Lauri Markkanen Discussion Thread: PT 2

[FanInTheAttic]

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?

If a team pays Lauri $20m per year,it is based on the assumption that he can be utilized better in a different system, it is not based on his current performance with the Bulls, Whether a team is willing to take that risk, we will see in the summer. I'm pretty sure Lauri will be happy with a lower salary as long as he gets to play in a system that gives him more touches than what he is currently getting.

- 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.

Would you have an example when this has happened? Just interested.

[Robin Jones]

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.

Excellent post. Thank you.

I hate when people shot down arguments by saying they are crap without any justifications, or say that a player sucks, is a bust rtc., without any justifications either.

On the otherhand, I have a great respect for an argument like this. Well structured and justified, addressing key issues and bringing also new points to the discussion.

As I wrote already in my first posts, plusminus stats have their flaws, which is well documented. I was just a bit pissed off for all the Lauri bashing that I felt was not justified anymore. Thus wanted to bring other perspective to the discussion.

Yes, I agree with most of the arguments of dougthonus and do undertand that Lauri most probably is not in the Bulls' longterm plans, thus do undertand the logic of not playing him more minutes.

However, I do not think there are 250 NBA players deserving the starter spot in a competitor. I feel the number is a bit less and Lauri is in that smaller group. Of course, when not talking about the top 30-50 players in the league, all other starters need to complement the star players to justify their position. Lauri does not fit to all competitors, but do fit to some of them.

[chefo]

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.

--That thing about not being able to "create" a shot is a funny take I see often here as some self-evident truth. Of course he can "create" a shot because there are very few guys that can stop him from popping a 15 foot turnaround J any time he wants to. I remember where a couple of years ago he shot some in Horford's face going 1-on-1 and made a couple. Is that a good shot? Hell, no. Is he going to make a lot of them? Probably not, based on historic averages league-wide. If he's guarded by a 6'6-6'8 guy like he is most nights, Lauri can "create" a shot any time he wants to or the coaches tell him to. The coaches don't want him to, because it's not a good shot and they are correct. Most jumpers "created" off the dribble or in ISO/post are crappy shots and are only to be used if the D explicitly gives them open to you, in which case they are usually higher percentage than usual.

You're holding him to superstar standards if you want him to be a Harden driving or an Embiid posting up. But to say he can't "create"? Of course he can "create". It's just said "creation" results in a 0.40% shot that is pointless to have as a regular play. But, we actually do have half the team that legit can't even get a shot up, if they have to 1-on-1 in a tight spot--Sato, Val, Archi, Pat (currently), Theis, Temple, Shrek. Lauri can at least get a shot up that has some chance of going in. He doesn't belong in the "can't create" group. He's not in the "$40M per year that run your team" group, obviously, but so do 95% of players in the NBA.

-- That's not true about there being only so much you can do--Lauri is 7 feet tall and shoots 75% at the rim, which is the same as an elite rim-runner. That's the part you're not taking into account. We have nothing in the current playbook for a rim-running big and with good reason--we have nobody who can run a play like that with any above-average odds of success: we have 2 SGs running point and a 6'7 backup point forward handling the ball the rest of the time--there's not a SINGLE player that can break down a D and PASS. Our bigs get nothing EASY around the paint and haven't gotten anything easy all season. Even Thad is making some ungodly % of contested floaters that you can't expect any player to make consistently. If it takes a Vuc-level player for your bigs to be able to score, you're doing something wrong. Vuc gets nothing easy outside of pick and pops either.

If Gafford is not a prime example for what happens to an athletic big when you have guards that can feed you 5 uncontested dunks a night just for being on the court, I don't know what is. Lauri can play that role AND you can run SG/Korver sets for him, AND he can get some just in the flow of the offense. We don't run ANYTHING consistently where he is first OR second option on the play. Not a thing. Even when he was scoring 20 per game, he was not a first or second option on the play--he was just otherworldly finishing plays in the flow of the O. Two double screens a game doesn't count out of 100 possessions.

I know a 5-7% difference in TS% doesn't sound like a lot, but it is monstrously huge over enough reps. Every shot that Pat, Val, Coby and the rest of the sub 55% TS crew take, that Lauri, Thad, Vuc or Zach don't, results in 5-7 less points per 100 possessions. Or otherwise known as the difference between a 35 win team and a 50 win team, just based on the difference in offensive productivity. The worse players obviously can't not shoot all game, but your job as a coach is to close that gap as much as humanely possible over the long-term.

As Ettore Messina says--your job as a coach is make sure everybody touches the ball, but your best scorers get to try to put in the hoop, and that everybody on the team understands that. If you can't do that as a coach, you're not doing your effin' job. That the difference between a legend like Messina and an egghead like Boylen.

It's also the difference between playing good ball pre-trade and marginalizing both Lauri and Thad (our second and third most offensively productive players pre-trade) post trade because our coaching staff obviously can't figure out how to get opportunities for ANYBODY who's not a first option like Zach and Vuc (the primary ball handler and primary pick setter). It's intellectually lazy and stupid by design because Vuc's touch increase versus WCJ came from these two almost exclusively. So, the net effect was nothing changed except now you had Vuc manning the 5 for 30+ minutes per game, who's the worst defender out of all three mentioned (Lauri, Thad and WCJ), but he replaced the touches of two top decile efficient offensive players who were giving excellent production out of their touches.

As I've written, the way the Bulls chose to handle things post-trade screamed failure to me. They didn't think it through, tried some stupid things that probably were not going to work (and they didn't), and here we are, stuck in lotto land again but without a pick.

For example, Lauri is NOT the pic-setter in the O--that role goes to Thad, Theis and Vuc currently. Even when Vuc is not on the court. We know why--the other guys are not good shooters and it kills spacing--in theory. He's not used as a P&P screener where spacing doesn't matter, even though he's just as good a shooter as Vuc. He's not used as a P&R player even though he's as good a finisher near the rim as an elite rim-runner. But, but... he spaces well for 20 min? That's dumb and dumber low-resolution level thinking.

For real, there's no way to get him more shots? Put him in 30 P&R's where he can be the expected shot-taker (1st or second option on the play), not just a warm body to help the G's get a shot off or a spacer in the corner. In other words, the role that WCJ used to play to open the season. Not happening with Vuc here, but to say you can't get him more opportunities is just inaccurate. The biggest F-up to me was trying to turn WCJ into a scoring and passing hub, getting him 60 touches a game, where you had your other big scoring 20 per game on just 40, just floating around with no plays run for him. Stupid by inception, stupid by execution and it wrecked WCJ's confidence because when you can't pop an open shot from 12 feet or dunk it in their face, the D doesn't give a rat's posterior about you and it jams things for everybody else.

Lauri COULD be a Swiss-army knife, even in his raw, poorly developed form, in how he's used; Just like a slightly worse (as in less aggressive) version of Vuc. The way he's actually used, he's not worth anything close to $20M. I agree with you there. You're spot on. He's not even worth the MLE, frankly. No guy that gets 25 touches per game is. Current Lauri, with his 20 min game and 8th guy usage, I would not even extend a QO for--that money is better spend elsewhere.

[Pentele]

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.

I defnitely agree that one cannot base evaluation of talent level on on off numbers for the reasons you mentioned. But they are not completely worthless by any means. In this case they tell us on whose watch, so to speak, the Bulls have been losing or winning the actual games. A very reasonable case can be made that the Bulls have managed to play well while Brown has been on the floor, and even more so because he has not played that much (I think that number is pretty impressive). Perhaps that could be said about Lauri as well, but the case is not nearly as conclusive.

To me, Lauri's number matches with what I have seen in the games while Lauri has been on the floor (mostly against the bench, but also some time with Vuc and some other starters as well, of course): the Bulls have been competitive during that time. The same cannot be said about Pwill's time, or even Vuc's, as wonderful as offensive player that he is (and yes, clearly better than Lauri). That means that the Bulls have a problem of making the team play well while those guys are on the floor - of course it does not mean that either Pwill or Vuc is rubbish based on that on off-number. Like you said, it is correlative, not causal, stat in the case of individual players. But far from useless as one can identify problem areas (again, not necessarily individually, but team-wise).

There is another use for citing on off stats particularly in this Lauri thread. And that is to combat the misguided narrative that Lauri contributes significantly to the Bulls losing while he is on the floor (that stat is actually able to inform regarding that). One poster has frequently posted the team record when Lauri has played in comparison to when he has not played. Many found that insightful. But here is a news flash: it is also a correlative stat. It is even more rubbish than on off numbers in terms of informing us of how a particular player has fared. And still many found that insightful. It is exactly the sort of playing with whatever stat one can find that makes me laugh at the idea that, in this thread, there is some sort of battle going between those who look at the matter objectively and those that are somehow emotionally invested or otherwise much too stubborn (i.e., the so called Lauri-stans). The double standard is striking.

[dougthonus]

However, I do not think there are 250 NBA players deserving the starter spot in a competitor. I feel the number is a bit less and Lauri is in that smaller group. Of course, when not talking about the top 30-50 players in the league, all other starters need to complement the star players to justify their position. Lauri does not fit to all competitors, but do fit to some of them.

I agree, on a team like Philly (not that they have any way to acquire him), he'd be a perfect fit. They could live with his defense and absolutely could use his shooting. By saying there are 250 guys that could start on a contender, I did not mean Lauri is the worst of those players. I'm just saying the definition of starting on a contender if you aren't one of the key cogs isn't necessarily a relevant metric. Guys who are as bad as 250 have accomplished that.

I think if Lauri starts on your team, and your team is good, it is likely he's the 4th or 5th best starter and probably in a group of guys between 4-8 in the rotation that have similar total impact but widely varying skills. They're all bringing something useful to the mix but need to be played with the right combinations and in the right places. I think Lauri is such a guy probably in the 10-23M salary range on his next contract.

That prediction of mine there isn't particularly bold or anything. I think he's a good player but a situational player the wide range on salary will depend on if there are multiple bidders that have the right situation and money available or not. With the trade for Vucevic, the Bulls became a team where his situation is exceptionally poor relative to prior to acquiring Vucevic. I'm not sure it was working out here for Lauri before that either, but his fit on this team became much worse post trade.

[dougthonus]

I defnitely agree that one cannot base evaluation of talent level on on off numbers for the reasons you mentioned. But they are not completely worthless by any means. In this case they tell us on whose watch, so to speak, the Bulls have been losing or winning the actual games. A very reasonable case can be made that the Bulls have managed to play well while Brown has been on the floor, and even more so because he has not played that much (I think that number is pretty impressive). Perhaps that could be said about Lauri as well, but the case is not nearly as conclusive.

To me, Lauri's number matches with what I have seen in the games while Lauri has been on the floor (mostly against the bench, but also some time with Vuc and some other starters as well, of course): the Bulls have been competitive during that time. The same cannot be said about Pwill's time, or even Vuc's, as wonderful as offensive player that he is (and yes, clearly better than Lauri). That means that the Bulls have a problem of making the team play well while those guys are on the floor - of course it does not mean that either Pwill or Vuc is rubbish based on that on off-number. Like you said, it is correlative, not causal, stat in the case of individual players. But far from useless as one can identify problem areas (again, not necessarily individually, but team-wise).

There is another use for citing on off stats particularly in this Lauri thread. And that is to combat the misguided narrative that Lauri contributes significantly to the Bulls losing while he is on the floor (that stat is actually able to inform regarding that). One poster has frequently posted the team record when Lauri has played in comparison to when he has not played. Many found that insightful. But here is a news flash: it is also a correlative stat. It is even more rubbish than on off numbers in terms of informing us of how a particular player has fared. And still many found that insightful. It is exactly the sort of playing with whatever stat one can find that makes me laugh at the idea that, in this thread, there is some sort of battle going between those who look at the matter objectively and those that are somehow emotionally invested or otherwise much too stubborn (i.e., the so called Lauri-stans). The double standard is striking.

Yes, if someone says in the past 16 games the Bulls always get killed when Lauri is on the floor, then on/off numbers can say that did not happen. If we are just arguing facts/not facts.

In terms of predictability or individual player quality though, these numbers are statistically worthless. There have been many studies with on/off numbers, and I'd have to go back and look, but as I noted, you _have_ to use regressed ones for them to be useful and you need around 1.5 years of data I believe before they become predictive.

Using a very small sample size of non-regressed data does not show anything whatsoever about player quality, though I agree, it can be noted to make factual claims like "The Bulls played better with Lauri on the floor in the last 17 games". That claim may be factually accurate, but people will make it to imply it is predictive and the Bulls will do so in the future regardless of who he plays with or against, and these numbers do not statistically support that conclusion.

[chefo]

I'll post something that's not directly related to Lauri, but I would like to explain my view of hoops, because I would like for fellow posters to see where I'm coming from:

A .50 ball club usually has a net differential of around 0 (ORTG-DRTG). The average ball club has a TS of what? 55% these days? On 100 possessions, give or take?

Tiny things make a TON of difference over a season. Let me explain why:

To get the best offense possible:
* Minimize the TOs
* Maximize the TS% of every shot attempt that's not a TO

That's it.

On O, over 100 possessions (a full game on average), if your "inefficients" of sub below average TS take a lot of shots combined (say Val, Temple, Coby, Archi, even Pat) at the expense of your high TS players (Lauri, Thad, Sato, Vuc, Zach), you're leaving points on the board that could have been had. Let's just take 10 possessions out of the 100. If your average TS is 62% on these, versus 52%, that's a point a game. Not much you say? Yeah, but over a season, that's the difference between a 45 win team and a 42 win team. And that's 10% of the team's O possessions in a game. Let's make that 20% of possessions. That's two points. Now we're talking a 47-48 win team. Again, we're talking 20 better possessions out of 100. Not 80, 20.

That's why when I see a 62% TS player like Lauri that has proven that he can do it on volume have his opportunity cut by half versus his highest usage during the season, my temper flares as a Bulls fan that wants to see the team win. Vuc should NOT be taking opportunities away from Lauri (62% TS) and Thad (60% TS) because if he does, his 60% TS simply replaces already excellent production.

The coaches had to figure how to get these shots from the 52% TS group--if that means less time for these guys, or a much tighter leash of when they can let it fly--then that's what had to happen. If they had to devise ways and plays for the guys to run to make sure the right players get the ball in a place where they could do something with it--that's what they had to do. Instead, they took the idiotic way out and tried to maximize the touches of Zach and Vuc alone, while leaving the same amount from the pie to the players who are not as good at putting the ball in the hoop.

The same thing is true on D, although it is less dependent on you than on the opponent and what they're running. If you can force the other team to have his 50% TS players take 10 more shots out of 100 than his 60% TS, that's another point per game. Sometimes, you can't and there's that. Sometimes you can try to bait them into it and it may work.

So, in effect, either 10 better possessions per game on either side of the ball or 20 on one side can give you extra 6 wins / season statistically. That makes a club like ours this year into a .500 ball club and an average team into a 50 win team. That's why discipline and knowing what you're doing, and who's doing it, matters and why teams coached by Thibs always tend to outperform expectations in the regular season.

In the PO it's much more difficult to make such improvements and talent just straight up wins, but to get there, you can't have Val launching 30 footer 3s late in a tight game without anybody else touching the ball. Or else you'll lose because the margin that separates success from failure is incredibly thin over a season and a dozen **** possessions a game is the difference it makes to either get in the PO or not.

That's why you have to minimize crap, undisciplined possessions, period, and make sure your highest TS players get as many opportunities to put the ball in the hoop as is realistically possible. Smart teams do it instinctively. Young, dumb teams like ours need constant direction and reminders where the ball should go and the last thing they need is for the coach to publicly tell the players that "if you don't pass it to our second highest Volume X TS player we have, there will be no negative consequences"-- ("Lauri will not be featured any longer").

Formulaically, the Bulls losing at a higher clip post trade makes sense. Vuc's offensive delta versus WCJ comes at the expense of Lauri (a 62% TS player) and a lesser degree Thad (60% TS), which means it's a wash at best. At the same time, he gives up a higher TS% to opposing offenses compared to WCJ, Lauri and Thad so the net effect is actually negative versus pre-trade.

If the coaches actually understood simple math, they would have realized that your best shot of winning was maximizing the amount of touches that Zach, Thad, Lauri and Vuc get COMBINED, at the expense of the less efficient players, not at each others' expense because otherwise you're just a hamster team spinning in place and that team was below .500 as it was.

[dougthonus]

I'll post something that's not directly related to Lauri, but I would like to explain my view of hoops, because I would like for fellow posters to see where I'm coming from:

A .50 ball club usually has a net differential of around 0 (ORTG-DRTG). The average ball club has a TS of what? 55% these days? On 100 possessions, give or take?

Tiny things make a TON of difference over a season. Let me explain why:

To get the best offense possible:
* Minimize the TOs
* Maximize the TS% of every shot attempt that's not a TO

That's it.

On O, over 100 possessions (a full game on average), if your "inefficients" of sub below average TS take a lot of shots combined (say Val, Temple, Coby, Archi, even Pat) at the expense of your high TS players (Lauri, Thad, Sato, Vuc, Zach), you're leaving points on the board that could have been had. Let's just take 10 possessions out of the 100. If your average TS is 62% on these, versus 52%, that's a point a game. Not much you say? Yeah, but over a season, that's the difference between a 45 win team and a 42 win team. And that's 10% of the team's O possessions in a game. Let's make that 20% of possessions. That's two points. Now we're talking a 47-48 win team. Again, we're talking 20 better possessions out of 100. Not 80, 20.

That's why when I see a 62% TS player like Lauri that has proven that he can do it on volume have his opportunity cut by half versus his highest usage during the season, my temper flares as a Bulls fan that wants to see the team win. Vuc should NOT be taking opportunities away from Lauri (62% TS) and Thad (60% TS) because if he does, his 60% TS simply replaces already excellent production.

The coaches had to figure how to get these shots from the 52% TS group--if that means less time for these guys, or a much tighter leash of when they can let it fly--then that's what had to happen. If they had to devise ways and plays for the guys to run to make sure the right players get the ball in a place where they could do something with it--that's what they had to do. Instead, they took the idiotic way out and tried to maximize the touches of Zach and Vuc alone, while leaving the same amount from the pie to the players who are not as good at putting the ball in the hoop.

The same thing is true on D, although it is less dependent on you than on the opponent and what they're running. If you can force the other team to have his 50% TS players take 10 more shots out of 100 than his 60% TS, that's another point per game. Sometimes, you can't and there's that. Sometimes you can try to bait them into it and it may work.

So, in effect, either 10 better possessions per game on either side of the ball or 20 on one side can give you extra 6 wins / season statistically. That makes a club like ours this year into a .500 ball club and an average team into a 50 win team. That's why discipline and knowing what you're doing, and who's doing it, matters and why teams coached by Thibs always tend to outperform expectations in the regular season.

In the PO it's much more difficult to make such improvements and talent just straight up wins, but to get there, you can't have Val launching 30 footer 3s late in a tight game without anybody else touching the ball. Or else you'll lose because the margin that separates success from failure is incredibly thin over a season and a dozen **** possessions a game is the difference it makes to either get in the PO or not.

That's why you have to minimize crap, undisciplined possessions, period, and make sure your highest TS players get as many opportunities to put the ball in the hoop as is realistically possible. Smart teams do it instinctively. Young, dumb teams like ours need constant direction and reminders where the ball should go and the last thing they need is for the coach to publicly tell the players that "if you don't pass it to our second highest Volume X TS player we have, there will be no negative consequences"-- ("Lauri will not be featured any longer").

Formulaically, the Bulls losing at a higher clip post trade makes sense. Vuc's offensive delta versus WCJ comes at the expense of Lauri (a 62% TS player) and a lesser degree Thad (60% TS), which means it's a wash at best. At the same time, he gives up a higher TS% to opposing offenses compared to WCJ, Lauri and Thad so the net effect is actually negative versus pre-trade.

If the coaches actually understood simple math, they would have realized that your best shot of winning was maximizing the amount of touches that Zach, Thad, Lauri and Vuc get COMBINED, at the expense of the less efficient players, not at each others' expense because otherwise you're just a hamster team spinning in place and that team was below .500 as it was.

Some other factors is that a lot of guys only have high TS% in certain situations, and creating those situations isn't always easy. Creating a 65% TS% shot for a player might require another player to have specific skills or make risky plays that raise turnovers or other things (or you may not have enough other skills).

A guy who you just give the ball and get 65% TS% like James Harden is different than someone else. A guy who generates 65% TS% while constantly facing double teams and opening looks for guys that allow them to be 65% TS% players when otherwise they'd be 50% without that loose defense generated by the initial player.

This isn't to speak on any individual player on the team, but that's part of why this isn't 100% accurate. If it was, you'd just play five centers that average 60% TS%+.

Obviously the other end is you need to be able to limit efficiency of the opposing team.

[MrSparkle]

Raise your hand if you think Bulls match a $20m offer for Lauri, keep him in Chicago as the starting PF or 6th man.

......

Are we really asking why Donovan won't put the ball in Lauri's hands? Give PW's minutes to him? Ice Thad, Theis and Vuc?

Coby and Pat are being developed. The hope is they pan out more successfully by year 3 than Wendell and Lauri did.

[chefo]

I'll post something that's not directly related to Lauri, but I would like to explain my view of hoops, because I would like for fellow posters to see where I'm coming from:

A .50 ball club usually has a net differential of around 0 (ORTG-DRTG). The average ball club has a TS of what? 55% these days? On 100 possessions, give or take?

Tiny things make a TON of difference over a season. Let me explain why:

To get the best offense possible:
* Minimize the TOs
* Maximize the TS% of every shot attempt that's not a TO

That's it.

On O, over 100 possessions (a full game on average), if your "inefficients" of sub below average TS take a lot of shots combined (say Val, Temple, Coby, Archi, even Pat) at the expense of your high TS players (Lauri, Thad, Sato, Vuc, Zach), you're leaving points on the board that could have been had. Let's just take 10 possessions out of the 100. If your average TS is 62% on these, versus 52%, that's a point a game. Not much you say? Yeah, but over a season, that's the difference between a 45 win team and a 42 win team. And that's 10% of the team's O possessions in a game. Let's make that 20% of possessions. That's two points. Now we're talking a 47-48 win team. Again, we're talking 20 better possessions out of 100. Not 80, 20.

That's why when I see a 62% TS player like Lauri that has proven that he can do it on volume have his opportunity cut by half versus his highest usage during the season, my temper flares as a Bulls fan that wants to see the team win. Vuc should NOT be taking opportunities away from Lauri (62% TS) and Thad (60% TS) because if he does, his 60% TS simply replaces already excellent production.

The coaches had to figure how to get these shots from the 52% TS group--if that means less time for these guys, or a much tighter leash of when they can let it fly--then that's what had to happen. If they had to devise ways and plays for the guys to run to make sure the right players get the ball in a place where they could do something with it--that's what they had to do. Instead, they took the idiotic way out and tried to maximize the touches of Zach and Vuc alone, while leaving the same amount from the pie to the players who are not as good at putting the ball in the hoop.

The same thing is true on D, although it is less dependent on you than on the opponent and what they're running. If you can force the other team to have his 50% TS players take 10 more shots out of 100 than his 60% TS, that's another point per game. Sometimes, you can't and there's that. Sometimes you can try to bait them into it and it may work.

So, in effect, either 10 better possessions per game on either side of the ball or 20 on one side can give you extra 6 wins / season statistically. That makes a club like ours this year into a .500 ball club and an average team into a 50 win team. That's why discipline and knowing what you're doing, and who's doing it, matters and why teams coached by Thibs always tend to outperform expectations in the regular season.

In the PO it's much more difficult to make such improvements and talent just straight up wins, but to get there, you can't have Val launching 30 footer 3s late in a tight game without anybody else touching the ball. Or else you'll lose because the margin that separates success from failure is incredibly thin over a season and a dozen **** possessions a game is the difference it makes to either get in the PO or not.

That's why you have to minimize crap, undisciplined possessions, period, and make sure your highest TS players get as many opportunities to put the ball in the hoop as is realistically possible. Smart teams do it instinctively. Young, dumb teams like ours need constant direction and reminders where the ball should go and the last thing they need is for the coach to publicly tell the players that "if you don't pass it to our second highest Volume X TS player we have, there will be no negative consequences"-- ("Lauri will not be featured any longer").

Formulaically, the Bulls losing at a higher clip post trade makes sense. Vuc's offensive delta versus WCJ comes at the expense of Lauri (a 62% TS player) and a lesser degree Thad (60% TS), which means it's a wash at best. At the same time, he gives up a higher TS% to opposing offenses compared to WCJ, Lauri and Thad so the net effect is actually negative versus pre-trade.

If the coaches actually understood simple math, they would have realized that your best shot of winning was maximizing the amount of touches that Zach, Thad, Lauri and Vuc get COMBINED, at the expense of the less efficient players, not at each others' expense because otherwise you're just a hamster team spinning in place and that team was below .500 as it was.

Some other factors is that a lot of guys only have high TS% in certain situations, and creating those situations isn't always easy. Creating a 65% TS% shot for a player might require another player to have specific skills or make risky plays that raise turnovers or other things (or you may not have enough other skills).

A guy who you just give the ball and get 65% TS% like James Harden is different than someone else. A guy who generates 65% TS% while constantly facing double teams and opening looks for guys that allow them to be 65% TS% players when otherwise they'd be 50% without that loose defense generated by the initial player.

This isn't to speak on any individual player on the team, but that's part of why this isn't 100% accurate. If it was, you'd just play five centers that average 60% TS%+.

Obviously the other end is you need to be able to limit efficiency of the opposing team.

Of course, Doug; I assume that's obvious. You can't have a team of 5 Richaun Holmes' or 5 Joe Haris'. That's why it's somewhat important that these guys can get their points either a different way OR at different times during the game. Or, you can devise schemes where the D has to choose which of your 60% TS guy it wants to kill them that game.

But, the equation above simply states: "Try to get your best scorers score the most points possible combined" at the expense of guys who can't do it as well. On our team, we're kind of lucky with regards to the distribution of the skills (Zach--shooting and driving; Vuc--spotting up and low post; Thad--pocket P&R player; Lauri--shooting, driving, opportunistic paint scorer), which is why it's all the more frustrating that our coaches can't put a coherent game plan together.

[DunkenDunk]

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.

Not sure we have watched the same year games but Lauri has actually had pretty little touches during the last games but have finished those pretty effectively. Especially in rare situations getting pass to paint. The problem is just that for some reason he does not go to scoring position close to basket often enough and therefore he is missing lot of easy basket opportunities. (Even though 3 pointers may be more efficient in the long run it makes good for self confidence if you are in a position where you succeed than fail. (Close to basket 60-70% is ok while behind the arc 40-45% is ok in a long run)

Now when you watch Lauris game in Bulls during this season compared to previous ones, I have a a feeling that he had developed as a guy who can score close to basket as he has now much more tools for that. (More body weight and skills to put the ball in pretty many ways while during the first couple of years he usually only used the dragn lay up) But now for some reason he end up in good scoring position close to basket for a very few times per game. (Like maybe a 5 times and he end up actually getting the ball from those about 1-2 times per game) As the attempts to score are so low it's impossible to do any big numbers.

Change in the style of playing is visible also in the free throw attempts. I have not checked any numbers but I have a feeling that during the first and second year he was quite often getting about 10 free throw attempts per game and got around 8 or 9 easy poiints from those. In this year it's has been rare to see Lauri getting even 2 free throws per game. One reason might be that during the junior year he was as good of scoring from the paint than what he is now but got awarded from the failed attempts with free throws. But I think the more important reason was that he got much more changes to score.

[chefo]

Raise your hand if you think Bulls match a $20m offer for Lauri, keep him in Chicago as the starting PF or 6th man.

......

Are we really asking why Donovan won't put the ball in Lauri's hands? Give PW's minutes to him? Ice Thad, Theis and Vuc?

Coby and Pat are being developed. The hope is they pan out more successfully by year 3 than Wendell and Lauri did.

If they don't intend to change how they'll use him, it'd be idiotic to match. As for this season--yeah, if Lauri got 10 of Pat's minutes post demotion, we'd have more Ws, I'm absolutely certain of that. Lauri's not a SF, but Pat's not one either, and Lauri is a much better SF than Pat and much better player overall, at least currently. Yeah, may not be the case in 3 years, but this year when he got 4th option touches, Lauri gave you 18 ppg so he can produce very well on low usage.

Pat gets nothing from being a warm body that's afraid to shoot for 30 min per game. He's pretty bad as a low usage player. As I've written, I'd rather he gets 10 shots playing 18 minutes off the bench, and try to be the leader of that group than get 7 shots playing 30 min with the starters where he's a huge drag to the team.

[sco]

So let me see if I have this recap of the past couple pages right?

Lauri has been statistically efficient. As such, the Billy should be using and featuring him more, but he hasn't. The Bulls would win more game if they did, because - math. The Bulls have a losing record, because - guys not named Lauri. Lauri is going to leave and make some other team great.

[chefo]

So let me see if I have this recap of the past couple pages right?

Lauri has been statistically efficient. -- Yes; very.

As such, the Billy should be using and featuring him more, but he hasn't. -- Yes; not Donovan's only mess-up, but one of the major ones

The Bulls would win more game if they did, because - math. -- probably; having dead weight at the 3 sure helps none

The Bulls have a losing record, because - guys not named Lauri. --not really; tough to tell; they may have won more, but a winning record? That's a stretch.

Lauri is going to leave and make some other team great.

--at that point who cares? He won't be a Bull any more.

[DunkenDunk]

So let me see if I have this recap of the past couple pages right?

Lauri has been statistically efficient. As such, the Billy should be using and featuring him more, but he hasn't. The Bulls would win more game if they did, because - math. The Bulls have a losing record, because - guys not named Lauri. Lauri is going to leave and make some other team great.

That's very possible and Bulls will do yeat another year of tanking and repeating same mistakes they have done now for about 10 years in a row without learning anything.

Wizards have now in 10th position over Bulls and clearly improving. Have you checked how many passes that have lead to score Gafford has got in total from the Westbrook after the trade? Much more than during his whole play time in Chicago and that shows up in his stats and Wizards success.

[Pentele]

I defnitely agree that one cannot base evaluation of talent level on on off numbers for the reasons you mentioned. But they are not completely worthless by any means. In this case they tell us on whose watch, so to speak, the Bulls have been losing or winning the actual games. A very reasonable case can be made that the Bulls have managed to play well while Brown has been on the floor, and even more so because he has not played that much (I think that number is pretty impressive). Perhaps that could be said about Lauri as well, but the case is not nearly as conclusive.

To me, Lauri's number matches with what I have seen in the games while Lauri has been on the floor (mostly against the bench, but also some time with Vuc and some other starters as well, of course): the Bulls have been competitive during that time. The same cannot be said about Pwill's time, or even Vuc's, as wonderful as offensive player that he is (and yes, clearly better than Lauri). That means that the Bulls have a problem of making the team play well while those guys are on the floor - of course it does not mean that either Pwill or Vuc is rubbish based on that on off-number. Like you said, it is correlative, not causal, stat in the case of individual players. But far from useless as one can identify problem areas (again, not necessarily individually, but team-wise).

There is another use for citing on off stats particularly in this Lauri thread. And that is to combat the misguided narrative that Lauri contributes significantly to the Bulls losing while he is on the floor (that stat is actually able to inform regarding that). One poster has frequently posted the team record when Lauri has played in comparison to when he has not played. Many found that insightful. But here is a news flash: it is also a correlative stat. It is even more rubbish than on off numbers in terms of informing us of how a particular player has fared. And still many found that insightful. It is exactly the sort of playing with whatever stat one can find that makes me laugh at the idea that, in this thread, there is some sort of battle going between those who look at the matter objectively and those that are somehow emotionally invested or otherwise much too stubborn (i.e., the so called Lauri-stans). The double standard is striking.

Yes, if someone says in the past 16 games the Bulls always get killed when Lauri is on the floor, then on/off numbers can say that did not happen. If we are just arguing facts/not facts.

In terms of predictability or individual player quality though, these numbers are statistically worthless. There have been many studies with on/off numbers, and I'd have to go back and look, but as I noted, you _have_ to use regressed ones for them to be useful and you need around 1.5 years of data I believe before they become predictive.

Using a very small sample size of non-regressed data does not show anything whatsoever about player quality, though I agree, it can be noted to make factual claims like "The Bulls played better with Lauri on the floor in the last 17 games". That claim may be factually accurate, but people will make it to imply it is predictive and the Bulls will do so in the future regardless of who he plays with or against, and these numbers do not statistically support that conclusion.

Totally agree. That's the problem, isn't it? People argue against what is (supposedly) implied rather than what is actually claimed. We end up dancing in circles around each other. I confess that I am guilty of that too. But every now and then I try to drive home a point that confusions are attributable to humans, not to any particular stat, not even on off. There are no rubbish stats, only rubbish people

[Pentele]

Raise your hand if you think Bulls match a $20m offer for Lauri, keep him in Chicago as the starting PF or 6th man.

......

Are we really asking why Donovan won't put the ball in Lauri's hands? Give PW's minutes to him? Ice Thad, Theis and Vuc?

Coby and Pat are being developed. The hope is they pan out more successfully by year 3 than Wendell and Lauri did.

Sure, that is completely understandable. But then the point is not to win, and certainly the present discussions around how well Lauri is used are premised on the idea that the team wants to win games. Some argue that Lauri is easily replacable journeyman-caliber player who does not really contribute to winning while others are saying that, to win games, the Bulls should use Lauri more efficiently. I do not think it is more complex than that.

There might be plenty of reasons why the Bulls are not playing Lauri more. But if the arguments for or against revolve around performance-related statistics, surely the discussion is about performing better or worse, not about who is developed and who is not.

Btw, I hope someone has told Thad what is the goal the rest of the season (I refer to his recent interview in which he basically criticized Boylen for mixing developing players and trying to win, and he said he simply wants to know what is going on).

[kingkirk]

"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.

Further to this, of players playing 24 or more minutes per game who average less than 6 rebounds and 1 assist per game, the list is 4 players in the league: Lauri, Bertans, Brook Lopez and (one other role guy who's name is escaping at this point).

Point being, you don't pay those guys much because you simply can't rely on them to do much else beyond finishing baskets that are created for them.

[dougthonus]

Sure, that is completely understandable. But then the point is not to win, and certainly the present discussions around how well Lauri is used are premised on the idea that the team wants to win games. Some argue that Lauri is easily replacable journeyman-caliber player who does not really contribute to winning while others are saying that, to win games, the Bulls should use Lauri more efficiently. I do not think it is more complex than that.

The Bulls need to get Lauri good looks often on offense when on the floor, because if they aren't going to do that, then he's a huge negative. He's a particularly bad fit with our starting center now. We should always look to give him scoring opportunities when on the floor, but those are often hard to generate, because most of Lauri's efficiency is due to him shooting wide open shots. It isn't easy to generate a wide open shot for Lauri, and defenses generally don't have a hard time taking that away in important moments.

In that sense, (to me) it kind of depends what you mean here. The Bulls should attempt to use Lauri's offense when on the floor, because if not, why have him out there at all? That is sometimes easier said than done though. The second thing is that trying to use Lauri efficiently doesn't mean the team will be better than using Thad or Theis efficiently in lower volume and other players in higher volume.

Lauri, fundamentally doesn't look like an impact player to me. With WCJ, Gafford, or Thad at Center, then I think think Lauri was the Bulls best PF to complement them. With Vuc, I think he's probably the worst. With Theis or Thad he's pretty solid. If I had my big man rotation of Theis, Thad, Vuc, Lauri, then I would probably virtually never play Lauri/Vuc at the same time and play Vuc as many minutes as he's capable to stay healthy and fresh (30ish) which would leave me with 18 for Lauri paired up with Theis or Thad. Maybe I'd give Lauri an extra 4-5 with Vuc here and there, but I wouldn't stick with that look too often.

[kingkirk]

Raise your hand if you think Bulls match a $20m offer for Lauri, keep him in Chicago as the starting PF or 6th man.

......

Are we really asking why Donovan won't put the ball in Lauri's hands? Give PW's minutes to him? Ice Thad, Theis and Vuc?

Coby and Pat are being developed. The hope is they pan out more successfully by year 3 than Wendell and Lauri did.

If they don't intend to change how they'll use him, it'd be idiotic to match. As for this season--yeah, if Lauri got 10 of Pat's minutes post demotion, we'd have more Ws, I'm absolutely certain of that. Lauri's not a SF, but Pat's not one either, and Lauri is a much better SF than Pat and much better player overall, at least currently. Yeah, may not be the case in 3 years, but this year when he got 4th option touches, Lauri gave you 18 ppg so he can produce very well on low usage.

Pat gets nothing from being a warm body that's afraid to shoot for 30 min per game. He's pretty bad as a low usage player. As I've written, I'd rather he gets 10 shots playing 18 minutes off the bench, and try to be the leader of that group than get 7 shots playing 30 min with the starters where he's a huge drag to the team.

What evidence do we have that Lauri Markkanen can exist at small forward?

Further to this, if Markkanen is to have a viable career, it will be based on his ability to transition to and play center, not on the perimeter — which is an unbelievably bad decision imo, especially against teams like the Heat.