Lets talk Zach Lavine

[PaKii94]

Read on Twitter

Lavine is averaging 36 mpg. When you play that much, on/off is a meaningless stat. Actually, it is pretty much a meaningless stat regardless of how many minutes you play, unless you split minutes evenly between every NBA player.

Team point diff is a widely lauded stat for assessing team quality. Who the best teams are in the league. In the Bulls 6 games where Zach scored 30+ points they are indeed 1-5. Their point diff for those 6 games is -2. Let that sink in. 1 win. 5 losses. But an overall net (not average) of -2 points. In the games where Zach scored less than 30 points the Bulls are indeed 3-3. The point diff for those games is -55. Again. Let that sink in.

So, are the Bulls more, or less, competitive when Lavine scores a lot of points?

Ortg and drtg aren't +/- stats. They take pace and minutes into consideration.

[PaKii94]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21

This was expected. He IS playing better than last year. Why? Cause he's not taking offense breaking tough shots. He's playing within the offense. Last year it was like 80% tough shots to 20% easy shots.

This year it's more like 70% easy shots to 30% tough shots. This change in balance should result in increased efficiency... Which is what we see here.


The problem is late game zach remains the same. 2 years ago, late game zach was Zach's default throughout the game. Last year, it was late game zach in the second half. This year it's isolated more towards end game. How does he improve? Incrementally as he gets more experience in those types of situations.


So I do think Lavine can continue to improve... However it's easily apparent the game isn't natural to him and that caps his ceiling.

[dice]

I don't really want to pile on Zach. He's obviously a good guy, hates losing, and has improved his playmaking this season - although he's still not a PG, not even close.

But the unfortunate fact remains that his teams have always been worse with him on the court. That's one thing that can not be explained away, not at this point in his career. He does not improve his teams.

And the NBA knows what he is. Wherever he plays after this contract, it won't be in an alpha dog role. He'll never again be paid to be a guy who is expcted to carry a team. That ship has sailed.

Except. hat isn't true. Here are the top 20 5 man lineups for the Bulls last season. 9 of them are positive. What player do the top 3 lineups, and 7 of the 9 positive lineups, all have in common? What are the total minutes of those 7 lineups compared to all the others?

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

You don't know that of which you speak.

tomas satoransky and zach lavine. magical chemistry, apparently

both the best AND the worst bulls lineups featured lavine. so you're building a one-sided, fraudulent case. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know of which you speak (as opposed to being intentionally deceptive)

the lineup data shows one interesting thing: for nearly 700 minutes last season, the 3 guard lineup of lavine/dunn/sato did remarkably well

[PaKii94]

I don't really want to pile on Zach. He's obviously a good guy, hates losing, and has improved his playmaking this season - although he's still not a PG, not even close.

But the unfortunate fact remains that his teams have always been worse with him on the court. That's one thing that can not be explained away, not at this point in his career. He does not improve his teams.

And the NBA knows what he is. Wherever he plays after this contract, it won't be in an alpha dog role. He'll never again be paid to be a guy who is expcted to carry a team. That ship has sailed.

Except. hat isn't true. Here are the top 20 5 man lineups for the Bulls last season. 9 of them are positive. What player do the top 3 lineups, and 7 of the 9 positive lineups, all have in common? What are the total minutes of those 7 lineups compared to all the others?

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

You don't know that of which you speak.

tomas satoransky and zach lavine. magical chemistry, apparently

both the best AND the worst bulls lineups featured lavine. so you're building a one-sided, fraudulent case. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know of which you speak (as opposed to being intentionally deceptive)

the lineup data shows one interesting thing: for nearly 700 minutes last season, the 3 guard lineup of lavine/dunn/sato did remarkably well

Why did that trio work well? Dunn covered Lavine's defense deficiencies while sato covered the playmaking deficiencies leaving Lavine to be the volume scorer

[DroseReturnChi]

This year it's more like 70% easy shots to 30% tough shots. This change in balance should result in increased efficiency... Which is what we see here.


The problem is late game zach remains the same. 2 years ago, late game zach was Zach's default throughout the game. Last year, it was late game zach in the second half. This year it's isolated more towards end game. How does he improve? Incrementally as he gets more experience in those types of situations.


So I do think Lavine can continue to improve... However it's easily apparent the game isn't natural to him and that caps his ceiling.

Just playing within the offense isnt enough. Otherwise, he would be in mcdonalds. its that 4th q decision making he hasnt improved a single inch. And he is a 7th yr vet. This guy doesnt have an ounce of intelligence im not sure how he even went to college at UCLA.
Rose who cheated was way more intelligent. Seems lavine's issue goes beyond bbiq. Somethings mentally wrong with him.
Also, his shooting is unsustainable and fts arent increasing i would trade asap. His numbers will plummet soon.

[Nate3carp]

This year it's more like 70% easy shots to 30% tough shots. This change in balance should result in increased efficiency... Which is what we see here.


The problem is late game zach remains the same. 2 years ago, late game zach was Zach's default throughout the game. Last year, it was late game zach in the second half. This year it's isolated more towards end game. How does he improve? Incrementally as he gets more experience in those types of situations.


So I do think Lavine can continue to improve... However it's easily apparent the game isn't natural to him and that caps his ceiling.

Just playing within the offense isnt enough. Otherwise, he would be in mcdonalds. its that 4th q decision making he hasnt improved a single inch. And he is a 7th yr vet. This guy doesnt have an ounce of intelligence im not sure how he even went to college at UCLA.
Rose who cheated was way more intelligent. Seems lavine's issue goes beyond bbiq. Somethings mentally wrong with him.
Also, his shooting is unsustainable and fts arent increasing i would trade asap. His numbers will plummet soon.

Why isn’t the shooting sustainable? I 100% believe it’s sustainable if the shot shot selection stays consistent. He is getting more open catch and shoot threes this year. Thats not debatable and he’s a killer shooter. Of course his percentages are a little up.

[FranchisePlayer]

Why can't Zach make his teammates better?

That's what you expect from a star player in this League.

You criticize the original post for treating Zach like he plays in a vacuum, and then you immediately imply that Zach is DOING HIS JOB by playing in a vacuum... where he can't be expected to have a positive effect on the play of his teammates.

This seems to be a very sensitive issue among the hard core Lavine fans. "He's doing his bit, lay off". With the amount of minutes and touches he gets with the ball, he HAS to have a positive effect on the play of his teammates.

Absurd to suggest otherwise.

I ask this not in disrespect but further discussion. How do we define "having a positive effect on the play of his teammates" and how is Zach doing it or not doing it? What requirement for this action is he not fulfilling?


Sent from somewhere you've never been.

Further discussion is good! How to define that is a tough question but since the team is losing more than winning that would be one sign of not having that positive effect. Unless you can argument that there has been positive effect on many of his teammates but it just hasn't materialized in winning games. I guess many expect team's #1 option to lead the team to wins so that one requirement he hasn't fulfilled.

Frankly, in few games I complimented Lavine for playing with team-first mentality, less than 20 FGA, glimpses of tough man-to-man defense. That's a better version of him. This high volume scoring and nothing more is not to my liking. Does it really motivate his teammates when he goes ISO a lot? Probably his numerous TO's have a negative on the team morale, I don't know.

Yeah, it feels like he's now doing offense 1 vs. 5 when in fact in those games where he had less ball and took less shots we were as competitive. Plus the more he uses energy on offense the less he has it on defense. I guess I prefer more balanced effort which I think has a positive effect on the play of everyone around him.

How do you see it - how is he having a positive effect on the play of his teammates?

[pipfan]

I think the bottom record is within reach, which would guarantee us a top 5 pick (in a lottery that projects 5 studs). Lavine's value should be at an all time high right now. Deal him (should get a great return), Porter and TYoung. Keep Sato for some stability. Keep all the kids, and see what happens, but go for that bottom record. I could really get behind a White/Cunningham/Williams/Lauri/Carter core, plus what we get from trading the guys-and we would have tons of cap space.

[MisterRoy]

This seems to be a very sensitive issue among the hard core Lavine fans. "He's doing his bit, lay off". With the amount of minutes and touches he gets with the ball, he HAS to have a positive effect on the play of his teammates.

Absurd to suggest otherwise.

I ask this not in disrespect but further discussion. How do we define "having a positive effect on the play of his teammates" and how is Zach doing it or not doing it? What requirement for this action is he not fulfilling?


Sent from somewhere you've never been.

Further discussion is good! How to define that is a tough question but since the team is losing more than winning that would be one sign of not having that positive effect. Unless you can argument that there has been positive effect on many of his teammates but it just hasn't materialized in winning games. I guess many expect team's #1 option to lead the team to wins so that one requirement he hasn't fulfilled.

Frankly, in few games I complimented Lavine for playing with team-first mentality, less than 20 FGA, glimpses of tough man-to-man defense. That's a better version of him. This high volume scoring and nothing more is not to my liking. Does it really motivate his teammates when he goes ISO a lot? Probably his numerous TO's have a negative on the team morale, I don't know.

Yeah, it feels like he's now doing offense 1 vs. 5 when in fact in those games where he had less ball and took less shots we were as competitive. Plus the more he uses energy on offense the less he has it on defense. I guess I prefer more balanced effort which I think has a positive effect on the play of everyone around him.

How do you see it - how is he having a positive effect on the play of his teammates?

I've only been able to watch a few games so far this season and I've seen the Zach that is making the right decisions shooting, finding the open teammates in their spots, etc. (When I am being analytical and not just enjoying the game) To me, putting your teammates in a position to be successful makes them better. Making the right play For Them makes them better. I've seen that from him. All the time? No but I've seen it. I feel like I've seen a lot of improvement since last season from him...and that's it. The other players look like they are picking up right where they left off last season.

It's tough to look at stats to support or not support that when you see the open teammates (ahem, Wendel, ahem) drop the pass that was thrown to them in their spots. That turns into a negative stat against Zach and he didn't do anything wrong. Does it happen all the time, no, but it happens. I would love to know how many of his turn overs are his fault and how many are not.

I think his learning how to take that last shot in a clutch situation is a work in progress. He has made some bone headed decisions at the end of the game but he will figure it out. We have a new coach that is right for our team. The more they practice and the more he teaches the better the product will be.


Sent from somewhere you've never been.

[Stratmaster]

Read on Twitter

Lavine is averaging 36 mpg. When you play that much, on/off is a meaningless stat. Actually, it is pretty much a meaningless stat regardless of how many minutes you play, unless you split minutes evenly between every NBA player.

Team point diff is a widely lauded stat for assessing team quality. Who the best teams are in the league. In the Bulls 6 games where Zach scored 30+ points they are indeed 1-5. Their point diff for those 6 games is -2. Let that sink in. 1 win. 5 losses. But an overall net (not average) of -2 points. In the games where Zach scored less than 30 points the Bulls are indeed 3-3. The point diff for those games is -55. Again. Let that sink in.

So, are the Bulls more, or less, competitive when Lavine scores a lot of points?

Ortg and drtg aren't +/- stats. They take pace and minutes into consideration.

Ok?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

I don't really want to pile on Zach. He's obviously a good guy, hates losing, and has improved his playmaking this season - although he's still not a PG, not even close.

But the unfortunate fact remains that his teams have always been worse with him on the court. That's one thing that can not be explained away, not at this point in his career. He does not improve his teams.

And the NBA knows what he is. Wherever he plays after this contract, it won't be in an alpha dog role. He'll never again be paid to be a guy who is expcted to carry a team. That ship has sailed.

Except. hat isn't true. Here are the top 20 5 man lineups for the Bulls last season. 9 of them are positive. What player do the top 3 lineups, and 7 of the 9 positive lineups, all have in common? What are the total minutes of those 7 lineups compared to all the others?

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

You don't know that of which you speak.

tomas satoransky and zach lavine. magical chemistry, apparently

both the best AND the worst bulls lineups featured lavine. so you're building a one-sided, fraudulent case. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know of which you speak (as opposed to being intentionally deceptive)

the lineup data shows one interesting thing: for nearly 700 minutes last season, the 3 guard lineup of lavine/dunn/sato did remarkably well

Which is why I suggested totaling up the minutes in the lineups. How many minutes were in the top 3 lineups with Lavine and how many in the bottom 3?

Or do I need to explain to you how volume of minutes affect this equation?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Kukoc-Lauri]

Don't mind trading lavine

But its quite a few players that need to leave before him.

Problem with that is, Lavine have solid value in league while most of others dont. Doubt we could get 1 round pick for Carter. Lauri probably could fettched late first, i dont think teams really wants White. Maybe Porter can gets you better player but on large multiyear contract which is considered as bad deal like Wiggins,Horford, perhaps Harris. Sato,Young in best case early second rounders, other players only as sallary fillers.

[weneeda2guard]

Don't mind trading lavine

But its quite a few players that need to leave before him.

Problem with that is, Lavine have solid value in league while most of others dont. Doubt we could get 1 round pick for Carter. Lauri probably could fettched late first, i dont think teams really wants White. Maybe Porter can gets you better player but on large multiyear contract which is considered as bad deal like Wiggins,Horford, perhaps Harris. Sato,Young in best case early second rounders, other players only as sallary fillers.

You dont just make trades to make them. If a deal for lavine is a kings ransom i.e couple young prospects 2-3 picks sure but if thats not the case hold on to your talent and develop them until it starts to look like something for the future.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I see Zach as more of a 2b than a 1b.

Ideally, we'd have:

1. A+ lead initiator
2a. High feel, two-way player with multiple ways to impact game
2b. Potent scorer with limited decision-making duties (e.g. Zach)

I'm hard-pressed to think of a successful rebuild that's started out with a 2b. Guys in this mold eventually a) get traded for draft assets (or in DeRozan's case, a star package), b) ask out so they can win, c) ask out because their role is reduced on a team trying to win. For the most part, they get moved in their primes, which is interesting. Guys who are good but not great are hard freight to carry, both contractually and because they often leave you stuck in no-man's land, winning wise.

Some examples.

DeRozan: Second-best player on a 2nd round exit team before being traded for a #1.
Aldridge: Second-best player on a 1st round exit team before he asked for trade; hasn't won a playoff series since
Kevin Martin: Bounced around on 1st round exit and lottery teams
Carmelo: Played for 2nd round exit teams (Denver, NYK) before latter year rebrand as role player

[chrispatrick]

Read on Twitter

Lavine is averaging 36 mpg. When you play that much, on/off is a meaningless stat. Actually, it is pretty much a meaningless stat regardless of how many minutes you play, unless you split minutes evenly between every NBA player.

Team point diff is a widely lauded stat for assessing team quality. Who the best teams are in the league. In the Bulls 6 games where Zach scored 30+ points they are indeed 1-5. Their point diff for those 6 games is -2. Let that sink in. 1 win. 5 losses. But an overall net (not average) of -2 points. In the games where Zach scored less than 30 points the Bulls are indeed 3-3. The point diff for those games is -55. Again. Let that sink in.

So, are the Bulls more, or less, competitive when Lavine scores a lot of points?

I feel like people have come up with reasons why LaVine's horrible plus/minus can be dismissed every year of his career going back to his rookie year, and then it just keeps happening, over and over and over and over again. I don't know how you dismiss something that is so consistent from year to year and it's pretty common with guys who have similar flaws (poor decision makers who hurt you defensively).

While most players have outlier years, the stat is largely consistent and repeatable from year to year, which is why you see a guy like Butler with a positive impact no matter the team or situation.

[WindyCityBorn]

I still say Zach biggest problem right now is not playing with an elite playmaker. Coby will never be one...

[dice]

Except. hat isn't true. Here are the top 20 5 man lineups for the Bulls last season. 9 of them are positive. What player do the top 3 lineups, and 7 of the 9 positive lineups, all have in common? What are the total minutes of those 7 lineups compared to all the others?

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

You don't know that of which you speak.

tomas satoransky and zach lavine. magical chemistry, apparently

both the best AND the worst bulls lineups featured lavine. so you're building a one-sided, fraudulent case. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know of which you speak (as opposed to being intentionally deceptive)

the lineup data shows one interesting thing: for nearly 700 minutes last season, the 3 guard lineup of lavine/dunn/sato did remarkably well

Which is why I suggested totaling up the minutes in the lineups. How many minutes were in the top 3 lineups with Lavine and how many in the bottom 3?

Or do I need to explain to you how volume of minutes affect this equation?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

do i need to explain to you that even the largest minutes combo there is miniscule?

your argument is effectively "yeah, the best bulls lineups (largely featuring lavine) are small sample sizes, but the worst lineups (largely featuring lavine) are even smaller sample sizes. so ignore those"

so how 'bout we ignore the 5 man lineups that were minimally impactful one way or the other (+/- 1.8 per 100 possessions). that leaves 9 lineups featuring lavine that were notable (3 strongly positive and 6 strongly negative):

+26.9 in 30 mins
+9.4 in 65 mins
+7.8 in 317 mins

avg. of strongly positive impact lavine lineups: +9.4 (412 min total)

-33.5 in 52 mins
-22.1 in 36 mins
-14.7 in 77 mins
-11.9 in 42 mins
-9.8 in 29 mins
-8.0 in 36 mins

avg. of strongly negative impact lavine lineups: -17.4 (272 min total)

when you avoid biases that lead to cherry-picking, the whole of the data does not shine favorably on zach lavine. now, does it necessarily mean that he was a net negative player last season? of course not. because his teammates sucked. that's where the advanced +/- stats come in

[Stratmaster]

tomas satoransky and zach lavine. magical chemistry, apparently

both the best AND the worst bulls lineups featured lavine. so you're building a one-sided, fraudulent case. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know of which you speak (as opposed to being intentionally deceptive)

the lineup data shows one interesting thing: for nearly 700 minutes last season, the 3 guard lineup of lavine/dunn/sato did remarkably well

Which is why I suggested totaling up the minutes in the lineups. How many minutes were in the top 3 lineups with Lavine and how many in the bottom 3?

Or do I need to explain to you how volume of minutes affect this equation?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

do i need to explain to you that even the largest minutes combo there is miniscule?

your argument is effectively "yeah, the best bulls lineups (largely featuring lavine) are small sample sizes, but the worst lineups (largely featuring lavine) are even smaller sample sizes. so ignore those"

so how 'bout we ignore the 5 man lineups that were minimally impactful one way or the other (+/- 1.8 per 100 possessions). that leaves 9 lineups featuring lavine that were notable (3 strongly positive and 6 strongly negative):

+26.9 in 30 mins
+9.4 in 65 mins
+7.8 in 317 mins

avg. of strongly positive impact lavine lineups: +9.4 (412 min total)

-33.5 in 52 mins
-22.1 in 36 mins
-14.7 in 77 mins
-11.9 in 42 mins
-9.8 in 29 mins
-8.0 in 36 mins

avg. of strongly negative impact lavine lineups: -17.4 (272 min total)

when you avoid biases that lead to cherry-picking, the whole of the data does not shine favorably on zach lavine. now, does it necessarily mean that he was a net negative player last season? of course not. because his teammates sucked. that's where the advanced +/- stats come in

And obviously you are cherry-picking. Maybe that was your point, IDK? Why would you ignore lineups with minimal impact if they have more minutes? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

What comment was I responding to when I posted the lineups? The comment was "teams have always been worse with Zach Lavine on the court". I stated that was not true. Do the lineup stats indicate that the Bulls were always worse when Zach was on the floor or do they support my assertion that the team was not always worse when Zach was on the floor?

Once again, you are arguing just to argue. I am not sure if you are trying to prove you know how to calculate stats better than I do or what (the exact number is -17.4319852). You are on ignore, and I only open your posts when they are a direct response to one of mine. If you want to address the actual point that was being made, great. If you just want to compare dicks, please don't bother.

[dice]

Which is why I suggested totaling up the minutes in the lineups. How many minutes were in the top 3 lineups with Lavine and how many in the bottom 3?

Or do I need to explain to you how volume of minutes affect this equation?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

do i need to explain to you that even the largest minutes combo there is miniscule?

your argument is effectively "yeah, the best bulls lineups (largely featuring lavine) are small sample sizes, but the worst lineups (largely featuring lavine) are even smaller sample sizes. so ignore those"

so how 'bout we ignore the 5 man lineups that were minimally impactful one way or the other (+/- 1.8 per 100 possessions). that leaves 9 lineups featuring lavine that were notable (3 strongly positive and 6 strongly negative):

+26.9 in 30 mins
+9.4 in 65 mins
+7.8 in 317 mins

avg. of strongly positive impact lavine lineups: +9.4 (412 min total)

-33.5 in 52 mins
-22.1 in 36 mins
-14.7 in 77 mins
-11.9 in 42 mins
-9.8 in 29 mins
-8.0 in 36 mins

avg. of strongly negative impact lavine lineups: -17.4 (272 min total)

when you avoid biases that lead to cherry-picking, the whole of the data does not shine favorably on zach lavine. now, does it necessarily mean that he was a net negative player last season? of course not. because his teammates sucked. that's where the advanced +/- stats come in

And obviously you are cherry-picking. Maybe that was your point, IDK? Why would you ignore lineups with minimal impact if they have more minutes? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

i did/suggested nothing of the sort. you're making **** up. i presented the FULL picture, you only presented the positives. it's plain as day. everyone can see it. you just keep digging the hole deeper

The comment was "teams have always been worse with Zach Lavine on the court". I stated that was not true. Do the lineup stats indicate that the Bulls were always worse when Zach was on the floor or do they support my assertion that the team was not always worse when Zach was on the floor?

he was not talking about EVERY lineup for EVERY season. clearly. nobody would make that argument

he was talking about the entire season! EVERY lineup combined. in which lavine was indeed a net negative. and you said that he didn't know what he was talking about simply because he dared to point out the truth

Once again, you are arguing just to argue. I am not sure if you are trying to prove you know how to calculate stats better than I do or what (the exact number is -17.4319852).

talk about arguing just to argue!

i was merely highlighting your gross bias. it's certainly not about calculating stats. what a ridiculous suggestion

i sure hope that lavine is at least paying you to stan for him. 'cause that's a pretty sad job

[MrFortune3]

My opinion on Zach remains the same. Keep him.

He's getting better each year and he will allow Pwill to come along at just the right pace in usage.