agree.

Is he a guy I want to pay 20M per year? No, he's not, at least not right now. Not unless he shows me a whole lot more than he showed this year. Of course, maybe he signs for 12M a year next year, and then I'm really happy to keep him. A lot of the consternation here for me is the upcoming FA period and lack of certainty on cost and my guesses as to what future cost will look like.

He's not a good enough player to keep no matter what. He's a guy you keep situationally based on his cost, and I expect his cost will prove higher than I value him, but I don't know for sure that will be true, it is a huge unknown.