View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
joeblow Star Player
Joined: 24 Nov 2008 Posts: 3075
|
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:08 pm Post subject: The complete and exhaustive list of every Laker player in SI's 2017 top 100 list |
|
|
Here ya go....
#60 Luol Deng
Quote: | The power forward’s evolution in the modern NBA has made the position a safe haven for aging wings like Deng. Realistically, there are only so many big-bodied fours who could really give Deng trouble. The rest are right in his range: largely perimeter oriented but a step slower than the shooting guards and small forwards Deng checked for the bulk of his career. His positional shift last season in Miami worked to extend his career. Teams know what they can expect from Deny. Every defensive possession—even those that are ultimately fruitless—will be hard-fought. Every offensive task will be executed cleanly. There are clear limits to what Deng can do at this stage, though the reliability he brings to a system is an asset in itself. (Last year: No. 56)
+ Serviceable three-point shooter from the corners, though he seems to favor the right.
+ Consummate professional whom teammates praise and coaches trust.
– Plenty of wear, minutes and injury in his 12-year career.
– No longer a top-tier wing defender, though he gets by on savvy and effort. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lakers#1fan Starting Rotation
Joined: 25 Sep 2007 Posts: 184
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No DLO?
...eh whatever |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mozgov was #101. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
defense Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jan 2010 Posts: 39322
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what either they don't know what they are talking about or we are hot garbage. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My prediction after this season, DLO/Ingram/Deng will be in top 100.
JC/Moz will be just out of it, with JC closest to being top 100. Randle is the big question mark for me. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Logo Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2013 Posts: 9577 Location: Salem, OR
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JC was probably our closest player outside of the top 100 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Logo wrote: | JC was probably our closest player outside of the top 100 |
For this year, I agree.
I'd say:
#60 Deng
Next closest JC, Moz, DLO.
Next year I think it'll be DLO/Ingram/Deng/JC as possible top 100. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alpha Moderator
Joined: 07 Jul 2002 Posts: 25145 Location: hawaii
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dang Deng screwed it up! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
70sdude Star Player
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 4567
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If they're even close to being right, one might suggest that projecting a 32 win Laker season is more of a pipe dream than a realistic goal for 2016-2017. I wonder if any team had fewer than one Top 100 guy in that article. Owwww. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kikanga Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29150 Location: La La Land
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well done Joeblow.
Something about the LG posters who joined in the 2000s.
They have a critical humor that is hilarious. Guess that comes from being around through several cycles of Lakers basketball. The good and the bad.
It took alot of self-restraint from me to not go on a rant, when Deng wasn't voted our best player in that LG poll. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pjiddy Retired Number
Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 29017
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The less props/accolades the young guys get the better. Every snub is motivation. And too much ego too soon can be a bad thing.
Of course, China will have all these guys starting the all-star game. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tox Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 17835
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
70sdude wrote: | If they're even close to being right, one might suggest that projecting a 32 win Laker season is more of a pipe dream than a realistic goal for 2016-2017. I wonder if any team had fewer than one Top 100 guy in that article. Owwww. |
Considering Booker is 100, above Russell for no apparent reason, I'm going to go out on a limb and say these dudes are too prone to hype. Towns at 25 is ridiculous as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Porzingis is at 68... sayin'. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
greenfrog wrote: | Porzingis is at 68... sayin'. |
If Porzingis is at 68 then Ingram and Russell should diffinitely be in the top 100, Ingram is and will be a better prospect then Porks and Russell is a elite prospect.
Another list without much logic. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | Porzingis is at 68... sayin'. |
If Porzingis is at 68 then Ingram and Russell should diffinitely be in the top 100, Ingram is and will be a better prospect then Porks and Russell is a elite prospect.
Another list without much logic. |
Just because I'm bored, by RPM:
Porzingis 2.50
Towns 0.81
Russell -3.66
Booker -4.60 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
greenfrog wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | Porzingis is at 68... sayin'. |
If Porzingis is at 68 then Ingram and Russell should diffinitely be in the top 100, Ingram is and will be a better prospect then Porks and Russell is a elite prospect.
Another list without much logic. |
Just because I'm bored, by RPM:
Porzingis 2.50
Towns 0.81
Russell -3.66
Booker -4.60 |
What is the list supposed to suggest? Sorry if I sound dumb. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | Porzingis is at 68... sayin'. |
If Porzingis is at 68 then Ingram and Russell should diffinitely be in the top 100, Ingram is and will be a better prospect then Porks and Russell is a elite prospect.
Another list without much logic. |
Just because I'm bored, by RPM:
Porzingis 2.50
Towns 0.81
Russell -3.66
Booker -4.60 |
What is the list supposed to suggest? Sorry if I sound dumb. |
If you really care (I don't think you do), click here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="greenfrog"][quote="Inspector Gadget"][quote="greenfrog"][quote="Inspector Gadget"][quote="greenfrog"]Porzingis is at 68... sayin'.[/quote]
If Porzingis is at 68 then Ingram and Russell should diffinitely be in the top 100, Ingram is and will be a better prospect then Porks and Russell is a elite prospect.
Another list without much logic.[/quote]
Just because I'm bored, by RPM:
Porzingis 2.50
Towns 0.81
Russell -3.66
Booker -4.60[/quote]
What is the list supposed to suggest? Sorry if I sound dumb.[/quote]
If you really care (I don't think you do), click [url=http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/10740818/introducing-real-plus-minus]here[/url][/quote]
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but... you know what, never mind. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
greenfrog wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but... you know what, nevermind. |
Again I apologize, I'm not to good at stats and stuff, but I'm trying to learn. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: | greenfrog wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but... you know what, nevermind. |
Again I apologize, I'm not to good at stats and stuff, but I'm trying to learn. |
No apology needed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tox Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015 Posts: 17835
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and even if it weren't, stats will underrate Russell just because there's no great statistical way of accounting for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. (Note that RPM attempts to account for the latter 2 but I'm skeptical on how well it does so.)
Last edited by tox on Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
defense Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jan 2010 Posts: 39322
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kristaps Ivan Drago is a bit over rated. They are basing his ranking on potential and ignoring other guys who may have even more potential. Hopefully playing with rapey rose and carmelo da ball hog gawd won't ruin him. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
How do you explain Porzingis's high number on the crappy Knicks though? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Inspector Gadget Retired Number
Joined: 18 Apr 2016 Posts: 46492
|
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tox wrote: | Inspector Gadget wrote: |
So from reading that list Russell at -3,66 means he's elite at scoring right especially with Harden above 4. |
Your confusion is that Harden is at +4; Russell is at -3. So no, RPM does not suggest pretty much anything good about Russell, solely based on last year's number.
greenfrog's point was that RPM suggests Porzingis is in a different class than Booker & Russell, at the very least. Now how much you want to take away from that is your own decision. Personally, I don't put too much stock into it: RPM is pretty flawed, and I think any good stat is going to underrate Russell because it doesn't account for KFT, Byron's coaching, Hibbert as the starting C, etc. |
Thanks for the info.
And as you said these stats don't use other flaws on the team, I mean what would RPM be for Russell in the SL? It's diffinitely more positive then negative. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|