A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject:

awntawn wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
I think the problem is that we don't know whether that's true. Would more extended minutes for DLO/JC be better? Who knows?

We may have the opportunity to find out soon. I'm a fan of the team, I would love to think that Lou and Swaggy were parking brakes, and that the minute DLo gets consistent minutes, he starts tearing it up and winning games. That once we get guys who pass Ingram the ball, he starts looking like the player we thought we were drafting.

I actually watch games too, so I don't expect it to happen based on what I've seen. But I would love it to.

I'm just prepared for it to get really ugly. Imagine not winning a game for the rest of the season, and then losing the pick.


Well can't have it both ways IMO. Can't be upset if the youngsters are in a sink/swim situation and the team has a bad record. In that scenario, at least we get something out of throwing the youngsters out there.

The status quo is relying on the Lou crutch, maybe being in the bottom 3 anyways. In that scenario, for those who are tankers, that's probably upsetting.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

richmorgan12 wrote:
awntawn wrote:


Again, I know it's a flawed analysis.


It's really flawed. You're basically subtracting Lou and Nick's points, without adding back any points from their shots being redistributed to other players.


Ok, imagine Calderon and Huertas's impact on the offense then.

Honestly, combined with the net positive of losing last season's Kobe, this is the whole improvement in a nutshell.


Last edited by greenfrog on Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:55 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:54 pm    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

greenfrog wrote:
richmorgan12 wrote:
awntawn wrote:


Again, I know it's a flawed analysis.


It's really flawed. You're basically subtracting Lou and Nick's points, without adding back any points from their shots being redistributed to other players.


Ok, imagine Calderon and Huertas's impact on the offense then.

Honestly, combined with the net positive of losing last season's Kobe, this is the whole improvement in a nutshell.
Is there really an improvement losing Kobe? Like, yeah we lost Kobe. We gained Ingram (and Deng). It's hardly an improvement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:56 pm    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

tox wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
richmorgan12 wrote:
awntawn wrote:


Again, I know it's a flawed analysis.


It's really flawed. You're basically subtracting Lou and Nick's points, without adding back any points from their shots being redistributed to other players.


Ok, imagine Calderon and Huertas's impact on the offense then.

Honestly, combined with the net positive of losing last season's Kobe, this is the whole improvement in a nutshell.
Is there really an improvement losing Kobe? Like, yeah we lost Kobe. We gained Ingram (and Deng). It's hardly an improvement.


At least they don't shoot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31930
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:58 pm    Post subject:

TylersLakers wrote:
Great work. It clearly shows how valuable Lou and Nick's scoring is to the team.

As mentioned above, those points would certainly be scored by someone else -- but.. to what extent? That's why I don't think it's as flawed as the posters above are making it out to be.

Not having Nick and Lou certainly makes us a worse team scoring wise, which is good for the tank.


and bad for the team as a whole going forward

More tanking means another young player that the team needs to spend years developing as well as another year where free agents will avoid the team (and thus we sign more mozgovs and dengs)
_________________
Kobe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

greenfrog wrote:
tox wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
richmorgan12 wrote:
awntawn wrote:


Again, I know it's a flawed analysis.


It's really flawed. You're basically subtracting Lou and Nick's points, without adding back any points from their shots being redistributed to other players.


Ok, imagine Calderon and Huertas's impact on the offense then.

Honestly, combined with the net positive of losing last season's Kobe, this is the whole improvement in a nutshell.
Is there really an improvement losing Kobe? Like, yeah we lost Kobe. We gained Ingram (and Deng). It's hardly an improvement.


At least they don't shoot.

Sure, and they play better defense. They're still terrible is my point. It's not much of an improvement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
TylersLakers wrote:
Great work. It clearly shows how valuable Lou and Nick's scoring is to the team.

As mentioned above, those points would certainly be scored by someone else -- but.. to what extent? That's why I don't think it's as flawed as the posters above are making it out to be.

Not having Nick and Lou certainly makes us a worse team scoring wise, which is good for the tank.


and bad for the team as a whole going forward

More tanking means another young player that the team needs to spend years developing as well as another year where free agents will avoid the team (and thus we sign more mozgovs and dengs)


Huh? Losing one of Nick or Lou means that DLO/JC have to sink/swim for the next 25+ games. That's invaluable. We likely finish 2nd worst.

Meanwhile, with Lou, we're still likely finishing 2nd worst. Not sure which FA is drawn by Lou or Swaggy.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:02 pm    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
TylersLakers wrote:
Great work. It clearly shows how valuable Lou and Nick's scoring is to the team.

As mentioned above, those points would certainly be scored by someone else -- but.. to what extent? That's why I don't think it's as flawed as the posters above are making it out to be.

Not having Nick and Lou certainly makes us a worse team scoring wise, which is good for the tank.


and bad for the team as a whole going forward

More tanking means another young player that the team needs to spend years developing as well as another year where free agents will avoid the team (and thus we sign more mozgovs and dengs)
We need a star. Does any of the young players strike you as that future star? Me neither.

We need someone in the vein of Giannis, AD, etc. I'd hoped that Ingram or Russell (or, at least the two combined) could get there, but neither has shown enough so far to make that projection (even if I'm not going to rule out the possibility).

So we have another chance -- might as well grab it. As far as free agents go -- meh. It's not like we're going to miss much in 2017.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:05 pm    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

tox wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
tox wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
richmorgan12 wrote:
awntawn wrote:


Again, I know it's a flawed analysis.


It's really flawed. You're basically subtracting Lou and Nick's points, without adding back any points from their shots being redistributed to other players.


Ok, imagine Calderon and Huertas's impact on the offense then.

Honestly, combined with the net positive of losing last season's Kobe, this is the whole improvement in a nutshell.
Is there really an improvement losing Kobe? Like, yeah we lost Kobe. We gained Ingram (and Deng). It's hardly an improvement.


At least they don't shoot.

Sure, and they play better defense. They're still terrible is my point. It's not much of an improvement.

They're terrible, but their terribleness has been pushed to the periphery. With Kobe it was the main course. It's one if not the main reason I think Lou has been so much better. He's allowed to be the man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31930
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:02 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Chronicle wrote:
TylersLakers wrote:
Great work. It clearly shows how valuable Lou and Nick's scoring is to the team.

As mentioned above, those points would certainly be scored by someone else -- but.. to what extent? That's why I don't think it's as flawed as the posters above are making it out to be.

Not having Nick and Lou certainly makes us a worse team scoring wise, which is good for the tank.


and bad for the team as a whole going forward

More tanking means another young player that the team needs to spend years developing as well as another year where free agents will avoid the team (and thus we sign more mozgovs and dengs)


Huh? Losing one of Nick or Lou means that DLO/JC have to sink/swim for the next 25+ games. That's invaluable. We likely finish 2nd worst.

Meanwhile, with Lou, we're still likely finishing 2nd worst. Not sure which FA is drawn by Lou or Swaggy.


Lou is the best player on the team. Every person in this thread saying they want young talent is because they also say young talent improves year after year. Why would suddenly the laker players not improve over the summer?

We started the season 10-10. With improved players next season we can win more. Trading away our best player is going to stop us from doing that

Tanking every year is the worst thing, because you don't solve your team after landing a good player. You still need 2-3 years for that player to develop, which means 2-3 more years of piss poor records and no free agents coming.

And then the earlier players that you got will need their salaries extended, which is a point you specifically love to bring up a lot. Well if we have to tank again, and have more years of bad records, then that means our salary cap is used up on the earlier players, and even if we get a better record no good free agent can come here.

When did you flip to tank anyway
_________________
Kobe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Eindhoven
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2015
Posts: 1930
Location: Zürich

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:08 am    Post subject:

Lou and Nick are playing very well and I've already said Lou is the best Laker of the season. But the analysis is so flawed that if you do it without Russell and Clarkson, results would be similar. Not only it doesn't count their points being absorbed by others, but it doesn't care for defense impact, efficiency and facilitating the game to the others. We should count games where a regular/good performance of a given player who played poorly would be a W, instead of a L.

Yes, they are important, but subtract any 2 players of DLo/JC/JR/LNJ and they wouldn't make up for it, as they didn't. Many of Lou's best scoring games were losses when DLo was injured.
_________________
....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:05 am    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Chronicle wrote:
TylersLakers wrote:
Great work. It clearly shows how valuable Lou and Nick's scoring is to the team.

As mentioned above, those points would certainly be scored by someone else -- but.. to what extent? That's why I don't think it's as flawed as the posters above are making it out to be.

Not having Nick and Lou certainly makes us a worse team scoring wise, which is good for the tank.


and bad for the team as a whole going forward

More tanking means another young player that the team needs to spend years developing as well as another year where free agents will avoid the team (and thus we sign more mozgovs and dengs)


Huh? Losing one of Nick or Lou means that DLO/JC have to sink/swim for the next 25+ games. That's invaluable. We likely finish 2nd worst.

Meanwhile, with Lou, we're still likely finishing 2nd worst. Not sure which FA is drawn by Lou or Swaggy.


Lou is the best player on the team. Every person in this thread saying they want young talent is because they also say young talent improves year after year. Why would suddenly the laker players not improve over the summer?

We started the season 10-10. With improved players next season we can win more. Trading away our best player is going to stop us from doing that

Tanking every year is the worst thing, because you don't solve your team after landing a good player. You still need 2-3 years for that player to develop, which means 2-3 more years of piss poor records and no free agents coming.

And then the earlier players that you got will need their salaries extended, which is a point you specifically love to bring up a lot. Well if we have to tank again, and have more years of bad records, then that means our salary cap is used up on the earlier players, and even if we get a better record no good free agent can come here.

When did you flip to tank anyway


I'm not pro-tank. My point is we will finish likely 2nd worst WITH Lou. We would finish 2nd worst WITHOUT Lou.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
richmorgan12
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 13 Feb 2017
Posts: 595

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:18 am    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
You still need 2-3 years for that player to develop, which means 2-3 more years of piss poor records and no free agents coming.



The new CBA means that no free agents will be coming unless they will be overpaid or they're joining a team that won 70 games.


Last edited by richmorgan12 on Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:19 am    Post subject:

My hope is that we get smart, younger (no more 30+ on deals greater than 12m/year) core piece FAs if we can't get any big names.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
1hu2ren3dui4
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 15403
Location: Oak Park

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:26 pm    Post subject:

I'm pretty sure we would be blowing out the suns in the talkathon. Just so may times this year the opposing team makes a run and the only person on the lakers who really knows how to counter back Is Lou.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:20 pm    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

richmorgan12 wrote:
awntawn wrote:


Again, I know it's a flawed analysis.


It's really flawed. You're basically subtracting Lou and Nick's points, without adding back any points from their shots being redistributed to other players.


take a look at those turnovers and shooting percentages. the reason they scored as much as they did not because they were so good. it was because they took so many shots. if anyone takes that many shots they will end up with those ppg averages, especially looking at first year westbrook. this is the same that would happen with our young guys if lou or young were benched a lot more often or they disappeared and our young guys were forced to take 90% of the shots. but lets not forget that okc team did have vets on the team. they just were not allowed to play a lot of mins.


Code:
[code]                                                                                                                                         
Rk              Player Age  G GS   MP  FG  FGA   FG%  3P 3PA  3P%  2P  2PA   2P%  eFG%  FT FTA   FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV  PF  PTS
1         Kevin Durant  20 74 74 39.0 8.9 18.8  .476 1.3 3.1 .422 7.6 15.7  .486  .510 6.1 7.1  .863 1.0 5.5 6.5 2.8 1.3 0.7 3.0 1.8 25.3
2           Jeff Green  22 78 78 36.8 6.1 13.7  .446 1.2 3.2 .389 4.9 10.5  .463  .491 3.1 3.9  .788 1.5 5.1 6.7 2.0 1.0 0.4 2.2 2.6 16.5
3    Russell Westbrook  20 82 65 32.5 5.3 13.4  .398 0.4 1.6 .271 4.9 11.8  .415  .414 4.3 5.2  .815 2.2 2.7 4.9 5.3 1.3 0.2 3.3 2.3 15.3
4      Thabo Sefolosha  24 23 22 31.2 3.2  7.6  .417 0.4 1.6 .243 2.8  6.0  .464  .443 1.7 2.1  .833 1.2 4.0 5.2 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.2 2.3  8.5
5        Desmond Mason  31 39 19 27.3 3.2  7.3  .435 0.0 0.1 .000 3.2  7.2  .440  .435 1.2 2.2  .541 1.1 3.0 4.0 1.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.5  7.5
6          Earl Watson  29 68 18 26.1 2.6  6.7  .384 0.3 1.3 .235 2.3  5.4  .418  .406 1.2 1.6  .755 0.5 2.2 2.7 5.8 0.7 0.2 2.3 2.0  6.6
7        Nick Collison  28 71 40 25.8 3.4  6.0  .568 0.0 0.0 .000 3.4  6.0  .570  .568 1.4 1.9  .721 2.5 4.3 6.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.0 3.4  8.2
8         Nenad Krstic  25 46 29 24.8 4.2  8.8  .469 0.0      0.0 4.2  8.8  .469  .469 1.4 1.7  .797 1.8 3.7 5.5 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.0 2.5  9.7
9     Shaun Livingston  23  8  1 23.8 3.5  6.5  .538 0.0      0.0 3.5  6.5  .538  .538 0.8 0.8 1.000 0.4 2.9 3.3 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.8 1.0  7.8
10         Kyle Weaver  22 56 19 20.8 2.0  4.4  .459 0.6 1.7 .344 1.4  2.7  .529  .524 0.7 1.0  .707 0.6 1.8 2.3 1.8 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.4  5.3
11        Chris Wilcox  26 37  6 19.4 3.5  7.2  .485 0.0 0.1 .000 3.5  7.2  .491  .485 1.4 2.4  .598 1.8 3.5 5.3 0.9 0.5 0.3 1.5 2.4  8.4
12           Joe Smith  33 36  3 19.2 2.8  6.1  .454 0.1 0.1 .500 2.7  5.9  .453  .459 1.1 1.5  .704 1.5 3.1 4.5 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 2.0  6.6
13          D.J. White  22  7  0 18.6 3.7  7.1  .520 0.0      0.0 3.7  7.1  .520  .520 1.4 1.9  .769 1.4 3.1 4.6 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.4  8.9
14       Chucky Atkins  34 19  0 15.6 1.3  4.5  .291 0.5 2.1 .250 0.8  2.4  .326  .349 0.6 0.6  .917 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.2  3.7
15         Johan Petro  23 22 12 15.5 2.1  5.1  .407 0.0 0.0 .000 2.1  5.1  .411  .407 0.5 0.7  .667 1.2 3.1 4.3 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.7 2.3  4.6
16      Damien Wilkins  29 41 14 15.5 1.9  5.2  .362 0.7 1.8 .375 1.2  3.4  .355  .425 0.9 1.1  .804 0.5 1.2 1.7 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.9 1.3  5.3
17          Malik Rose  34 20  0 15.5 1.7  4.5  .378 0.0 0.2 .000 1.7  4.4  .391  .378 1.6 2.0  .800 0.7 2.6 3.3 1.3 0.5 0.1 1.0 2.4  5.0
18        Robert Swift  23 26 10 13.2 1.4  2.7  .521 0.0      0.0 1.4  2.7  .521  .521 0.5 0.6  .750 0.8 2.6 3.4 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.9  3.3
19       Mouhamed Sene  22  5  0  4.6 1.0  1.4  .714 0.0      0.0 1.0  1.4  .714  .714 1.4 1.8  .778 0.6 1.2 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4  3.4
20         Steven Hill  23  1  0  2.0 1.0  1.0 1.000 0.0      0.0 1.0  1.0 1.000 1.000 0.0       0.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  2.0
[/code]

Provided by [url=http://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool]Basketball-Reference.com[/url]: [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/2009.html?sr&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#per_game]View Original Table[/url]
Generated 2/18/2017.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:29 pm    Post subject:

OP, how about you do this "analysis" on Lou and 2014-2015 Raptors and see how close it comes to reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Laker_Dynasty_01
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 1703

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:01 am    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

splashmtn wrote:
richmorgan12 wrote:
awntawn wrote:


Again, I know it's a flawed analysis.


It's really flawed. You're basically subtracting Lou and Nick's points, without adding back any points from their shots being redistributed to other players.


take a look at those turnovers and shooting percentages. the reason they scored as much as they did not because they were so good. it was because they took so many shots. if anyone takes that many shots they will end up with those ppg averages, especially looking at first year westbrook. this is the same that would happen with our young guys if lou or young were benched a lot more often or they disappeared and our young guys were forced to take 90% of the shots. but lets not forget that okc team did have vets on the team. they just were not allowed to play a lot of mins.


Code:
[code]                                                                                                                                         
Rk              Player Age  G GS   MP  FG  FGA   FG%  3P 3PA  3P%  2P  2PA   2P%  eFG%  FT FTA   FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV  PF  PTS
1         Kevin Durant  20 74 74 39.0 8.9 18.8  .476 1.3 3.1 .422 7.6 15.7  .486  .510 6.1 7.1  .863 1.0 5.5 6.5 2.8 1.3 0.7 3.0 1.8 25.3
2           Jeff Green  22 78 78 36.8 6.1 13.7  .446 1.2 3.2 .389 4.9 10.5  .463  .491 3.1 3.9  .788 1.5 5.1 6.7 2.0 1.0 0.4 2.2 2.6 16.5
3    Russell Westbrook  20 82 65 32.5 5.3 13.4  .398 0.4 1.6 .271 4.9 11.8  .415  .414 4.3 5.2  .815 2.2 2.7 4.9 5.3 1.3 0.2 3.3 2.3 15.3
4      Thabo Sefolosha  24 23 22 31.2 3.2  7.6  .417 0.4 1.6 .243 2.8  6.0  .464  .443 1.7 2.1  .833 1.2 4.0 5.2 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.2 2.3  8.5
5        Desmond Mason  31 39 19 27.3 3.2  7.3  .435 0.0 0.1 .000 3.2  7.2  .440  .435 1.2 2.2  .541 1.1 3.0 4.0 1.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.5  7.5
6          Earl Watson  29 68 18 26.1 2.6  6.7  .384 0.3 1.3 .235 2.3  5.4  .418  .406 1.2 1.6  .755 0.5 2.2 2.7 5.8 0.7 0.2 2.3 2.0  6.6[/code]

Provided by [url=http://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool]Basketball-Reference.com[/url]: [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/2009.html?sr&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#per_game]View Original Table[/url]
Generated 2/18/2017.


Lou and Nick have the highest TS% on our team because they are the best shooters, even with their high volume. Trading those two for picks alone is too Hinkish for me, at least keep Young.

D'Angelo can't get 20 shots off in a game unless 10 of them are 3s, not every player can handle/should take that many shots in a game. D'Angelo can barely handle 20+ minutes, let alone 20+ shots. Think how easily the opposing coach will be able to gameplan against us with Russell and Clarkson as the only threats.

Lou can always be traded next year, if the deal isn't right the FO shouldn't feel pressured into taking it just to improve this year's odds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:32 am    Post subject: Re: A rough imperfect analysis of how many games we would've won without Lou and Nick

Laker_Dynasty_01 wrote:


Lou and Nick have the highest TS% on our team because they are the best shooters, even with their high volume. Trading those two for picks alone is too Hinkish for me, at least keep Young.

D'Angelo can't get 20 shots off in a game unless 10 of them are 3s, not every player can handle/should take that many shots in a game. D'Angelo can barely handle 20+ minutes, let alone 20+ shots. Think how easily the opposing coach will be able to gameplan against us with Russell and Clarkson as the only threats.

Lou can always be traded next year, if the deal isn't right the FO shouldn't feel pressured into taking it just to improve this year's odds.


I was saying something similar to that in the Trade Lou Will thread. If we ditch Lou and/or Nick. We shouldn't expect to have a decent record next year. We become a worse team beyond this season. Unless we have some unexpected free agency magic.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
awntawn
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 953

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:55 am    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
OP, how about you do this "analysis" on Lou and 2014-2015 Raptors and see how close it comes to reality.

Throw out the analysis if you want. Like I said, I lay no claims to being an intelligent stats person.

I wouldn't be able to say anything even at a rudimentary level about that Raptors team because I haven't seen a single one of their games. And ultimately, it's watching the games that led me to wanting to have this discussion, not looking at numbers.

If you watch the games, it's pretty clear that most of our wins are a result of Nick and Lou getting ridiculously hot, and not from "playing the right way" that Luke claims to want. The whole point of posting this was that it's so obvious that even a dumb unscientific analysis supports that hypothesis. Someone else did a quick and dirty calculation with win shares, and it pretty much came to the same conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:41 am    Post subject:

^The scoring figures you posted are right in line with what you would expect for these two players given their season averages. Maybe even less considering that Lou is our leading scorer for the season, so you could even turn it around and say that our wins feature more usage among our young players. In fact, Lou's highest scoring game on there is 27, and we lost all five of the ones he scored over that.

Anyway, there's no point in going any deeper into it. I'm sure if you did a similar thing to last season, it would say that we would win less than 8 games without Kobe or some other nonsense. I watched the games as well, and while I believe of course that they would miss his production if they traded Lou, they wouldn't fall off a cliff. And any team missing key producers without getting anything in return are going to suffer. The Lakers wouldn't be particularly special in this regard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:30 am    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
^The scoring figures you posted are right in line with what you would expect for these two players given their season averages. Maybe even less considering that Lou is our leading scorer for the season, so you could even turn it around and say that our wins feature more usage among our young players. In fact, Lou's highest scoring game on there is 27, and we lost all five of the ones he scored over that.

Anyway, there's no point in going any deeper into it. I'm sure if you did a similar thing to last season, it would say that we would win less than 8 games without Kobe or some other nonsense. I watched the games as well, and while I believe of course that they would miss his production if they traded Lou, they wouldn't fall off a cliff. And any team missing key producers without getting anything in return are going to suffer. The Lakers wouldn't be particularly special in this regard.


How useful of a stat is Win Shares for a discussion like this? I've seen people use or discount the stat based on its convenience to their argument. Kinda like DBPM. Just wondering what you think.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:46 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
^The scoring figures you posted are right in line with what you would expect for these two players given their season averages. Maybe even less considering that Lou is our leading scorer for the season, so you could even turn it around and say that our wins feature more usage among our young players. In fact, Lou's highest scoring game on there is 27, and we lost all five of the ones he scored over that.

Anyway, there's no point in going any deeper into it. I'm sure if you did a similar thing to last season, it would say that we would win less than 8 games without Kobe or some other nonsense. I watched the games as well, and while I believe of course that they would miss his production if they traded Lou, they wouldn't fall off a cliff. And any team missing key producers without getting anything in return are going to suffer. The Lakers wouldn't be particularly special in this regard.


How useful of a stat is Win Shares for a discussion like this? I've seen people use or discount the stat based on its convenience to their argument. Kinda like DBPM. Just wondering what you think.


I haven't really looked at it, so I'll pass it along to tox. The attempt to translate from baseball from the bballreference guy didn't seem too appealing so I never dug into it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:10 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
^The scoring figures you posted are right in line with what you would expect for these two players given their season averages. Maybe even less considering that Lou is our leading scorer for the season, so you could even turn it around and say that our wins feature more usage among our young players. In fact, Lou's highest scoring game on there is 27, and we lost all five of the ones he scored over that.

Anyway, there's no point in going any deeper into it. I'm sure if you did a similar thing to last season, it would say that we would win less than 8 games without Kobe or some other nonsense. I watched the games as well, and while I believe of course that they would miss his production if they traded Lou, they wouldn't fall off a cliff. And any team missing key producers without getting anything in return are going to suffer. The Lakers wouldn't be particularly special in this regard.


How useful of a stat is Win Shares for a discussion like this? I've seen people use or discount the stat based on its convenience to their argument. Kinda like DBPM. Just wondering what you think.


Not particularly. It was inspired by WARP, which in baseball basically does that really well. But in basketball things are too interrelated for a simple box score stat (which is what win shares are) to accomplish that goal. I think empirically you'll find that to make sense as well.

More generally, it has the same issue as PER: a statistician decided how much everything is worth, so at the end of the day it's pretty arbitrary how much things are weighted. That's why I prefer BPM, which lets algorithms figure it out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB