| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| epak wrote: | Maeda only handled righties as a bull pen guy.
Julius handles lefties, righties, power hitters, hight ops guys, speedsters out of the pen.  |
lol... I don't think you want to get into a discussion about versatility and right handed finishing with Randle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | And RPM is not a useful tool, IMO, when comparing players on two different teams. It can be useful when comparing players on the same team, however. |
I disagree. It's a great tool to compare players on two different teams, as far as all-in-one stats go. The key is to keep in mind its limitations.
In particular, there is the issue of previous year priors: RPM uses previous years' RPM values to help calibrate where a player should be. In general, this is good and leads to stable results. But for a player who's made a serious improvement like Julius, it will underrate him as it continues to expect him to regress somewhat to previous years' values. |
Either I don't understand RPM or we're talking about two different things. We're both talking about real plus/minus right? I thought RPM simply tracks how many more points your team scores on average, per 100 possessions with you on the floor, and how many more/less points your team gives up per 100 possessions with you on the floor normalizing those scores to eliminate teammate bias. However, it can only differentiate teammates you play with on your team, but can't differentiate how you might play (or your impact) next to teammates on another team.
In other words, RPM cannot normalize playing as part of an entirely different roster night to night, right?
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Laker wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Simply because he's not a starter doesn't mean that later in the game he doesn't play against starters. Again, that's lazy thinking and again correlation (i.e. not being a starter means you only play against bench units) does not mean causation (i.e. that coming off the bench is the actual reason for his success). |
Yawn. We all learned "correlation does not imply causation" in Statistics 101.
What we learned in Statistics 520 is "sometimes correlation can infer causation."
One of the big knocks against Randle was his motor.inability to sustain effort, which was cited as a reason for him taking plays off on both ends of the court. This year, in 8 less minutes, Randle is putting up Per 36 minute highs in nearly every positive category.
Yes, there are multiple factors: different players, Julius knows the system better, he's is in better shape, etc.
But when you look at measurables - Julius' usage rate and fouls/min are much higher than in previous seasons. To me, that infers  :
1 - Julius is expending more energy per minute:
2 - Coming off the bench, Julius is fresher against tired 1st unit players
3 - Julius gets to see the flow of the game before he goes in
4 - Julius can go "balls out" without worrying about foul trouble.
Many players do better coming off the bench - no shame in that. Assuming that Julius' improved play will translate from 21-25 minutes as a reserve to 32-35 milutes as a starter is what doesn't track . . . particularly given the flaws exposed in Julius' previous 133 starts. |
I see two hypotheses here, and the only way to get closer to the truth is for the coaching staff to give Julius more minutes. Let's test that hypothesis! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^Every point he makes is an assumption that isn't supported by actually looking at the play types and the data.
For example, Randle is committing 3.3 fouls per game. At that rate, he could play 32 minutes per game and still wouldn't foul out, so the whole "he can ball out without worrying about fouls" rationale doesn't hold water.
Again, its all just a way to rationalize a poor opinion of Randle that is being proven wrong by the game.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epak
Retired Number
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 34147
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | epak wrote: | Maeda only handled righties as a bull pen guy.
Julius handles lefties, righties, power hitters, hight ops guys, speedsters out of the pen. |
lol... I don't think you want to get into a discussion about versatility and right handed finishing with Randle. |
No argument there  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.C. Smith
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 12676
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's tough to know since he has only received 25+ minutes 4 times this season. In those 4 games his numbers are:
14.8 points (44.7% fg), 8.5 rebounds, 2.3 assists, 0.8 blocks, 0.3 steals in 29.3 minutes
The field goal percentage is largely as a result of a 2-12 shooting night against the Sixers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trablos
Star Player
Joined: 10 May 2017
Posts: 3020
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love how the music in the first half perfectly matched our effort level
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justsomelakerfan
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 10939
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fine. I will pay Randle
_________________
Austin Reaves
Tweeter: @sarah_dotbiz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc JC
Star Player
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blown fast break and then dunk on the other end. This game has been a dumpster fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc JC
Star Player
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 3123
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not to mention Kings aren’t missing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | Dr. Laker wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Simply because he's not a starter doesn't mean that later in the game he doesn't play against starters. Again, that's lazy thinking and again correlation (i.e. not being a starter means you only play against bench units) does not mean causation (i.e. that coming off the bench is the actual reason for his success). |
Yawn. We all learned "correlation does not imply causation" in Statistics 101.
What we learned in Statistics 520 is "sometimes correlation can infer causation."
One of the big knocks against Randle was his motor.inability to sustain effort, which was cited as a reason for him taking plays off on both ends of the court. This year, in 8 less minutes, Randle is putting up Per 36 minute highs in nearly every positive category.
Yes, there are multiple factors: different players, Julius knows the system better, he's is in better shape, etc.
But when you look at measurables - Julius' usage rate and fouls/min are much higher than in previous seasons. To me, that infers :
1 - Julius is expending more energy per minute:
2 - Coming off the bench, Julius is fresher against tired 1st unit players
3 - Julius gets to see the flow of the game before he goes in
4 - Julius can go "balls out" without worrying about foul trouble.
Many players do better coming off the bench - no shame in that. Assuming that Julius' improved play will translate from 21-25 minutes as a reserve to 32-35 milutes as a starter is what doesn't track . . . particularly given the flaws exposed in Julius' previous 133 starts. |
Randle is the basketball equivalent of Kenta Maeda... a talented but flawed player who is amazing in short bursts where he can go all out but less effective over a longer period of time. He is worth sixth man money or maybe low level starter but not a max imo. He's young so it's possible he raises his game to the next level but projecting him as a Draymond clone is risky business. I would say the same thing about both Ball or Ingram in two years if they still made rookie errors and didn't show the quantum growth that Ingram has displayed this year.
IF we strike out on Cousins, PG-13, James, and Klay... yes we should sign him. But if we have the inside track, I'd go for two of those four. Heck I'd go for Blake or DeAndre before Julius if offered in trade. |
Only he hasn’t been less effective over longer periods of time.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Do it Mitch!
Star Player
Joined: 04 Oct 2016
Posts: 1062
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spotty defense tonight. Some good, some bad. Zach Randolph went for a season high |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anpherknee
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Mar 2014
Posts: 16933
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do it Mitch! wrote: | | Spotty defense tonight. Some good, some bad. Zach Randolph went for a season high |
You gotta go ask brook about that famalam
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do it Mitch! wrote: | | Spotty defense tonight. Some good, some bad. Zach Randolph went for a season high |
Yea... pretty much. Although, he led the team in +/- at +6. None of the starters had a positive +/-. Not surprisingly, Brook led the team with a -19 tonight. He was getting abused the most.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eonst
Rookie
Joined: 13 Jun 2015
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do it Mitch! wrote: | | Spotty defense tonight. Some good, some bad. Zach Randolph went for a season high |
Brook Lopez.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justsomelakerfan
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 10939
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can someone smarter than me pls explain if there's any way that he can, in a non-Brook Lopez near future, start at the 5 and carry over his production? Can he start at the 5?
Or will he be this productive only in his super role player 6th man role? Because the Lakers should find out.
_________________
Austin Reaves
Tweeter: @sarah_dotbiz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epak
Retired Number
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 34147
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't have a bad game unlike the rest of the pathetic team today.
But you can tell when he's super energized vs playing hard.
I think he was the latter today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26389
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
playing hard doesn't seem to be an issue which is a good thing. Whether energized or not he seems to be playing hard regardless but tonight on a back to back he brought effort. Can't say that about a lot of the rest of the team, especially mr Lopez.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Do it Mitch!
Star Player
Joined: 04 Oct 2016
Posts: 1062
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eonst wrote: | | Do it Mitch! wrote: | | Spotty defense tonight. Some good, some bad. Zach Randolph went for a season high |
Brook Lopez. |
I know, I know. But Randall did play the final minutes of the game and didn’t look too much better. size issue, Randle does have difficulty guarding size.
Not to take anything away from him, he has also looks fantastic on defense at times. Like I said a little spotty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Do it Mitch!
Star Player
Joined: 04 Oct 2016
Posts: 1062
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | | Do it Mitch! wrote: | | Spotty defense tonight. Some good, some bad. Zach Randolph went for a season high |
Yea... pretty much. Although, he led the team in +/- at +6. None of the starters had a positive +/-. Not surprisingly, Brook led the team with a -19 tonight. He was getting abused the most. |
Brook looked like he was trying to do too much on offens again. Very bad game for him. Agreed. At least he’s an expiring |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | Dr. Laker wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Simply because he's not a starter doesn't mean that later in the game he doesn't play against starters. Again, that's lazy thinking and again correlation (i.e. not being a starter means you only play against bench units) does not mean causation (i.e. that coming off the bench is the actual reason for his success). |
Yawn. We all learned "correlation does not imply causation" in Statistics 101.
What we learned in Statistics 520 is "sometimes correlation can infer causation."
One of the big knocks against Randle was his motor.inability to sustain effort, which was cited as a reason for him taking plays off on both ends of the court. This year, in 8 less minutes, Randle is putting up Per 36 minute highs in nearly every positive category.
Yes, there are multiple factors: different players, Julius knows the system better, he's is in better shape, etc.
But when you look at measurables - Julius' usage rate and fouls/min are much higher than in previous seasons. To me, that infers :
1 - Julius is expending more energy per minute:
2 - Coming off the bench, Julius is fresher against tired 1st unit players
3 - Julius gets to see the flow of the game before he goes in
4 - Julius can go "balls out" without worrying about foul trouble.
Many players do better coming off the bench - no shame in that. Assuming that Julius' improved play will translate from 21-25 minutes as a reserve to 32-35 milutes as a starter is what doesn't track . . . particularly given the flaws exposed in Julius' previous 133 starts. |
Randle is the basketball equivalent of Kenta Maeda... a talented but flawed player who is amazing in short bursts where he can go all out but less effective over a longer period of time. He is worth sixth man money or maybe low level starter but not a max imo. He's young so it's possible he raises his game to the next level but projecting him as a Draymond clone is risky business. I would say the same thing about both Ball or Ingram in two years if they still made rookie errors and didn't show the quantum growth that Ingram has displayed this year.
IF we strike out on Cousins, PG-13, James, and Klay... yes we should sign him. But if we have the inside track, I'd go for two of those four. Heck I'd go for Blake or DeAndre before Julius if offered in trade. |
Only he hasn’t been less effective over longer periods of time. |
His FG% has gone up 5%... his scoring has gone up 33% playing part time. It's only natural that you'd score more per minute if you can go all out in a shorter time span. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you're going to give Randle credit when he shuts down centers, you have to give him partial blame when he doesn't. This was mostly on Brook, but it also shows the need to have a true mobile center with size. No shame that WCS and Zach dominated but I don't think he can control the 7 footers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | If you're going to give Randle credit when he shuts down centers, you have to give him partial blame when he doesn't. This was mostly on Brook, but it also shows the need to have a true mobile center with size. No shame that WCS and Zach dominated but I don't think he can control the 7 footers. |
Agreed for the most part..
I don't think you can fault Randle for not being able to handle guys who are longer and more athletic. Couple that with Luke having him out there on his own as the only big against a big line up. Sometimes Luke puts guys in impossible situations.
If he learned to employ some finesse and intelligence he'd be one hell of a player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | Dr. Laker wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Simply because he's not a starter doesn't mean that later in the game he doesn't play against starters. Again, that's lazy thinking and again correlation (i.e. not being a starter means you only play against bench units) does not mean causation (i.e. that coming off the bench is the actual reason for his success). |
Yawn. We all learned "correlation does not imply causation" in Statistics 101.
What we learned in Statistics 520 is "sometimes correlation can infer causation."
One of the big knocks against Randle was his motor.inability to sustain effort, which was cited as a reason for him taking plays off on both ends of the court. This year, in 8 less minutes, Randle is putting up Per 36 minute highs in nearly every positive category.
Yes, there are multiple factors: different players, Julius knows the system better, he's is in better shape, etc.
But when you look at measurables - Julius' usage rate and fouls/min are much higher than in previous seasons. To me, that infers :
1 - Julius is expending more energy per minute:
2 - Coming off the bench, Julius is fresher against tired 1st unit players
3 - Julius gets to see the flow of the game before he goes in
4 - Julius can go "balls out" without worrying about foul trouble.
Many players do better coming off the bench - no shame in that. Assuming that Julius' improved play will translate from 21-25 minutes as a reserve to 32-35 milutes as a starter is what doesn't track . . . particularly given the flaws exposed in Julius' previous 133 starts. |
Randle is the basketball equivalent of Kenta Maeda... a talented but flawed player who is amazing in short bursts where he can go all out but less effective over a longer period of time. He is worth sixth man money or maybe low level starter but not a max imo. He's young so it's possible he raises his game to the next level but projecting him as a Draymond clone is risky business. I would say the same thing about both Ball or Ingram in two years if they still made rookie errors and didn't show the quantum growth that Ingram has displayed this year.
IF we strike out on Cousins, PG-13, James, and Klay... yes we should sign him. But if we have the inside track, I'd go for two of those four. Heck I'd go for Blake or DeAndre before Julius if offered in trade. |
Only he hasn’t been less effective over longer periods of time. |
His FG% has gone up 5%... his scoring has gone up 33% playing part time. It's only natural that you'd score more per minute if you can go all out in a shorter time span. |
No it isn’t, there is no statistical evidence to support that. It is the opposite.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Day
Star Player
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 1737
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | Dr. Laker wrote: | | LakerSanity wrote: | | Simply because he's not a starter doesn't mean that later in the game he doesn't play against starters. Again, that's lazy thinking and again correlation (i.e. not being a starter means you only play against bench units) does not mean causation (i.e. that coming off the bench is the actual reason for his success). |
Yawn. We all learned "correlation does not imply causation" in Statistics 101.
What we learned in Statistics 520 is "sometimes correlation can infer causation."
One of the big knocks against Randle was his motor.inability to sustain effort, which was cited as a reason for him taking plays off on both ends of the court. This year, in 8 less minutes, Randle is putting up Per 36 minute highs in nearly every positive category.
Yes, there are multiple factors: different players, Julius knows the system better, he's is in better shape, etc.
But when you look at measurables - Julius' usage rate and fouls/min are much higher than in previous seasons. To me, that infers :
1 - Julius is expending more energy per minute:
2 - Coming off the bench, Julius is fresher against tired 1st unit players
3 - Julius gets to see the flow of the game before he goes in
4 - Julius can go "balls out" without worrying about foul trouble.
Many players do better coming off the bench - no shame in that. Assuming that Julius' improved play will translate from 21-25 minutes as a reserve to 32-35 milutes as a starter is what doesn't track . . . particularly given the flaws exposed in Julius' previous 133 starts. |
Randle is the basketball equivalent of Kenta Maeda... a talented but flawed player who is amazing in short bursts where he can go all out but less effective over a longer period of time. He is worth sixth man money or maybe low level starter but not a max imo. He's young so it's possible he raises his game to the next level but projecting him as a Draymond clone is risky business. I would say the same thing about both Ball or Ingram in two years if they still made rookie errors and didn't show the quantum growth that Ingram has displayed this year.
IF we strike out on Cousins, PG-13, James, and Klay... yes we should sign him. But if we have the inside track, I'd go for two of those four. Heck I'd go for Blake or DeAndre before Julius if offered in trade. |
Only he hasn’t been less effective over longer periods of time. |
His FG% has gone up 5%... his scoring has gone up 33% playing part time. It's only natural that you'd score more per minute if you can go all out in a shorter time span. |
No it isn’t, there is no statistical evidence to support that. It is the opposite. |
It's common sense and there's none of the 'statistical evidence' that you want to support the opposite lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
