Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread: PT 2

[WindyCityBorn]

They have lost their damn minds.

He became soft IMO. I honestly don’t think he cares as much about basketball as he used to. The guy that lit Madison Square Garden up against Porzingis as a rookie doesn’t exist any more. That player looked like a future star.

And yes I know lots of players have kids young. But most of them don’t actually marry the woman and raise them as a family unit. I really do think it changed his perspective on life and made basketball less important.

Unfortunately these kind of senseless arguments cast a shadow on other more thoughtful critical observations about Markkanen. Claiming that the Bulls organization did everything they could in developing Markkanen as a player based on 36 PER career FGA stats is not too convincing either. Looks like I'm slowly becoming a member of the Lauristan tribe....

You were always one.

[coldfish]

Spoiler:

I'll try to comment on the last couple of pages of comments:

* On Bobby Portis--I haven't watched him with Bucs, but saw most of his games in a Bulls uniform and several in DC and NYK.

For one, both with the Bulls and in NY, Bobby was mostly a bum-slayer off the bench. I don't mean that in a derogative way. These kind of players have their uses. If I have to choose a back-up, aggressive bench big, I'd actually rather have him for 20 min/ game than Lauri.

However, there are reasons why Bobby could never break low 20 minutes per game as a player no matter who his front court partners were, despite his productivity--and that was, at least with us, he was Drew Gooden-level 'trrble on defense. Bobby had incredibly slow feet on D, poor anticipation, didn't know how to rotate, etc. On a young team where everyone sucks that may not be an issue, but here, he played on a playoff team behind Taj and Niko and his lack of basic ability to play man D OR help D stood out like a sore thumb. He didn't get any better under Freddy-boy. If he got better on D this year, that would actually probably make him a heavier minute rotational player. Given that neither the Knicks or the Bucs gave him such minutes probably means that he's still some variation of barely passable defender. Just an assumption on my part. Bobby' also a very short big (perhaps that long neck of his?) because his standing reach of 8'11 is puny for an NBA big, especially one with very heavy feet. For context, Lauri had a 9'2 standing reach as a 17-18 year old in HS.

Secondly, Bobby was a non-entity on other team's scouting reports, at least with the Bulls. There was an entire season here where he was the designated shooter from the opposing team's D. They straight up left him open all game. Not his fault, he made the best out of it, but the moment somebody actually started to game-plan for him (like the Celts in the playoffs) he crapped the bed 'bigly' because back then he was nowhere near good enough to overcome his limitations. He averaged what? Like 5 points per game, after the C's started paying attention to him post game 1?

Thirdly, Bobby was a good shooter from 3 with us as well--but the D isn't afraid of somebody who'll shoot 2 threes a game and make one of them. They could care less. What scares defenses is somebody who can jack up 7-8 and make 5-6, if you get unlucky that day. That's why guys like Niko and Lauri were face-guarded, while Bobby's dude was chilling in the paint no matter where Bobby was on the court. Shooting percentages don't tell the whole story. To add to that, Bobby may be only an inch or two shorter than Lauri, but Lauri has an incredibly quick trigger and very high release point on his shot, and Bobby doesn't. Hence, he can get it off with a guy closing hard on him or already in his face. Bobby can't even take that shot, which is again, no knock on him--most players can't shoot on top of defenders like Lauri can.

* On Lauri--I've said that before--but IMO, it's a combination of Lauri's (lack of) attitude and the Bulls being dimwits about what to do with him, his entire career here. Funnily enough, Freddy boy had him figured out better than every other coach he's had since. Fred was the only coach who let him play. People have kind of forgotten, but there was a reason for the Dirk comparisons. The last month or two of his rookie season Lauri was balling like I haven't seen him ball ever since. He was handling the ball in the P&R. He was shooting mid-range shots over people and making them. He was popping 3s off the dribble. Dude had a long stretch where he was getting benched the entire 4th because he was playing so well (about 20 ppg in roughly 20 minutes per game, if memory serves me right) that he was single-handedly keeping Bulls in games that we were actively trying to lose.

Then, he came back heavier the next year, but still played well, then he came back even more ripped and supposedly 25 pounds heavier compared to him as a rook under Jimbo last year. If you dig up my posts from back then, it was clear to me that the Bulls wanted him to play C, and supposedly told him (and WCJ) to get heavier, but to me that ruined his physical advantages from his early seasons--that he was a quick, fast and athletic 7 footer. Lauri needs to play at 225-228 pounds, IMO, not at 245 because his body obviously can't handle the added weight without losing athleticism.

As for how he's used--sometimes I wonder if the current generation of coaches are so blinded by analytics that they've forgotten 50 years of accumulated hoops knowledge. Yes, if you're trying to post up a guy your size who's a good defender, that's a crappier shot than most. However, a pin down or low post play against a guy who's half-a-foot shorter is NOT a bad play, unless that guy's name is Rodman or Artest. Yes, a contested long two is a crappy shot. But, an open 17 footer is a shot most pros can make at a very decent clip. You don't take that out of the playbook because overall, mid-range shots are a poor outcome.

I am certain that I can design an offense where Lauri can get you Vuc level of points (say 22 ppg) in the same minutes as Vuc, but on 20% fewer touches than Vuc (60 versus 75). Yeah, it will need to have a bit more structure around it than the complete freedom our guys play with currently, but it's not that effin' hard. There's nobody who can convince me that a bunch of grown men who are pros are not bright enough to remember how to execute two/three options on a dozen plays. Just can't buy that. If that's actually the case, it means that the players on the team are functional hoop idiots and you need to ship them out of town on the first flight out.

Some fellow posters think I'm asking the coaching staff to bend the space-time continuum or something. What I'm asking is for people to simply play smart ball, not blindly follow "the system". What I've described is how smart teams used to play when I was growing up and learning to play hoops and how smart teams play now. If you have a big mismatch, you go at it until the other team proves they can stop it. We don't do that and haven't done that in eons. That's what Nick Nurse was referring to with his Lauri comments--they had nobody they could put on him that could stop him and he killed them in his limited minutes. In the Thibs contention years, I remember Pop went at Boozer something like a dozen straight times one game, despite the Spurs running a beautiful motion system otherwise. They scored on most of them. We do not even try to go at the weak link most games.

For Lauri, that means not just chilling in the corner, even though that's what his spot in the system is. It means cutting every time he's guarded by a 6'7 guy, all freakin' game. He shoots 75% at the rim and is actually pretty decent this year at pinning players down. Yeah, nobody outside of Theis knows how to throw a pin-down pass, and Lauri definitely needs to work on not bringing the ball down, but when you can't punish a team for putting a small on Lauri when he's that good near the hoop is a team issue, not a Lauri-alone issue.

If Lauri had Bobby's maniacal drive to jack up a shot every time he touches the ball, and not to give a shyte about offensive schemes and such, Lauri would probably have been an all-star a time or two. As I've noted, Lauri's problem has been and currently is between the ears, and that's what the staff should have focused on solving, both for him and for his teammates, instead of telling him to look like Ivan Drago. Lauri obviously didn't know HOW to play coming here. He's incredibly talented for a 7 footer, and he's made strides on both sides this year, but he still doesn't know how to play and when to dial up his aggression.

If somebody can teach him, they'll get themselves an all-star quality player for what is shaping up to be under $20M per. It's an effin' shame it won't happen here because having cheap production allows your team to overpay for good production somewhere else.

Its funny but your description of Bobby looks exactly like what I see with Lauri.

Let's back up a second. The Bulls earlier this year actually had a play specifically for Lauri. It was this off ball double screen that Lauri ran around to get an open 3. Invariably, it would work once or twice in a game and then (since NBA players aren't idiots), defenders would jump it when they saw the screens being set. The Bulls would just run off a section of clock with no result. They since have largely given up on that play.

During the season, I have seen a grand total of zero teams come in with a game plan for Lauri. Only one, NY, adjusted in game to take him out schematically and did so easily.

Lauri is, as you say, a bum slayer who just gets opportunity baskets. Defenders at this level are smart enough that they don't get burned by the type of action you are describing repeatedly.

Beyond that, he seems to have acquired slow feet. Like Bobby, he shoots when he gets the ball . . . a lot. Which is probably why his FG per minute are right in line with Bobby.

Shooting percentages don't tell the whole story. To add to that, Bobby may be only an inch or two shorter than Lauri, but Lauri has an incredibly quick trigger and very high release point on his shot, and Bobby doesn't. Hence, he can get it off with a guy closing hard on him or already in his face. Bobby can't even take that shot, which is again, no knock on him--most players can't shoot on top of defenders like Lauri can.

This isn't true. Lauri struggles mightily with a defender close to him. People here have posted the stats.

Defender distance for 3p shots:
Lauri
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 25.0%
4-6 feet: 33.3%
6+ feet: 42.2%

Bobby
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 28.6%
4-6 feet: 36.0%
6+ feet: 58.7%

[coldfish]

They have lost their damn minds.

He became soft IMO. I honestly don’t think he cares as much about basketball as he used to. The guy that lit Madison Square Garden up against Porzingis as a rookie doesn’t exist any more. That player looked like a future star.

And yes I know lots of players have kids young. But most of them don’t actually marry the woman and raise them as a family unit. I really do think it changed his perspective on life and made basketball less important.

Unfortunately these kind of senseless arguments cast a shadow on other more thoughtful critical observations about Markkanen. Claiming that the Bulls organization did everything they could in developing Markkanen as a player based on 36 PER career FGA stats is not too convincing either. Looks like I'm slowly becoming a member of the Lauristan tribe....

You know you just sliced one part of the discussion out and just created a straw man, right? Lauri started, got lots of shots, got lots of minutes, got lots of different roles on both offense and defense, etc. Very few players get as many opportunities for as long as the Bulls gave Lauri.

[Robin Jones]

UPDATE: Sample size of 13 games:

Markkanen +11
Vucevic -79
Theis -36
Young -3
Lavine -8
White -11
Williams -97
Sato -53

UPDATE: Sample size of 15 games. Temple, Brown and Valentine added.:

Markkanen +15
Vucevic -97
Theis -53
Young -3
Lavine -8
White -16
Williams -93
Sato -53
Temple -30
Brown +67
Valentine -30

It seems that it makes some sense to give Lauri minutes.

Brown has the best +/- of all after the major trade. Perhaps he could have helped yesterday as well?

UPDATE: Sample size of 16 games.

Markkanen +22
Vucevic -73
Theis -47
Young +13
Lavine -8
White +9
Williams -86
Sato -58
Temple -10
Brown +67
Valentine -31

UPDATE: Sample size of 17 games.

Markkanen +32
Vucevic -75
Theis -52
Young +11
Lavine -8
White +5
Williams -95
Sato -62
Temple -21
Brown +67
Valentine -24

To repeat: Markkanen has some issues with regards to his development to a great NBA player, but he is not the reason for the Bulls' struggles, vice versa. He is not bust, scrub, whatever terms some 'fans' have used here, for whatever reasons.

He is a good NBA player, who should and could be a starter even in competing teams.

The Bulls' key issues before the trades were interior defence and point guard play.

The Bulls' key issues after the trades seem to be interior defence and point guard play.

Markkanen has something to do with the former, but not being the major issue, though. Markkanen has nothing to do with the latter. Actually, Markkanen would be even better player, if there is a good interior defender and a good PG in the team, but he is also among the best Bulls' players even in this current situation, with the abovementioned issues.

[ZOMG]

UPDATE: Sample size of 17 games.

Markkanen +32
Vucevic -75
Theis -52
Young +11
Lavine -8
White +5
Williams -95
Sato -62
Temple -21
Brown +67
Valentine -24

[TallDude]

UPDATE: Sample size of 15 games. Temple, Brown and Valentine added.:

Markkanen +15
Vucevic -97
Theis -53
Young -3
Lavine -8
White -16
Williams -93
Sato -53
Temple -30
Brown +67
Valentine -30

It seems that it makes some sense to give Lauri minutes.

Brown has the best +/- of all after the major trade. Perhaps he could have helped yesterday as well?

UPDATE: Sample size of 16 games.

Markkanen +22
Vucevic -73
Theis -47
Young +13
Lavine -8
White +9
Williams -86
Sato -58
Temple -10
Brown +67
Valentine -31

UPDATE: Sample size of 17 games.

Markkanen +32
Vucevic -75
Theis -52
Young +11
Lavine -8
White +5
Williams -95
Sato -62
Temple -21
Brown +67
Valentine -24

To repeat: Markkanen has some issues with regards to his development to a great NBA player, but he is not the reason for the Bulls' struggles, vice versa. He is not bust, scrub, whatever terms some 'fans' have used here, for whatever reasons.

He is a good NBA player, who should and could be a starter even in competing teams.

The Bulls' key issues before the trades were interior defence and point guard play.

The Bulls' key issues after the trades seem to be interior defence and point guard play.

Markkanen has something to do with the former, but not being the major issue, though. Markkanen has nothing to do with the latter. Actually, Markkanen would be even better player, if there is a good interior defender and a good PG in the team, but he is also among the best Bulls' players even in this current situation, with the abovementioned issues.

I was watching game. Lauri play for team and that is something what most don`t understand here. He moves a ball very well. He do not try to make hero assists wich kill us last night. We did lose because our starters could not handle the ball. Lauri was solid and his only turnover was because Vuc somehow moved away position where he should have been. I guess lost his balance for second?

But Lauri was not getting much touches. And with real PG Lauri should have 15 points. He was so open few times but did not get that extra pass. Bulls have serious problem with Lack of BB IQ. Bulls is also world champ of relasimg good players for cheap.

[FanInTheAttic]

He became soft IMO. I honestly don’t think he cares as much about basketball as he used to. The guy that lit Madison Square Garden up against Porzingis as a rookie doesn’t exist any more. That player looked like a future star.

And yes I know lots of players have kids young. But most of them don’t actually marry the woman and raise them as a family unit. I really do think it changed his perspective on life and made basketball less important.

Unfortunately these kind of senseless arguments cast a shadow on other more thoughtful critical observations about Markkanen. Claiming that the Bulls organization did everything they could in developing Markkanen as a player based on 36 PER career FGA stats is not too convincing either. Looks like I'm slowly becoming a member of the Lauristan tribe....

You know you just sliced one part of the discussion out and just created a straw man, right? Lauri started, got lots of shots, got lots of minutes, got lots of different roles on both offense and defense, etc. Very few players get as many opportunities for as long as the Bulls gave Lauri.

You might be right, like I have stated before, I'm not arguing against you on this. I actually have the same feeling about Lauri's opportunities with the Bulls, but I haven't seen the data to support this. Comparing 36 PER career stats with players from different era isn't enough to support this argument IMO, but your comment about straw man is correct, my bad.

[chefo]

This isn't true. Lauri struggles mightily with a defender close to him. People here have posted the stats.

Defender distance for 3p shots:
Lauri
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 25.0%
4-6 feet: 33.3%
6+ feet: 42.2%

Bobby
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 28.6%
4-6 feet: 36.0%
6+ feet: 58.7%

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is better when wide open this year. Good for him. You are correct, if Bobby keeps shooting near 50% on threes, and 60% on open 3s, even just a couple / game, that's glorious shooting. It's also probably a huge statistical outlier for a player who shoots 38% from 3 for his career.

The contested numbers are also statistical noise that's meaningless because:
# of attempts per game:

Bobby:
2-4: 0.1--Yeah, he's tried like 7 shots all year; a single make or miss makes the difference
4-6 feet: 0.9 shots a game, or ~50 all year, in 55 games, of which he's made a total of 18; if Bobby misses 1 more out of his 50, he's right there with Lauri percentage-wise
6+: 1.4 or around 80 shots

Lauri:
2-4: 0.2 --Yeah, Lauri's tried 8 of these all year and made 2, just like Bobby; for refence, one of them was the the last second heave in Q1 two games ago; if he doesn't take that shot (which would have been a bad decision), he's at the same % as Bobby
4-6: 1.5 -- So 60, so far, in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 11 more in 15 fewer games, and has actually made 20, or more than Bobby on the season
6+: 4.5 or 180 in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 2.2x in 15 fewer games or 3x more per game

You're still not addressing the main point I brought up--volume. Before the benching, Lauri was attempting 2.5x as many 3s as Bobby and making near 3 a game. Bobby was making 1 a game. If Bobby can find a way to shoot 7 3s a game at his current percentages, he'll be making $20M as well and his team would be happy to pay him that. But given that he's been around 2.5 attempts his entire career, that probably isn't happening. Being able to get to a spot to get a shot up and then get it up is a skill just like making them.

By the way, even this year, Lauri is being guarded as a really good shooter--somebody posted the gravity stats sometime ago. I'd be curious to see how Bobby is being guarded. From the couple of Bucks games I've watched, it's the same as he always has--as in, nobody cares he's on the floor, despite his stellar percentages.

What this tells me that Bobby has smartened up some this year and has been spectacular at making his 1 wide open attempt each game--which is good but nothing the D has to really worry about--because you know that's not moving the needle.

BTW, I find the distance of what's considered an open shot hilarious and that's having played against guys that are nowhere near the size or as athletic as NBA players. Most players have a standing reach of 8 feet plus. That's obviously without jumping. Add another 3 feet of ups to that. Big guys have a standing reach of 9 feet plus. The really long ones are at 9 and a half. A 6'8 guy with a 9 foot reach flying at you is not the same as a 6'0 guy that's 6 feet to your side.

The NBA needs to do better, because that stat is utterly meaningless from a game perspective. That's not to defend Lauri--as I said, Bobby has been a better open shooter it looks like, just as a general observation. A vastly better stat would be if there's a guy contesting at all, how close the contest is, and how big said guy is.

P.S.
Just to put things into perspective:

Bobby will take 1 contested 3 per game, and he'll make 1 every 3 games.
Bobby will take 1 to 2 "open" threes a game, and make half of these shots

Lauri will take 2 contested 3s a game and will make 1 2 out every 3 games.
Lauri will take 5 "open"' 3s a game and make 2 of these.

That's a 'uuge difference, which was already discussed. Nobody cares for a guy that is expected to make 1 three per game with a standard deviation of probably half a make, no matter his %. You care about a guy that makes 3 per game, which a standard deviation of probably a full make or more, especially since that guy actually does shoot 40% on 3s and is expected to attempt a bunch of them.

P.S. 2
Bobby on the season gets about the same amount of touches as Lauri. Let that sink in for a second. Bobby's at 11 ppg at 35. Lauri was at 18 ppg at 40 touches per game. And, as you pointed out, Bobby's been balling out of his mind this year in terms of shooting and TS%. Perhaps, it's because he's playing with 3 all-star types that demand attention? Either way, he's outplaying his contracts by orders of magnitude. Bulls, DC, and NYK Bobby was worth exactly how much he's getting paid now with his 53% career TS. This version of him is worth quite a bit more, if a GM assumes he can keep it up, which is not a given.

[Neonblazer]

I'm actually going to go out with a hot take here, Lauri is actually underrated passer and that's mainly been hidden because Bulls have used him as "finisher". Lauri is often used late in the clock where he either shoots or has to pass the ball to a point guard.
There was one moment in last nights game where Lauri passed the ball to Theis in the post and Theis looked like he didn't know what to do with the ball because he wasn't expecting to get it even though he was free in the post.

I'm not going to act like I know whats going on with the Bulls but all this is just bizarre.

Edit. The whole comparison between Portis and Lauri is kinda funny considering Lauri hasn't punched anyone in the face. That might have something to do with how much teams are willing to pay Portis.

[WindyCityBorn]

I'm actually going to go out with a hot take here, Lauri is actually underrated passer and that's mainly been hidden because Bulls have used him as "finisher". Lauri is often used late in the clock where he either shoots or has to pass the ball to a point guard.
There was one moment in last nights game where Lauri passed the ball to Theis in the post and Theis looked like he didn't know what to do with the ball because he wasn't expecting to get it even though he was free in the post.

I'm not going to act like I know whats going on with the Bulls but all this is just bizarre.

Edit. The whole comparison between Portis and Lauri is kinda funny considering Lauri hasn't punched anyone in the face. That might have something to with how much teams are willing to pay Portis.

Lauri sucks as a passer.

[coldfish]

This isn't true. Lauri struggles mightily with a defender close to him. People here have posted the stats.

Defender distance for 3p shots:
Lauri
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 25.0%
4-6 feet: 33.3%
6+ feet: 42.2%

Bobby
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 28.6%
4-6 feet: 36.0%
6+ feet: 58.7%

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is better when wide open this year. Good for him. You are correct, if Bobby keeps shooting near 50% on threes, and 60% on open 3s, even just a couple / game, that's glorious shooting. It's also probably a huge statistical outlier for a player who shoots 38% from 3 for his career.

The contested numbers are also statistical noise that's meaningless because:
# of attempts per game:

Bobby:
2-4: 0.1--Yeah, he's tried like 7 shots all year; a single make or miss makes the difference
4-6 feet: 0.9 shots a game, or ~50 all year, in 55 games, of which he's made a total of 18; if Bobby misses 1 more out of his 50, he's right there with Lauri percentage-wise
6+: 1.4 or around 80 shots

Lauri:
2-4: 0.2 --Yeah, Lauri's tried 8 of these all year and made 2, just like Bobby; for refence, one of them was the the last second heave in Q1 two games ago; if he doesn't take that shot (which would have been a bad decision), he's at the same % as Bobby
4-6: 1.5 -- So 60, so far, in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 11 more in 15 fewer games, and has actually made 20, or more than Bobby on the season
6+: 4.5 or 180 in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 2.2x in 15 fewer games or 3x more per game

You're still not addressing the main point I brought up--volume. Before the benching, Lauri was attempting 2.5x as many 3s as Bobby and making near 3 a game. Bobby was making 1 a game. If Bobby can find a way to shoot 7 3s a game at his current percentages, he'll be making $20M as well and his team would be happy to pay him that. But given that he's been around 2.5 attempts his entire career, that probably isn't happening. Being able to get to a spot to get a shot up and then get it up is a skill just like making them.

By the way, even this year, Lauri is being guarded as a really good shooter--somebody posted the gravity stats sometime ago. I'd be curious to see how Bobby is being guarded. From the couple of Bucks games I've watched, it's the same as he always has--as in, nobody cares he's on the floor, despite his stellar percentages.

What this tells me that Bobby has smartened up some this year and has been spectacular at making his 1 wide open attempt each game--which is good but nothing the D has to really worry about--because you know that's not moving the needle.

BTW, I find the distance of what's considered an open shot hilarious and that's having played against guys that are nowhere near the size or as athletic as NBA players. Most players have a standing reach of 8 feet plus. That's obviously without jumping. Add another 3 feet of ups to that. Big guys have a standing reach of 9 feet plus. The really long ones are at 9 and a half. A 6'8 guy with a 9 foot reach flying at you is not the same as a 6'0 guy that's 6 feet to your side.

The NBA needs to do better, because that stat is utterly meaningless from a game perspective. That's not to defend Lauri--as I said, Bobby has been a better open shooter it looks like, just as a general observation. A vastly better stat would be if there's a guy contesting at all, how close the contest is, and how big said guy is.

P.S.
Just to put things into perspective:

Bobby will take 1 contested 3 per game, and he'll make 1 every 3 games.
Bobby will take 1 to 2 "open" threes a game, and make half of these shots

Lauri will take 2 contested 3s a game and will make 1 2 out every 3 games.
Lauri will take 5 "open"' 3s a game and make 2 of these.

That's a 'uuge difference, which was already discussed. Nobody cares for a guy that is expected to make 1 three per game with a standard deviation of probably half a make, no matter his %. You care about a guy that makes 3 per game, which a standard deviation of probably a full make or more, especially since that guy actually does shoot 40% on 3s and is expected to attempt a bunch of them.

P.S. 2
Bobby on the season gets about the same amount of touches as Lauri. Let that sink in for a second. Bobby's at 11 ppg at 35. Lauri was at 18 ppg at 40 touches per game. And, as you pointed out, Bobby's been balling out of his mind this year in terms of shooting and TS%. Perhaps, it's because he's playing with 3 all-star types that demand attention? Either way, he's outplaying his contracts by orders of magnitude. Bulls, DC, and NYK Bobby was worth exactly how much he's getting paid now with his 53% career TS. This version of him is worth quite a bit more, if a GM assumes he can keep it up, which is not a given.

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is playing 21 minutes per game this season. Lauri is playing 27mpg. You would have to adjust all of your stats for minutes to really be a fair comparison as far as volume.

PER is a minutes and pace adjusted stat. As of now, Lauri has a league average 15.2 PER. Bobby is at 19.9. To use your terminology, that's a 'uuge difference.

Again, teams aren't paying special attention to Lauri. There is no Lauri specific scheme like what you see with the double Zach at the halfcourt defenses. A ridiculous number of Lauri's 3 pointers are wiiiiiide open.

I do agree with you that Lauri has got a ton of minutes and a lot of open shots this year. A guy like Portis would be putting up massive numbers in that situation.

[ZOMG]

This isn't true. Lauri struggles mightily with a defender close to him. People here have posted the stats.

Defender distance for 3p shots:
Lauri
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 25.0%
4-6 feet: 33.3%
6+ feet: 42.2%

Bobby
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 28.6%
4-6 feet: 36.0%
6+ feet: 58.7%

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is better when wide open this year. Good for him. You are correct, if Bobby keeps shooting near 50% on threes, and 60% on open 3s, even just a couple / game, that's glorious shooting. It's also probably a huge statistical outlier for a player who shoots 38% from 3 for his career.

The contested numbers are also statistical noise that's meaningless because:
# of attempts per game:

Bobby:
2-4: 0.1--Yeah, he's tried like 7 shots all year; a single make or miss makes the difference
4-6 feet: 0.9 shots a game, or ~50 all year, in 55 games, of which he's made a total of 18; if Bobby misses 1 more out of his 50, he's right there with Lauri percentage-wise
6+: 1.4 or around 80 shots

Lauri:
2-4: 0.2 --Yeah, Lauri's tried 8 of these all year and made 2, just like Bobby; for refence, one of them was the the last second heave in Q1 two games ago; if he doesn't take that shot (which would have been a bad decision), he's at the same % as Bobby
4-6: 1.5 -- So 60, so far, in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 11 more in 15 fewer games, and has actually made 20, or more than Bobby on the season
6+: 4.5 or 180 in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 2.2x in 15 fewer games or 3x more per game

You're still not addressing the main point I brought up--volume. Before the benching, Lauri was attempting 2.5x as many 3s as Bobby and making near 3 a game. Bobby was making 1 a game. If Bobby can find a way to shoot 7 3s a game at his current percentages, he'll be making $20M as well and his team would be happy to pay him that. But given that he's been around 2.5 attempts his entire career, that probably isn't happening. Being able to get to a spot to get a shot up and then get it up is a skill just like making them.

By the way, even this year, Lauri is being guarded as a really good shooter--somebody posted the gravity stats sometime ago. I'd be curious to see how Bobby is being guarded. From the couple of Bucks games I've watched, it's the same as he always has--as in, nobody cares he's on the floor, despite his stellar percentages.

What this tells me that Bobby has smartened up some this year and has been spectacular at making his 1 wide open attempt each game--which is good but nothing the D has to really worry about--because you know that's not moving the needle.

BTW, I find the distance of what's considered an open shot hilarious and that's having played against guys that are nowhere near the size or as athletic as NBA players. Most players have a standing reach of 8 feet plus. That's obviously without jumping. Add another 3 feet of ups to that. Big guys have a standing reach of 9 feet plus. The really long ones are at 9 and a half. A 6'8 guy with a 9 foot reach flying at you is not the same as a 6'0 guy that's 6 feet to your side.

The NBA needs to do better, because that stat is utterly meaningless from a game perspective. That's not to defend Lauri--as I said, Bobby has been a better open shooter it looks like, just as a general observation. A vastly better stat would be if there's a guy contesting at all, how close the contest is, and how big said guy is.

P.S.
Just to put things into perspective:

Bobby will take 1 contested 3 per game, and he'll make 1 every 3 games.
Bobby will take 1 to 2 "open" threes a game, and make half of these shots

Lauri will take 2 contested 3s a game and will make 1 2 out every 3 games.
Lauri will take 5 "open"' 3s a game and make 2 of these.

That's a 'uuge difference, which was already discussed. Nobody cares for a guy that is expected to make 1 three per game with a standard deviation of probably half a make, no matter his %. You care about a guy that makes 3 per game, which a standard deviation of probably a full make or more, especially since that guy actually does shoot 40% on 3s and is expected to attempt a bunch of them.

P.S. 2
Bobby on the season gets about the same amount of touches as Lauri. Let that sink in for a second. Bobby's at 11 ppg at 35. Lauri was at 18 ppg at 40 touches per game. And, as you pointed out, Bobby's been balling out of his mind this year in terms of shooting and TS%. Perhaps, it's because he's playing with 3 all-star types that demand attention? Either way, he's outplaying his contracts by orders of magnitude. Bulls, DC, and NYK Bobby was worth exactly how much he's getting paid now with his 53% career TS. This version of him is worth quite a bit more, if a GM assumes he can keep it up, which is not a given.

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is playing 21 minutes per game this season. Lauri is playing 27mpg. You would have to adjust all of your stats for minutes to really be a fair comparison as far as volume.

PER is a minutes and pace adjusted stat. As of now, Lauri has a league average 15.2 PER. Bobby is at 19.9. To use your terminology, that's a 'uuge difference.

Again, teams aren't paying special attention to Lauri. There is no Lauri specific scheme like what you see with the double Zach at the halfcourt defenses. A ridiculous number of Lauri's 3 pointers are wiiiiiide open.

I do agree with you that Lauri has got a ton of minutes and a lot of open shots this year. A guy like Portis would be putting up massive numbers in that situation.

"This year"? What's that?

Are we at the point now where we're seriously trying to claim Lauri HASN'T been marginalized after the trade?

[Pentele]

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is better when wide open this year. Good for him. You are correct, if Bobby keeps shooting near 50% on threes, and 60% on open 3s, even just a couple / game, that's glorious shooting. It's also probably a huge statistical outlier for a player who shoots 38% from 3 for his career.

The contested numbers are also statistical noise that's meaningless because:
# of attempts per game:

Bobby:
2-4: 0.1--Yeah, he's tried like 7 shots all year; a single make or miss makes the difference
4-6 feet: 0.9 shots a game, or ~50 all year, in 55 games, of which he's made a total of 18; if Bobby misses 1 more out of his 50, he's right there with Lauri percentage-wise
6+: 1.4 or around 80 shots

Lauri:
2-4: 0.2 --Yeah, Lauri's tried 8 of these all year and made 2, just like Bobby; for refence, one of them was the the last second heave in Q1 two games ago; if he doesn't take that shot (which would have been a bad decision), he's at the same % as Bobby
4-6: 1.5 -- So 60, so far, in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 11 more in 15 fewer games, and has actually made 20, or more than Bobby on the season
6+: 4.5 or 180 in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 2.2x in 15 fewer games or 3x more per game

You're still not addressing the main point I brought up--volume. Before the benching, Lauri was attempting 2.5x as many 3s as Bobby and making near 3 a game. Bobby was making 1 a game. If Bobby can find a way to shoot 7 3s a game at his current percentages, he'll be making $20M as well and his team would be happy to pay him that. But given that he's been around 2.5 attempts his entire career, that probably isn't happening. Being able to get to a spot to get a shot up and then get it up is a skill just like making them.

By the way, even this year, Lauri is being guarded as a really good shooter--somebody posted the gravity stats sometime ago. I'd be curious to see how Bobby is being guarded. From the couple of Bucks games I've watched, it's the same as he always has--as in, nobody cares he's on the floor, despite his stellar percentages.

What this tells me that Bobby has smartened up some this year and has been spectacular at making his 1 wide open attempt each game--which is good but nothing the D has to really worry about--because you know that's not moving the needle.

BTW, I find the distance of what's considered an open shot hilarious and that's having played against guys that are nowhere near the size or as athletic as NBA players. Most players have a standing reach of 8 feet plus. That's obviously without jumping. Add another 3 feet of ups to that. Big guys have a standing reach of 9 feet plus. The really long ones are at 9 and a half. A 6'8 guy with a 9 foot reach flying at you is not the same as a 6'0 guy that's 6 feet to your side.

The NBA needs to do better, because that stat is utterly meaningless from a game perspective. That's not to defend Lauri--as I said, Bobby has been a better open shooter it looks like, just as a general observation. A vastly better stat would be if there's a guy contesting at all, how close the contest is, and how big said guy is.

P.S.
Just to put things into perspective:

Bobby will take 1 contested 3 per game, and he'll make 1 every 3 games.
Bobby will take 1 to 2 "open" threes a game, and make half of these shots

Lauri will take 2 contested 3s a game and will make 1 2 out every 3 games.
Lauri will take 5 "open"' 3s a game and make 2 of these.

That's a 'uuge difference, which was already discussed. Nobody cares for a guy that is expected to make 1 three per game with a standard deviation of probably half a make, no matter his %. You care about a guy that makes 3 per game, which a standard deviation of probably a full make or more, especially since that guy actually does shoot 40% on 3s and is expected to attempt a bunch of them.

P.S. 2
Bobby on the season gets about the same amount of touches as Lauri. Let that sink in for a second. Bobby's at 11 ppg at 35. Lauri was at 18 ppg at 40 touches per game. And, as you pointed out, Bobby's been balling out of his mind this year in terms of shooting and TS%. Perhaps, it's because he's playing with 3 all-star types that demand attention? Either way, he's outplaying his contracts by orders of magnitude. Bulls, DC, and NYK Bobby was worth exactly how much he's getting paid now with his 53% career TS. This version of him is worth quite a bit more, if a GM assumes he can keep it up, which is not a given.

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is playing 21 minutes per game this season. Lauri is playing 27mpg. You would have to adjust all of your stats for minutes to really be a fair comparison as far as volume.

PER is a minutes and pace adjusted stat. As of now, Lauri has a league average 15.2 PER. Bobby is at 19.9. To use your terminology, that's a 'uuge difference.

Again, teams aren't paying special attention to Lauri. There is no Lauri specific scheme like what you see with the double Zach at the halfcourt defenses. A ridiculous number of Lauri's 3 pointers are wiiiiiide open.

I do agree with you that Lauri has got a ton of minutes and a lot of open shots this year. A guy like Portis would be putting up massive numbers in that situation.

"This year"? What's that?

Are we at the point now where we're seriously trying to claim Lauri HASN'T been marginalized after the trade?

No, I think we are at the point where people are reaching for any argument or comparison to make Lauri look bad. Bobby Portis, case in point.

But I guess we Bulls fans should be up for any diversion at the moment. Anything to not pay attention to the current roster construction that is terrible. But hey, perhaps signing Bobby Portis would solve that? I am sure he is exactly what the Bulls need. He would fit right next to Coby, Zach, Pwill, and Vuc (yuck; I am disgusted even if I brought it up myself...).

[coldfish]

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is playing 21 minutes per game this season. Lauri is playing 27mpg. You would have to adjust all of your stats for minutes to really be a fair comparison as far as volume.

PER is a minutes and pace adjusted stat. As of now, Lauri has a league average 15.2 PER. Bobby is at 19.9. To use your terminology, that's a 'uuge difference.

Again, teams aren't paying special attention to Lauri. There is no Lauri specific scheme like what you see with the double Zach at the halfcourt defenses. A ridiculous number of Lauri's 3 pointers are wiiiiiide open.

I do agree with you that Lauri has got a ton of minutes and a lot of open shots this year. A guy like Portis would be putting up massive numbers in that situation.

"This year"? What's that?

Are we at the point now where we're seriously trying to claim Lauri HASN'T been marginalized after the trade?

No, I think we are at the point where people are reaching for any argument or comparison to make Lauri look bad. Bobby Portis, case in point.

But I guess we Bulls fans should be up for any diversion at the moment. Anything to not pay attention to the current roster construction that is terrible. But hey, perhaps signing Bobby Portis would solve that? I am sure he is exactly what the Bulls need. He would fit right next to Coby, Zach, Pwill, and Vuc (yuck; I am disgusted even if I brought it up myself...).

If you read through the discussion, Bobby Portis was brought up as an example of a guy being used in a Lauri role making 3.6m per year. There are actually lots of players who are tall and shoot well from the outside but Bobby was appropriate since he used to be a Bull.

Also, if you read through the discussion I said that Lauri does a fine job in the role that he is suited for. No one is trying to make him look bad.

And no one is trying to say that Lauri hasn't been marginalized. Everyone agrees on that. If you read through the discussion, the topic was his entire tenure as a Bull. During that time, he has started virtually the entire time, got lots of minutes and lots of shots. The Bulls have tried their hardest to make Lauri into something more but he keeps drifting back to just a shooting specialist.

As far as the team, things are terrible. There isn't much discussion about Coby or Pat or Val or other stuff because there isn't much disagreement about it. Lauri is the primary source of disagreement on this board so he gets a lot of discussion.

[chefo]

This isn't true. Lauri struggles mightily with a defender close to him. People here have posted the stats.

Defender distance for 3p shots:
Lauri
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 25.0%
4-6 feet: 33.3%
6+ feet: 42.2%

Bobby
0-2 feet: no attempts
2-4 feet: 28.6%
4-6 feet: 36.0%
6+ feet: 58.7%

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is better when wide open this year. Good for him. You are correct, if Bobby keeps shooting near 50% on threes, and 60% on open 3s, even just a couple / game, that's glorious shooting. It's also probably a huge statistical outlier for a player who shoots 38% from 3 for his career.

The contested numbers are also statistical noise that's meaningless because:
# of attempts per game:

Bobby:
2-4: 0.1--Yeah, he's tried like 7 shots all year; a single make or miss makes the difference
4-6 feet: 0.9 shots a game, or ~50 all year, in 55 games, of which he's made a total of 18; if Bobby misses 1 more out of his 50, he's right there with Lauri percentage-wise
6+: 1.4 or around 80 shots

Lauri:
2-4: 0.2 --Yeah, Lauri's tried 8 of these all year and made 2, just like Bobby; for refence, one of them was the the last second heave in Q1 two games ago; if he doesn't take that shot (which would have been a bad decision), he's at the same % as Bobby
4-6: 1.5 -- So 60, so far, in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 11 more in 15 fewer games, and has actually made 20, or more than Bobby on the season
6+: 4.5 or 180 in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 2.2x in 15 fewer games or 3x more per game

You're still not addressing the main point I brought up--volume. Before the benching, Lauri was attempting 2.5x as many 3s as Bobby and making near 3 a game. Bobby was making 1 a game. If Bobby can find a way to shoot 7 3s a game at his current percentages, he'll be making $20M as well and his team would be happy to pay him that. But given that he's been around 2.5 attempts his entire career, that probably isn't happening. Being able to get to a spot to get a shot up and then get it up is a skill just like making them.

By the way, even this year, Lauri is being guarded as a really good shooter--somebody posted the gravity stats sometime ago. I'd be curious to see how Bobby is being guarded. From the couple of Bucks games I've watched, it's the same as he always has--as in, nobody cares he's on the floor, despite his stellar percentages.

What this tells me that Bobby has smartened up some this year and has been spectacular at making his 1 wide open attempt each game--which is good but nothing the D has to really worry about--because you know that's not moving the needle.

BTW, I find the distance of what's considered an open shot hilarious and that's having played against guys that are nowhere near the size or as athletic as NBA players. Most players have a standing reach of 8 feet plus. That's obviously without jumping. Add another 3 feet of ups to that. Big guys have a standing reach of 9 feet plus. The really long ones are at 9 and a half. A 6'8 guy with a 9 foot reach flying at you is not the same as a 6'0 guy that's 6 feet to your side.

The NBA needs to do better, because that stat is utterly meaningless from a game perspective. That's not to defend Lauri--as I said, Bobby has been a better open shooter it looks like, just as a general observation. A vastly better stat would be if there's a guy contesting at all, how close the contest is, and how big said guy is.

P.S.
Just to put things into perspective:

Bobby will take 1 contested 3 per game, and he'll make 1 every 3 games.
Bobby will take 1 to 2 "open" threes a game, and make half of these shots

Lauri will take 2 contested 3s a game and will make 1 2 out every 3 games.
Lauri will take 5 "open"' 3s a game and make 2 of these.

That's a 'uuge difference, which was already discussed. Nobody cares for a guy that is expected to make 1 three per game with a standard deviation of probably half a make, no matter his %. You care about a guy that makes 3 per game, which a standard deviation of probably a full make or more, especially since that guy actually does shoot 40% on 3s and is expected to attempt a bunch of them.

P.S. 2
Bobby on the season gets about the same amount of touches as Lauri. Let that sink in for a second. Bobby's at 11 ppg at 35. Lauri was at 18 ppg at 40 touches per game. And, as you pointed out, Bobby's been balling out of his mind this year in terms of shooting and TS%. Perhaps, it's because he's playing with 3 all-star types that demand attention? Either way, he's outplaying his contracts by orders of magnitude. Bulls, DC, and NYK Bobby was worth exactly how much he's getting paid now with his 53% career TS. This version of him is worth quite a bit more, if a GM assumes he can keep it up, which is not a given.

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is playing 21 minutes per game this season. Lauri is playing 27mpg. You would have to adjust all of your stats for minutes to really be a fair comparison as far as volume.

PER is a minutes and pace adjusted stat. As of now, Lauri has a league average 15.2 PER. Bobby is at 19.9. To use your terminology, that's a 'uuge difference.

Again, teams aren't paying special attention to Lauri. There is no Lauri specific scheme lke what you see with the double Zach at the halfcourt defenses. A ridiculous number of Lauri's 3 pointers are wiiiiiide open.

I do agree with you that Lauri has got a ton of minutes and a lot of open shots this year. A guy like Portis would be putting up massive numbers in that situation.

I guess we'll continue talking past each other. That's fine.

This year, Bobby's played really well. There. That's settled. It's the first year of his career where he's not been a low TS mindless chucker. He got paid as a low TS mindless chucker because that's what he was... and it's possible that, if he's not on a contender like the Bucs, that's what he may go back to. I don't know. I haven't watched enough of him to tell you why, so as I said, I'm not going to even try. He's been good--as in Thad-level good stats-wise, which is probably worth Thad money, if one needs to be fair, which is 4x what's he's actually being paid. The Bucs got a ton of value.

Before his benching, Lauri was at 18 PER or thereabouts and peaked at a 65% TS this year and is still comfortably above 60% on the season. And that PER is, as you often point out, with him dishing a cool assist per game.

I get that you're disappointed in Lauri. I am too. There's plenty to criticize him for.

But... Lauri scores 1.2 points per attempted 3. On high volume of attempts. Lauri also scores 1.25 points per attempted 2. Facts. His 2s are less assisted than most other high scoring non-wings--he doesn't have a CP getting him 3 oops a game like DeAndre or Tyson. There's no easy dunks off penetration or drop-offs.

When we were having these conversations earlier, posters that were critical of Lauri said that there's no way he can keep up his TS north of 60% over a long stretch of games. Well, he has, despite getting his time and touches cut by a third. So, let's recap this year--Lauri gets 4th option touches and scores on a 60%+ TS at 18 ppg. Lauri gets 8th guy touches and still scores at a 60%+ TS. The one constant is that he scores very efficiently and the ONLY variable that's changing is how often he gets to try.

You're making a case that a guy that gets you OVER 1.2 points per shot attempted, on good volume, should be less involved in the O? If that's the case, there can be no overlap in our views of any kind. Sorry. Tried to see it your way. I'll just have to disagree with you.

I'll also go a step further. If I have a guy that I KNOW gets me 1.2 points per shot both bombing from outside on high volume AND finishing inside, yes, I will go out of my way to try to see how I can get MORE of these shots for my team, not fewer. Especially since just earlier this year he peaked at over 20 ppg and 23+ per 36 and he had a season of 19 ppg (21 p36) as a 20-year old, where he wasn't as good on O as he is now. So, I know he can do it.

Apart from scorching hot Zach, these are BETTER shots than anything else I can possibly hope for. I don't care that I need to make my highly paid pros actually run some plays to get them.

The average play in the NBA is what? 1.1 points per shot? If everybody on my team was as good as Lauri at putting the ball in the hoop, the Bulls would have the best O in the league and it won't even be close. Do we have the best O in the league? Would I rather have Theis (Bulls version that's shooting worse than a quarter from 3), Val, Pat and Temple take more shots? Is that a serious argument?

I don't care that Lauri cannot get his own shot doing crossovers like a 6'0 guard. Contrary to your assertion that he's a chucking ball stopper, I'll disagree here too--I posted the numbers somewhere in the previous thread--he passes the ball as % of his touches comparable to Zach, Coby and Vuc. He doesn't break the defense and gets less than half the touches of these guys so yeah, it doesn't translate into assists--but he passes the ball 2 out 3 times he touches it. He's not stopping your motion O, even assuming you're running one, which we haven't since the trade.

There are no style points in the NBA. He gets 1.2+ point per shot. And he can get you 18-20 ppg doing that. That's also a fact. That's the bottom line. People have been playing hoops forever and there are a TON of ways you can get a tall, well-shooting, athletic guy shots that don't involve him going ISO or post-up. So there's that. I know we disagree, so we'll just have to leave it at that.

[Pentele]

"This year"? What's that?

Are we at the point now where we're seriously trying to claim Lauri HASN'T been marginalized after the trade?

No, I think we are at the point where people are reaching for any argument or comparison to make Lauri look bad. Bobby Portis, case in point.

But I guess we Bulls fans should be up for any diversion at the moment. Anything to not pay attention to the current roster construction that is terrible. But hey, perhaps signing Bobby Portis would solve that? I am sure he is exactly what the Bulls need. He would fit right next to Coby, Zach, Pwill, and Vuc (yuck; I am disgusted even if I brought it up myself...).

If you read through the discussion, Bobby Portis was brought up as an example of a guy being used in a Lauri role making 3.6m per year. There are actually lots of players who are tall and shoot well from the outside but Bobby was appropriate since he used to be a Bull.

Yeah, I have a habit of reading through the discussion. Emphasizing that 3.6m is completely ingenuine, and you know it perfectly well. If Portis can keep up those numbers he is certainly worth more, even with his other flaws (and I am not talking about his boxing ability). You just want to rub it in. Each to his own, I guess, but do not act surprised that you come across as trying to find as bad comps as possible.

[coldfish]

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is better when wide open this year. Good for him. You are correct, if Bobby keeps shooting near 50% on threes, and 60% on open 3s, even just a couple / game, that's glorious shooting. It's also probably a huge statistical outlier for a player who shoots 38% from 3 for his career.

The contested numbers are also statistical noise that's meaningless because:
# of attempts per game:

Bobby:
2-4: 0.1--Yeah, he's tried like 7 shots all year; a single make or miss makes the difference
4-6 feet: 0.9 shots a game, or ~50 all year, in 55 games, of which he's made a total of 18; if Bobby misses 1 more out of his 50, he's right there with Lauri percentage-wise
6+: 1.4 or around 80 shots

Lauri:
2-4: 0.2 --Yeah, Lauri's tried 8 of these all year and made 2, just like Bobby; for refence, one of them was the the last second heave in Q1 two games ago; if he doesn't take that shot (which would have been a bad decision), he's at the same % as Bobby
4-6: 1.5 -- So 60, so far, in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 11 more in 15 fewer games, and has actually made 20, or more than Bobby on the season
6+: 4.5 or 180 in 40 games--so Lauri has attempted 2.2x in 15 fewer games or 3x more per game

You're still not addressing the main point I brought up--volume. Before the benching, Lauri was attempting 2.5x as many 3s as Bobby and making near 3 a game. Bobby was making 1 a game. If Bobby can find a way to shoot 7 3s a game at his current percentages, he'll be making $20M as well and his team would be happy to pay him that. But given that he's been around 2.5 attempts his entire career, that probably isn't happening. Being able to get to a spot to get a shot up and then get it up is a skill just like making them.

By the way, even this year, Lauri is being guarded as a really good shooter--somebody posted the gravity stats sometime ago. I'd be curious to see how Bobby is being guarded. From the couple of Bucks games I've watched, it's the same as he always has--as in, nobody cares he's on the floor, despite his stellar percentages.

What this tells me that Bobby has smartened up some this year and has been spectacular at making his 1 wide open attempt each game--which is good but nothing the D has to really worry about--because you know that's not moving the needle.

BTW, I find the distance of what's considered an open shot hilarious and that's having played against guys that are nowhere near the size or as athletic as NBA players. Most players have a standing reach of 8 feet plus. That's obviously without jumping. Add another 3 feet of ups to that. Big guys have a standing reach of 9 feet plus. The really long ones are at 9 and a half. A 6'8 guy with a 9 foot reach flying at you is not the same as a 6'0 guy that's 6 feet to your side.

The NBA needs to do better, because that stat is utterly meaningless from a game perspective. That's not to defend Lauri--as I said, Bobby has been a better open shooter it looks like, just as a general observation. A vastly better stat would be if there's a guy contesting at all, how close the contest is, and how big said guy is.

P.S.
Just to put things into perspective:

Bobby will take 1 contested 3 per game, and he'll make 1 every 3 games.
Bobby will take 1 to 2 "open" threes a game, and make half of these shots

Lauri will take 2 contested 3s a game and will make 1 2 out every 3 games.
Lauri will take 5 "open"' 3s a game and make 2 of these.

That's a 'uuge difference, which was already discussed. Nobody cares for a guy that is expected to make 1 three per game with a standard deviation of probably half a make, no matter his %. You care about a guy that makes 3 per game, which a standard deviation of probably a full make or more, especially since that guy actually does shoot 40% on 3s and is expected to attempt a bunch of them.

P.S. 2
Bobby on the season gets about the same amount of touches as Lauri. Let that sink in for a second. Bobby's at 11 ppg at 35. Lauri was at 18 ppg at 40 touches per game. And, as you pointed out, Bobby's been balling out of his mind this year in terms of shooting and TS%. Perhaps, it's because he's playing with 3 all-star types that demand attention? Either way, he's outplaying his contracts by orders of magnitude. Bulls, DC, and NYK Bobby was worth exactly how much he's getting paid now with his 53% career TS. This version of him is worth quite a bit more, if a GM assumes he can keep it up, which is not a given.

Uhm, not the entire picture?

Bobby is playing 21 minutes per game this season. Lauri is playing 27mpg. You would have to adjust all of your stats for minutes to really be a fair comparison as far as volume.

PER is a minutes and pace adjusted stat. As of now, Lauri has a league average 15.2 PER. Bobby is at 19.9. To use your terminology, that's a 'uuge difference.

Again, teams aren't paying special attention to Lauri. There is no Lauri specific scheme lke what you see with the double Zach at the halfcourt defenses. A ridiculous number of Lauri's 3 pointers are wiiiiiide open.

I do agree with you that Lauri has got a ton of minutes and a lot of open shots this year. A guy like Portis would be putting up massive numbers in that situation.

I guess we'll continue talking past each other. That's fine.

This year, Bobby's played really well. There. That's settled. It's the first year of his career where he's not been a low TS mindless chucker. He got paid as a low TS mindless chucker because that's what he was... and it's possible that, if he's not on a contender like the Bucs, that's what he may go back to. I don't know. I haven't watched enough of him to tell you why, so as I said, I'm not going to even try. He's been good--as in Thad-level good stats-wise, which is probably worth Thad money, if one needs to be fair, which is 4x what's he's actually being paid. The Bucs got a ton of value.

Before his benching, Lauri was at 18 PER or thereabouts and peaked at a 65% TS this year and is still comfortably above 60% on the season. And that PER is, as you often point out, with him dishing a cool assist per game.

I get that you're disappointed in Lauri. I am too. There's plenty to criticize him for.

But... Lauri scores 1.2 points per attempted 3. On high volume of attempts. Lauri also scores 1.25 points per attempted 2. Facts. His 2s are less assisted than most other high scoring non-wings--he doesn't have a CP getting him 3 oops a game like DeAndre or Tyson. There's no easy dunks off penetration or drop-offs.

When we were having these conversations earlier, posters that were critical of Lauri said that there's no way he can keep up his TS north of 60% over a long stretch of games. Well, he has, despite getting his time and touches cut by a third. So, let's recap this year--Lauri gets 4th option touches and scores on a 60%+ TS at 18 ppg. Lauri gets 8th guy touches and still scores at a 60%+ TS. The one constant is that he scores very efficiently and the ONLY variable that's changing is how often he gets to try.

You're making a case that a guy that gets you OVER 1.2 points per shot attempted, on good volume, should be less involved in the O? If that's the case, there can be no overlap in our views of any kind. Sorry. Tried to see it your way. I'll just have to disagree with you.

I'll also go a step further. If I have a guy that I KNOW gets me 1.2 points per shot both bombing from outside on high volume AND finishing inside, yes, I will go out of my way to try to see how I can get MORE of these shots for my team, not fewer. Especially since just earlier this year he peaked at over 20 ppg and 23+ per 36 and he had a season of 19 ppg (21 p36) as a 20-year old, where he wasn't as good on O as he is now. So, I know he can do it.

Apart from scorching hot Zach, these are BETTER shots than anything else I can possibly hope for. I don't care that I need to make my highly paid pros actually run some plays to get them.

The average play in the NBA is what? 1.1 points per shot? If everybody on my team was as good as Lauri at putting the ball in the hoop, the Bulls would have the best O in the league and it won't even be close. Do we have the best O in the league? Would I rather have Theis (Bulls version that's shooting worse than a quarter from 3), Val, Pat and Temple take more shots? Is that a serious argument?

I don't care that Lauri cannot get his own shot doing crossovers like a 6'0 guard. Contrary to your assertion that he's a chucking ball stopper, I'll disagree here too--I posted the numbers somewhere in the previous thread--he passes the ball as % of his touches comparable to Zach, Coby and Vuc. He doesn't break the defense and gets less than half the touches of these guys so yeah, it doesn't translate into assists--but he passes the ball 2 out 3 times he touches it. He's not stopping your motion O, even assuming you're running one, which we haven't since the trade.

There are no style points in the NBA. He gets 1.2+ point per shot. And he can get you 18-20 ppg doing that. That's also a fact. That's the bottom line. People have been playing hoops forever and there are a TON of ways you can get a tall, well-shooting, athletic guy shots that don't involve him going ISO or post-up. So there's that. I know we disagree, so we'll just have to leave it at that.

Like you said, we are largely talking past each other and we disagree.

I'll just restate my points:
- Lauri is an off ball shooter who can't create his own shot. You can't just throw it into the post with him and have him work for a shot. Likewise, you can't throw it to him on the wing while covered and expect him to use an array of dribble moves and step backs to get a good shot.
- As such, there is only so much you can do to get a guy like that a shot. Defenses aren't stupid. You can't spam a few plays all game long and expect them not to get jumped. An off ball shooter is counting on someone else breaking down the defense or a defensive lapse to get an open shot.
- Lauri is not a good shooter with someone right on him. Most people aren't but its not like Lauri has some special ability to shoot with a man in his face.
- Given all of this, Lauri's *career* shot counts are about what you would expect. Compared to some of the best off ball shooters of all time, Lauri is *roughly* even with them. Its not like Lauri has been deprived of minutes or shots during his career. As I have said, repeatedly, Kyle Korver is a much better shooter than Lauri and he runs his ass off. Teams have all the incentive in the world to get him a ton of looks but they couldn't . . . because defenders aren't stupid.
- The only way that Lauri could get more shots would be for him to develop a better passing game, a post game or much better handles. That would allow the team to run the offense through him, instead of to him. Whenever the team has tried that, it fails immediately and they give up on it.
- Lauri has recently been marginalized. I don't think this is good for him or the team but its pretty obvious the team looks at him as being gone. Any career analysis I have done isn't including these recent games.
- Lauri is a fine player and will go on to have a nice NBA career. Off ball shooters have value. Its just not $20m per year in value. Some team will take a chance on him developing and give him that money, which means he is gone.

[coldfish]

No, I think we are at the point where people are reaching for any argument or comparison to make Lauri look bad. Bobby Portis, case in point.

But I guess we Bulls fans should be up for any diversion at the moment. Anything to not pay attention to the current roster construction that is terrible. But hey, perhaps signing Bobby Portis would solve that? I am sure he is exactly what the Bulls need. He would fit right next to Coby, Zach, Pwill, and Vuc (yuck; I am disgusted even if I brought it up myself...).

If you read through the discussion, Bobby Portis was brought up as an example of a guy being used in a Lauri role making 3.6m per year. There are actually lots of players who are tall and shoot well from the outside but Bobby was appropriate since he used to be a Bull.

Yeah, I have a habit of reading through the discussion. Emphasizing that 3.6m is completely ingenuine, and you know it perfectly well. If Portis can keep up those numbers he is certainly worth more, even with his other flaws (and I am not talking about his boxing ability). You just want to rub it in. Each to his own, I guess, but do not act surprised that you come across as trying to find as bad comps as possible.

Just recently, I posted that Lauri was 59th in the NBA in 3p percentage amongst qualified players. Going through all 58 in front of Lauri for contribution, salary, etc. is a cumbersome task. That said, I am unaware of anyone paying a guy similar to Lauri $20m per year and being happy with it.

Do you have any examples which disagree with that?

[Neonblazer]

If you read through the discussion, Bobby Portis was brought up as an example of a guy being used in a Lauri role making 3.6m per year. There are actually lots of players who are tall and shoot well from the outside but Bobby was appropriate since he used to be a Bull.

Yeah, I have a habit of reading through the discussion. Emphasizing that 3.6m is completely ingenuine, and you know it perfectly well. If Portis can keep up those numbers he is certainly worth more, even with his other flaws (and I am not talking about his boxing ability). You just want to rub it in. Each to his own, I guess, but do not act surprised that you come across as trying to find as bad comps as possible.

Just recently, I posted that Lauri was 59th in the NBA in 3p percentage amongst qualified players. Going through all 58 in front of Lauri for contribution, salary, etc. is a cumbersome task. That said, I am unaware of anyone paying a guy similar to Lauri $20m per year and being happy with it.

Do you have any examples which disagree with that?

Isn't it obvious that no one isn't going to pay 3p shooter 20M for a year? Nice hyperbole. Just because the Bulls currently consider Lauri to be just a 3p shooter is not where Lauris real value is.

[dougthonus]

UPDATE: Sample size of 17 games.

Markkanen +32
Vucevic -75
Theis -52
Young +11
Lavine -8
White +5
Williams -95
Sato -62
Temple -21
Brown +67
Valentine -24

On off numbers are corollary not causal, so these numbers don't say anything meaningful whatsoever about the talent of the players.

On off numbers that are not regressed and raw so that they do not take into account the talent of the opposing lineups and lineups they appear in are completely worthless.

It takes on/off numbers that are regressed to have about 1.5 seasons worth of data before they begin to be predictive.

In other words, the numbers you are siting here are are completely worthless from a scientific perspective, and since the numbers aren't causal but corollary and we don't have enough data points and haven't regressed them for the corollary numbers to be meaningful, this has zero mathematical or statistical value.

To repeat: Markkanen has some issues with regards to his development to a great NBA player, but he is not the reason for the Bulls' struggles, vice versa. He is not bust, scrub, whatever terms some 'fans' have used here, for whatever reasons.

These numbers above don't show anything one way or the other about that. Personally, I think he's an NBA rotation player that will play in the league for another 10 years if he chooses to and if he stays healthy.

He is a good NBA player, who should and could be a starter even in competing teams.

I doubt very much he could be a critical starter on a competing team. If you look at the bottom rung starters on competing teams, then I think he could be one of those, but same could be said by about 250 or so players in the NBA.

The Bulls' key issues before the trades were interior defence and point guard play.

The Bulls' key issues after the trades seem to be interior defence and point guard play.

Markkanen has something to do with the former, but not being the major issue, though. Markkanen has nothing to do with the latter. Actually, Markkanen would be even better player, if there is a good interior defender and a good PG in the team, but he is also among the best Bulls' players even in this current situation, with the abovementioned issues.

There are two positions that would traditionally help a lot with interior defense. Lauri plays one of them. Because we have Vucevic (whom presumably we all agree is much better than Lauri?) then we absolutely need the guy in Lauri's position to play great interior D because Vuc isn't going to do it. In another scenario (next to Embiid as an example), Lauri's defensive short comings would be considerably less meaningful.

Whether Lauri is the best option for the Bulls at PF is a matter of wide debate. In our absolute best lineup, I'd rather have Thad in there, but I think overall our options aren't great.