Lakerfilmroom.com (Pg. 11: Video - Brandon Ingram's Improvement As a Scorer, Pg. 12: New Podcast)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 4644

PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
cathy78 wrote:
unleasHell wrote:
I would love to have a pass-first PG, like a Kidd, Nash or Stockton, it would cut down on the number of times Randle, Ingram and some of the others have to run unsuccessful one-on-one plays...
You do realize that pass-first PG like Kidd, Nash or Stockton don't come around too often. Especially not in a time where big man are supposed to shoot threes...

If you watch the Warriors and Spurs and everybody that tries to copy them - you can clearly see that they don't rely on pass first PGs. They want players to be able to make plays and pass in any position. So basically everbody wants 3 Klay Thompsons and 2 Draymond Greens without the attitude. Or 5 LeBrons.

I usually skip the offense part in most of those draft videos - I'm more interested in the defensive side even though offense is more entertaining to watch. You can see a lot more of the players "soft skills" in the defense, like effort, hustle, tenacity, taking plays off... If I were GT I would actually put out the defensive video first - since it feels more important.
That's why you don't pass on Ball
What is needed is a Floor General on the court.

DLO, Randle and JC are talented players, albeit with major holes in their game, haven't shown the needed mentality for a couple years. Still waiting for one of them to take control at key moments (succeed or fail) and be mad/embarrassed at losing while getting into players' grill to make them accountable. They are seemingly satisfied and content with just giving a good effort

It's the difference of people who are in school with just giving an effort is acceptable, as oppose to the real world where results or tangible progress is expected from players who are paid handsomely
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7050

PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:26 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
I was watching the McDonald's game and thinking, are we sure that Jackson isn't #1? (nothing against Fultz, he stood out as well). Small sample size aside, GT have you considered incorporating the McD and other high school all star games into your draft videos? They play a more NBA style there, and personally I've found them to be very informative when looking at prospects.


No, I haven't. I've always thought of them as no-defense ASGs, so I'm curious as to what you see. Also, had you asked me a year ago, I would have had Jackson at #1 based on what I saw in HS. I'm concerned about how he scores in the NBA.


The McDonalds game was competitive on both ends, at least in the beginning, and featured a lot of PnR. The Jordan Brand Classic was a no-defense allstar game, not worth watching. The Hoop Summit had the most coaching, but the poor World squad was so overmatched that the US was all out harassing them full court and taking the ball away.

Fultz, Ball, Jackson, and Tatum were all in the McDonalds game, where Jackson was the MVP, Fultz had a scoring blitz and a couple nice assists, and Ball had zero points but something like 13 assists. Here's where the value is- with all these top tier prospects, most of whom have NBA size and athleticism, you can really see who can and cannot handle the jump in talent. For example, TJ Leaf looked completely overmatched physically and out of his element. (A good example from previous years was how good Myles Turner looked compared to Okafor).

I'm well aware that Jackson could have been just hot for just this game (he hit a couple jumpers), that he's somewhat older and probably more physically developed, but he looked like a star out there. Despite some shaky moments dribbling through traffic, he basically got wherever he wanted to go and demonstrated a great natural feel for the game. He would read how the play would develop and then get himself in the right position to capitalize- he made a lot of great cuts off ball and good touch on passes. Just knows how to play. He was the perfect partner for Ball in this game and the two connected multiple times, especially in the open court. On the other end, he was just as impressive, shutting down Tatum, blocking Fultz on the closeout, and he was generally balls out for most of the game, diving on the floor for loose balls. At the next level I think you use him like Hayward, even though he's not the shooter Gordon is. Get him in motion, reading the defense and then get him a steady diet of ball screens in secondary action.

As for Fultz, you could say it's exciting even just watching the guy dribble up court. You basically got the feeling he could do whatever he felt like with the ball out there, whether pulling up or sliding through traffic. Both he and Jackson were on another level in terms of the fluidity that they moved on the court. Offensively he looks like someone who can contribute right away in the NBA, although he could be a bit wild and make a lot of mistakes. Defensively he was awful- obviously it was an all star game so maybe the effort wasn't there, but he also showed some bad instincts on that end whether on ball or off ball.

Ball had some brilliant moments, mostly in transition situations. He had a jaw dropping defensive play in transition that showed his intelligence and instincts. Outside of fast breaks and outlet passes (which were also great) he mostly just capitalized on bad defense- back cuts and poor help decisions- which he handled smoothly. Jackson gave him a lot of praise after the game. Defensively he was a mixed bag although I don't think he was trying that hard. I almost think that he can be too clever sometimes, trying to read everything and get the jump on everyone rather than taking the fundamentally correct action. He's the only guy I've really seen in actual college games- my concern on him is that a lot of the assists he logs are on opportunities that won't be available in the NBA. Sort of relying on guys (mostly great shooters for the college level) to pop free and then delivering a precision pass. At the next level, he would have to manufacture more advantages in the half court, particularly through ball screens. He's someone I'd love to have on my team, but kind of leery of taking him with the 1st pick because it's hard to envision him as your main guy, where I can see it with the others if everything goes right.

I had a bad first impression of Tatum, where it looked like he had handles that looked good but couldn't get him anywhere. Later, I realized that it was Jackson who was on him for those possessions, and was likely the highest caliber defender he's ever faced up to that point, so I'm willing to keep an open mind and check him out in college. He did look better in the other allstar games, but kind of relied on his physical advantages. I also didn't like his love of the iso. I still think he's more of a four than a three. You apply his skills to the four spot and he looks very talented- then you compare with good threes, and then he looks very average, despite his size.
_________________
The Professional Scorer - Lou Williams

LFR - The Long Road Toward a Respectable Laker Defense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DD20045
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:30 pm    Post subject:

Russ drops 40 and no new podcast?!?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 8506
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:03 am    Post subject:

Have not listened to the whole thing yet, but really enjoyed the first segment about DLo and Clarkson. I think having two "combo" guards was the vision before Luke was hired, and something I think the team should have "tried" this entire season. DLo can still run the "lead guard" role when it provides advantage, or off ball when that situation benefits the team.

We needed more than 15 games to sample, but we have what we have, and should evaluate if the results improve through the remainder of the season. DLo and Clarkson like each other personally and each have their unique gifts....on paper there are a lot of advantages created by the two together, but we will have to see if that translates in reality.

If we are fortunate enough to draft a top 3 PG, I would prefer both Fultz/Ball and DLo continue to operate as "combo" guards, which allows easy and fluid substitution of JC off the bench.

Good stuff GT.
_________________
adkindo's Top 3: #1 Jackson, #2 Fultz, #3 Ball, #4 Tatum
@28: Sindarius Thornwell, PJ Dozier, Harry Giles, Devin Robinson, Monte Morris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 73117

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:58 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
Have not listened to the whole thing yet, but really enjoyed the first segment about DLo and Clarkson. I think having two "combo" guards was the vision before Luke was hired, and something I think the team should have "tried" this entire season. DLo can still run the "lead guard" role when it provides advantage, or off ball when that situation benefits the team.

We needed more than 15 games to sample, but we have what we have, and should evaluate if the results improve through the remainder of the season. DLo and Clarkson like each other personally and each have their unique gifts....on paper there are a lot of advantages created by the two together, but we will have to see if that translates in reality.

If we are fortunate enough to draft a top 3 PG, I would prefer both Fultz/Ball and DLo continue to operate as "combo" guards, which allows easy and fluid substitution of JC off the bench.

Good stuff GT.


I think a 5 guard rotation of:

Starters: Fultz or Ball/DLO
Bench: JC, smaller quick guard (Patty Mills?), long defender (Nwaba/Brewer?).

That's what I would roll with next year.
_________________
Rated #PG13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 8506
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:41 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Have not listened to the whole thing yet, but really enjoyed the first segment about DLo and Clarkson. I think having two "combo" guards was the vision before Luke was hired, and something I think the team should have "tried" this entire season. DLo can still run the "lead guard" role when it provides advantage, or off ball when that situation benefits the team.

We needed more than 15 games to sample, but we have what we have, and should evaluate if the results improve through the remainder of the season. DLo and Clarkson like each other personally and each have their unique gifts....on paper there are a lot of advantages created by the two together, but we will have to see if that translates in reality.

If we are fortunate enough to draft a top 3 PG, I would prefer both Fultz/Ball and DLo continue to operate as "combo" guards, which allows easy and fluid substitution of JC off the bench.

Good stuff GT.


I think a 5 guard rotation of:

Starters: Fultz or Ball/DLO
Bench: JC, smaller quick guard (Patty Mills?), long defender (Nwaba/Brewer?).

That's what I would roll with next year.


I heard David Thorpe who is Corey's off season trainer say he was going to really focus on improving Brewer's shot this summer....would love to see Nwaba tag along, or if he can get his own shooting coach this offseason. He could get paid in this league if he can develop just a decent shot.
_________________
adkindo's Top 3: #1 Jackson, #2 Fultz, #3 Ball, #4 Tatum
@28: Sindarius Thornwell, PJ Dozier, Harry Giles, Devin Robinson, Monte Morris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AY2043
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 7754

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:31 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Have not listened to the whole thing yet, but really enjoyed the first segment about DLo and Clarkson. I think having two "combo" guards was the vision before Luke was hired, and something I think the team should have "tried" this entire season. DLo can still run the "lead guard" role when it provides advantage, or off ball when that situation benefits the team.

We needed more than 15 games to sample, but we have what we have, and should evaluate if the results improve through the remainder of the season. DLo and Clarkson like each other personally and each have their unique gifts....on paper there are a lot of advantages created by the two together, but we will have to see if that translates in reality.

If we are fortunate enough to draft a top 3 PG, I would prefer both Fultz/Ball and DLo continue to operate as "combo" guards, which allows easy and fluid substitution of JC off the bench.

Good stuff GT.


I think a 5 guard rotation of:

Starters: Fultz or Ball/DLO
Bench: JC, smaller quick guard (Patty Mills?), long defender (Nwaba/Brewer?).

That's what I would roll with next year.

We had issues distributing minutes with only 4 guards in the rotation (Dlo/Nick/JC/Lou). I feel like 5 is too much.
_________________
THE FUTURE:

Ingram/Russell/Randle/Clarkson/Nance/Zubac

LLLUUUUUUUUUKKKKKKEEEEEEE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 73117

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:37 am    Post subject:

AY2043 wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Have not listened to the whole thing yet, but really enjoyed the first segment about DLo and Clarkson. I think having two "combo" guards was the vision before Luke was hired, and something I think the team should have "tried" this entire season. DLo can still run the "lead guard" role when it provides advantage, or off ball when that situation benefits the team.

We needed more than 15 games to sample, but we have what we have, and should evaluate if the results improve through the remainder of the season. DLo and Clarkson like each other personally and each have their unique gifts....on paper there are a lot of advantages created by the two together, but we will have to see if that translates in reality.

If we are fortunate enough to draft a top 3 PG, I would prefer both Fultz/Ball and DLo continue to operate as "combo" guards, which allows easy and fluid substitution of JC off the bench.

Good stuff GT.


I think a 5 guard rotation of:

Starters: Fultz or Ball/DLO
Bench: JC, smaller quick guard (Patty Mills?), long defender (Nwaba/Brewer?).

That's what I would roll with next year.

We had issues distributing minutes with only 4 guards in the rotation (Dlo/Nick/JC/Lou). I feel like 5 is too much.


Nwaba/Brewer would just round out the rotation. Maybe Livingston who could play 3 positions. Find a smaller PG who can be a change of pace defender.
_________________
Rated #PG13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 32668

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:07 am    Post subject:

New podcast

https://soundcloud.com/user-456873398/the-rollercoaster
_________________
http://lakerfilmroom.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
justsomelakerfan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 5461

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:59 am    Post subject:

The coaching talk had me on the ledge. Thank god for Darius. I agree with both of you guys on different topics

I was pretty bummed that "guru" type of coach wasn't brought in during the offseason and I do think it shows with the on-court product, and the fact that the staff is overall pretty new to coaching at the NBA level could account for some repetitive mistakes we've seen throughout the year. I'm not saying they don't "get it," but that it's a new job to a lot of people with no one having particular expertise at anything. Jud was what, a volleyball coach? Come on fam you can do better than that. Get the best guys possible. I hope the FO sniffs that out and doesn't *totally* trust everything Luke does because of his history. If they want to keep him around, then they should also want to make him the best coach he can be. Steve Kerr started with Adams *and* Alvin Gentry

But I also agree with Darius on what the staff's approach might be with implementing the offense. No one knows for sure what's up. I'm bummed that it's not where I hoped, but I remember going back to watching *every* interview Luke did during the offseason (because I was so stoked about the hire and I still believe) and he said a few times that he's taking the long road with bringing in new aspects of the offense... Even going back to basics. Like he'd bring it in like layers, as slowly as he needed to, something like that.

But I'm also someone who doesn't look at the 10-10 start like it was a total fluke either. I don't know. Diet Byron gang or die. Good pod
_________________
Mentally and emotionally subject to tankingg.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 73117

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:04 am    Post subject:

Remember Luke's a rookie coach too. Hopefully once they can exhale and review the year, they can rejigger some things. He also has a roster with guys that aren't exactly conducive to his playing style. I do hope we get some other coaches to help schematically .
_________________
Rated #PG13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Andre2K
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 10412

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:17 pm    Post subject:

Lmao who knew GT had a foot fetish, word is out on coach Pete lmao


_________________
Gold Gang
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AC Green's V-Card
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 2187

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:26 pm    Post subject:

justsomelakerfan wrote:
But I'm also someone who doesn't look at the 10-10 start like it was a total fluke either. I don't know. Diet Byron gang or die. Good pod


It was a fluke. I broke down the numbers.

Lakers average in first 10 wins: 63.5 TS% / 59 eFG%

Lakers average in first 10 losses: 46.1 TS% / 42.5 eFG%

Just to put that in perspective, the Warriors at #1 in the NBA average 59.6 TS% / 56.1 eFG%. Essentially the Lakers needed to be at or above league best in order to win games. And if they didn't, they lost. The exception being that second Chicago game where the Bulls managed to somehow shoot worse than the Lakers.

The Lakers were playing way over their heads in those wins. Nick Young at one point was having one of the best shooting years in NBA history, and we all know how good Lou was for stretches. Making shots at that rate is just not sustainable over the long run. And without a solid defense to fall back on, it was only a matter of time before the Lakers got exposed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 7957

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:04 pm    Post subject:

^
The Warriors have a TS% of 61% on wins, 52.7% TS% on losses. It's common for teams to shoot well during wins? I mean, that's kind of the point. 63% TS% is pretty high, but it's not like they had to shoot that well: they won by an average of 11 points in those games. Chop off a few percentage points on that 63% figure and you still have fairly comfortable wins on average?

And while Nick Young had an unsustainably hot start (Lou too), Ingram and Deng had unsustainably bad starts so it's kind of a wash. I agree they were punching above their weight for a bit, but I don't think it's by much. Maybe they were closer to an 8-12 team than 10-10.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AC Green's V-Card
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 2187

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:25 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
^
The Warriors have a TS% of 61% on wins, 52.7% TS% on losses. It's common for teams to shoot well during wins? I mean, that's kind of the point. 63% TS% is pretty high, but it's not like they had to shoot that well: they won by an average of 11 points in those games. Chop off a few percentage points on that 63% figure and you still have fairly comfortable wins on average?

And while Nick Young had an unsustainably hot start (Lou too), Ingram and Deng had unsustainably bad starts so it's kind of a wash. I agree they were punching above their weight for a bit, but I don't think it's by much. Maybe they were closer to an 8-12 team than 10-10.


We were shooting 2.5% higher than the best shooting team in the league in our wins and 6% (!) less in comparable losses. What part of that equation seems like a winning formula? Our highs were very high but our lows were devastatingly low. This is compounded by the fact that our defense literally cannot stop anyone. We were just fortunate to be able to outshoot teams for a stretch (including those very same Warriors).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 7957

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:42 pm    Post subject:

AC Green's V-Card wrote:
tox wrote:
^
The Warriors have a TS% of 61% on wins, 52.7% TS% on losses. It's common for teams to shoot well during wins? I mean, that's kind of the point. 63% TS% is pretty high, but it's not like they had to shoot that well: they won by an average of 11 points in those games. Chop off a few percentage points on that 63% figure and you still have fairly comfortable wins on average?

And while Nick Young had an unsustainably hot start (Lou too), Ingram and Deng had unsustainably bad starts so it's kind of a wash. I agree they were punching above their weight for a bit, but I don't think it's by much. Maybe they were closer to an 8-12 team than 10-10.


We were shooting 2.5% higher than the best shooting team in the league in our wins and 6% (!) less in comparable losses. What part of that equation seems like a winning formula? Our highs were very high but our lows were devastatingly low. This is compounded by the fact that our defense literally cannot stop anyone. We were just fortunate to be able to outshoot teams for a stretch (including those very same Warriors).


I just don't interpret the numbers how you do. The Lakers won when they shot well. They lost when shot poorly. That's going to be particularly true for an offensive-minded team. It'll be particularly true for a team with three very streaky scorers (Williams, Young, Russell).

You're looking at that 63% figure and you see evidence that those wins were fueled by unsustainable hot shooting. I get that, to an extent. But I also factor in their +11 MOV in those wins, natural variance for a 10 game sample size, and their roster composition. So to me, it does indicate they were punching above their weight, but I don't think their 10-10 start was that unsustainable.

As far as that 46% TS% in losses... young, streaky team is very bad when they lose. I draw no further conclusions from that.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AC Green's V-Card
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 2187

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:20 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
tox wrote:
^
The Warriors have a TS% of 61% on wins, 52.7% TS% on losses. It's common for teams to shoot well during wins? I mean, that's kind of the point. 63% TS% is pretty high, but it's not like they had to shoot that well: they won by an average of 11 points in those games. Chop off a few percentage points on that 63% figure and you still have fairly comfortable wins on average?

And while Nick Young had an unsustainably hot start (Lou too), Ingram and Deng had unsustainably bad starts so it's kind of a wash. I agree they were punching above their weight for a bit, but I don't think it's by much. Maybe they were closer to an 8-12 team than 10-10.


We were shooting 2.5% higher than the best shooting team in the league in our wins and 6% (!) less in comparable losses. What part of that equation seems like a winning formula? Our highs were very high but our lows were devastatingly low. This is compounded by the fact that our defense literally cannot stop anyone. We were just fortunate to be able to outshoot teams for a stretch (including those very same Warriors).


I just don't interpret the numbers how you do. The Lakers won when they shot well. They lost when shot poorly. That's going to be particularly true for an offensive-minded team. It'll be particularly true for a team with three very streaky scorers (Williams, Young, Russell).

You're looking at that 63% figure and you see evidence that those wins were fueled by unsustainable hot shooting. I get that, to an extent. But I also factor in their +11 MOV in those wins, natural variance for a 10 game sample size, and their roster composition. So to me, it does indicate they were punching above their weight, but I don't think their 10-10 start was that unsustainable.

As far as that 46% TS% in losses... young, streaky team is very bad when they lose. I draw no further conclusions from that.


I mean, if we shot similarly in our second batch of wins as our first, that would be one thing. But we were a good margin far below: 58.5 TS% / 55.1 eFG%. If we averaged the totals for the second batch over an entire season, we would be top 3 in the league. We were exceptionally hot in those first 10 wins for a team who is right now 24th in the league at 53.8 TS% and 50 eFG%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 7957

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:36 pm    Post subject:

AC Green's V-Card wrote:
tox wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
tox wrote:
^
The Warriors have a TS% of 61% on wins, 52.7% TS% on losses. It's common for teams to shoot well during wins? I mean, that's kind of the point. 63% TS% is pretty high, but it's not like they had to shoot that well: they won by an average of 11 points in those games. Chop off a few percentage points on that 63% figure and you still have fairly comfortable wins on average?

And while Nick Young had an unsustainably hot start (Lou too), Ingram and Deng had unsustainably bad starts so it's kind of a wash. I agree they were punching above their weight for a bit, but I don't think it's by much. Maybe they were closer to an 8-12 team than 10-10.


We were shooting 2.5% higher than the best shooting team in the league in our wins and 6% (!) less in comparable losses. What part of that equation seems like a winning formula? Our highs were very high but our lows were devastatingly low. This is compounded by the fact that our defense literally cannot stop anyone. We were just fortunate to be able to outshoot teams for a stretch (including those very same Warriors).


I just don't interpret the numbers how you do. The Lakers won when they shot well. They lost when shot poorly. That's going to be particularly true for an offensive-minded team. It'll be particularly true for a team with three very streaky scorers (Williams, Young, Russell).

You're looking at that 63% figure and you see evidence that those wins were fueled by unsustainable hot shooting. I get that, to an extent. But I also factor in their +11 MOV in those wins, natural variance for a 10 game sample size, and their roster composition. So to me, it does indicate they were punching above their weight, but I don't think their 10-10 start was that unsustainable.

As far as that 46% TS% in losses... young, streaky team is very bad when they lose. I draw no further conclusions from that.


I mean, if we shot similarly in our second batch of wins as our first, that would be one thing. But we were a good margin far below: 58.5 TS% / 55.1 eFG%. If we averaged the totals for the second batch over an entire season, we would be top 3 in the league. We were exceptionally hot in those first 10 wins for a team who is right now 24th in the league at 53.8 TS% and 50 eFG%.


Hmm, yeah I took a second look at the stats. In our 2nd batch of wins, our MOV was actually +12.8. So clearly the 63% TS% was masking some issues (defensive) where if we had "normal" good shooting nights, we might've lost. Yeah, I think I agree with your point now. Thanks
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AC Green's V-Card
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Aug 2012
Posts: 2187

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:00 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
tox wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
tox wrote:
^
The Warriors have a TS% of 61% on wins, 52.7% TS% on losses. It's common for teams to shoot well during wins? I mean, that's kind of the point. 63% TS% is pretty high, but it's not like they had to shoot that well: they won by an average of 11 points in those games. Chop off a few percentage points on that 63% figure and you still have fairly comfortable wins on average?

And while Nick Young had an unsustainably hot start (Lou too), Ingram and Deng had unsustainably bad starts so it's kind of a wash. I agree they were punching above their weight for a bit, but I don't think it's by much. Maybe they were closer to an 8-12 team than 10-10.


We were shooting 2.5% higher than the best shooting team in the league in our wins and 6% (!) less in comparable losses. What part of that equation seems like a winning formula? Our highs were very high but our lows were devastatingly low. This is compounded by the fact that our defense literally cannot stop anyone. We were just fortunate to be able to outshoot teams for a stretch (including those very same Warriors).


I just don't interpret the numbers how you do. The Lakers won when they shot well. They lost when shot poorly. That's going to be particularly true for an offensive-minded team. It'll be particularly true for a team with three very streaky scorers (Williams, Young, Russell).

You're looking at that 63% figure and you see evidence that those wins were fueled by unsustainable hot shooting. I get that, to an extent. But I also factor in their +11 MOV in those wins, natural variance for a 10 game sample size, and their roster composition. So to me, it does indicate they were punching above their weight, but I don't think their 10-10 start was that unsustainable.

As far as that 46% TS% in losses... young, streaky team is very bad when they lose. I draw no further conclusions from that.


I mean, if we shot similarly in our second batch of wins as our first, that would be one thing. But we were a good margin far below: 58.5 TS% / 55.1 eFG%. If we averaged the totals for the second batch over an entire season, we would be top 3 in the league. We were exceptionally hot in those first 10 wins for a team who is right now 24th in the league at 53.8 TS% and 50 eFG%.


Hmm, yeah I took a second look at the stats. In our 2nd batch of wins, our MOV was actually +12.8. So clearly the 63% TS% was masking some issues (defensive) where if we had "normal" good shooting nights, we might've lost. Yeah, I think I agree with your point now. Thanks


Nah man, you forced me to take a deeper look into the data which helped a lot. I enjoy the fact that you're so knowledgeable on this stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 7957

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject:

AC Green's V-Card wrote:

Nah man, you forced me to take a deeper look into the data which helped a lot. I enjoy the fact that you're so knowledgeable on this stuff.

Likewise. I enjoyed your lesson on conditional probabilities today
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Big Game James
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 3576
Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:49 pm    Post subject:

I just wanted to jump in to this thread and say: Nice podcast! You are very informative and are easy to listen to.

I hate listening to "Locked on Lakers." Those two guys may be able to write an article, but have zero skills when it comes to broadcasting. They are so difficult to listen to. They tell a joke and don't realize it isn't funny, and then proceed to draw the unfunny joke out for another minute. Just excruciating to listen to! There over-use of filler words (um, uh, you know, etc) only underscores their lack of polished professionalism.

I'm just so starved for Lakers talk that I continue to download it. I wish sometimes I wasn't so addicted to the Lakers.
_________________
Don't make me give you a trout slap!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 32668

PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:48 am    Post subject:


_________________
http://lakerfilmroom.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JM
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 804

PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:52 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:


Terrific edit and illustration. Really helps me understand why I get so frustrated with him at times (LOL.) Seriously, do the Laker's video folks concur with these 'essays?' Are they watching your efforts? I'm over 70 years of age, have been playing and watching BBall my entire life and find your stuff illustrative, simple and direct. Thanks you so much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Purp 32
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2014
Posts: 1522
Location: Venice, CA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:34 pm    Post subject:

Outstanding break down. Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 32668

PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:38 pm    Post subject:

JM wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:


Terrific edit and illustration. Really helps me understand why I get so frustrated with him at times (LOL.) Seriously, do the Laker's video folks concur with these 'essays?' Are they watching your efforts? I'm over 70 years of age, have been playing and watching BBall my entire life and find your stuff illustrative, simple and direct. Thanks you so much.


That is a remarkable compliment, JM. Thank you so much.
_________________
http://lakerfilmroom.com/
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, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 11 of 12
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
© 1995-2010 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