LAKERS -at- ROCKETS 3-15-17 - Thoughts and :-(( Ratings
Goto page Previous  1, 2

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Thoughts and Ratings Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 4738

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:16 pm    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
Quote:
Obviously all the identified lineups that provided the better defensive stats has not resulted in wins and consistency - noting that the three identified games resulted in a record of 1-2.
If this were a 0.500 team, the most expected outcome after three games would either be 1-2 or 2-1. Considering the caliber of competition they faced, they came out pretty well, considering it was the bench that gave up the lead. And your standard is about being competitive, not wins and losses right? Well, when you trade, sit all the vets and bring in a mismash of guys who never played together and play lineups devoid of shooting the expected outcome is losing badly. (As someone noted above, the tank lineup got smashed against the team that the other lineup beat). And you want to knock the players as if this weren't a massive tank job? Like I said, ridiculous.

EDIT: This was a response to a deleted post.
Thanks to your reply to my deleted rambling post

This obvious tank job could be interpreted as an outstanding and rare opportunity to show everyone that they deserve to be in the league that starts with giving maximum effort. Careless TOs and lack of effort is a sure way to get out of the league. Not making baskets and making misreads is understandable.

The vets (Deng and Mosgov) were not making any tangible impact, so the value of these two players (since they were usually not getting starter minutes) were minimal.

It appears that the roster will have multiple changes to improve the talent and D - who will remain could be the most important question


If all these players where as garbage as you're saying than no way that the original starting lineup (Russell-Young-Deng-Randle-Mozgov) outscores opposing (STARTING) lineups in about half the games that they play and ends up a +44 on the season. This is the value of statistics, that record what actually happened rather than operating on biased eye tests and platitudes.
Didn't know that the lineup was +44 for the season.

Trying to find the logic given the many disastrous starts/3rd quarters and the bench out scoring the starting lineups - recognizing that it has changed many times. With Deng having multiple games where he got 0 points

Magic/Rob are seemingly giving out signals (along Big Game James and others) that different players and/or players in different roles to be successful with a Luke-coached Laker team

Am I understanding that people should stay/keep all the players despite the lack of effort and improvement. If so, why

FYI: I don't know what choices should be made
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7891

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:10 pm    Post subject:

It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
_________________
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
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 4738

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:20 pm    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7891

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:43 pm    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44


A lot of reasons, but a big one has been a massive drop off when Ingram comes in for Deng. As simple as the difference between a vet and a really young kid when executing the schemes on both ends of the floor.
_________________
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
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 10084

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:25 pm    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
Quote:
Obviously all the identified lineups that provided the better defensive stats has not resulted in wins and consistency - noting that the three identified games resulted in a record of 1-2.


If this were a 0.500 team, the most expected outcome after three games would either be 1-2 or 2-1. Considering the caliber of competition they faced, they came out pretty well, considering it was the bench that gave up the lead. And your standard is about being competitive, not wins and losses right? Well, when you trade, sit all the vets and bring in a mismash of guys who never played together and play lineups devoid of shooting the expected outcome is losing badly. (As someone noted above, the tank lineup got smashed against the team that the other lineup beat). And you want to knock the players as if this weren't a massive tank job? Like I said, ridiculous.

EDIT: This was a response to a deleted post.
This would be great content for an article, actually. "How the Lakers are tanking." Maybe I'll write that
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 10084

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:27 pm    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
Didn't know that the lineup was +44 for the season.

Trying to find the logic given the many disastrous starts/3rd quarters and the bench out scoring the starting lineups - recognizing that it has changed many times. With Deng having multiple games where he got 0 points

Magic/Rob are seemingly giving out signals (along Big Game James and others) that different players and/or players in different roles to be successful with a Luke-coached Laker team

Am I understanding that people should stay/keep all the players despite the lack of effort and improvement. If so, why

FYI: I don't know what choices should be made


At the risk of sounding completely condescending, I highly suggest you read this article. Because it will explain exactly why you're confused.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

You might literally just not notice the starters getting off to a 15-11 start before Deng got benched for Ingram.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif


Last edited by tox on Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shaber
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 2971

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:41 pm    Post subject:

TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:

Ugh. For posters who celebrate losses and get angry when we win:

What does this tanking strategy accomplish?

Answer: A slightly better than 50% chance we get another promising rookie, and a greatly diminished chance of pulling in ANY top-tier free agents. And an awful product on the floor. And a smaller window for the draft picks we already won to develop cohesiveness and turn into the kind of players we dreamed we were getting before each of the last 3 drafts we tanked for.


Right on point
And we also need to add the cultivation of looser mentality.
I'm utterly confused by how people do not understand that you learn what you do. One will not learn how to win by only loosing (and on purpose!). By loosing you learn to loose. There is a steep learning curve to becoming a winner. Then again, once you are there and you have a winning culture and a winners mentality, and you preach and practice it, it pays off. Look at the Spurs, or to the history of three-peating Lakers.
_________________
.

Lakers depth chart

PG Johnson / Goodrich
SG Bryant / West / Scott
SF Baylor / Worthy / Cooper
PF Mikkelsen / Hairston / McAdoo / Gasol
C Chamberlain / Abdul-Jabbar / O'Neal / Mikan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 77505
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:42 pm    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44


Not sure what you're asking. The lineup (not Deng individually) scored 44 points more than the other team in aggregate over its 400+ minutes. The main bench unit was +28 in about half that many minutes. When you mixed those two units, or subtracted one of the main guys from either lineup and replaced them, for the most part the lineup imploded (the value of continuity).

Remember, these units played heavily together in training camp, and had familiarity and fit together. There are some changes that actually tended to improve lineups, notably bringing in either ingram or black with the starters in place of Randle.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 4738

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:16 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44
Not sure what you're asking. The lineup (not Deng individually) scored 44 points more than the other team in aggregate over its 400+ minutes. The main bench unit was +28 in about half that many minutes. When you mixed those two units, or subtracted one of the main guys from either lineup and replaced them, for the most part the lineup imploded (the value of continuity).

Remember, these units played heavily together in training camp, and had familiarity and fit together. There are some changes that actually tended to improve lineups, notably bringing in either ingram or black with the starters in place of Randle.
Thanks for the info

Starting lineup scores 44 more points than the opponents
Bench scored 28 more points than the opponents
Team is dead last in defensive efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency)
Team is 25th in Offense Efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency)
Team has the second worst win/loss

Looking forward to learning how all these facts accurately describe this team
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7891

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:17 pm    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44
Not sure what you're asking. The lineup (not Deng individually) scored 44 points more than the other team in aggregate over its 400+ minutes. The main bench unit was +28 in about half that many minutes. When you mixed those two units, or subtracted one of the main guys from either lineup and replaced them, for the most part the lineup imploded (the value of continuity).

Remember, these units played heavily together in training camp, and had familiarity and fit together. There are some changes that actually tended to improve lineups, notably bringing in either ingram or black with the starters in place of Randle.
Thanks for the info

Starting lineup scores 44 more points than the opponents
Bench scored 28 more points than the opponents
Team is dead last in defensive efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency)
Team is 25th in Offense Efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency)
Team has the second worst win/loss

Looking forward to learning how all these facts accurately describe this team


You're on the right track. Let me know what you find.
_________________
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
Shaber
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 2971

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:20 pm    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins


That is simple though, isn't it. One lineup wins it and the other looses.

You have to remember there are a lot of ways to mix 15 players info 5-man lineups. Per 82games.com about half (9 exactly) of the 20 Lakers 5-man lineups which have played most minutes are net positive. And there are lineups which have staggering losing record.
Top 6 lineups per minutes include three lineups with positive and three with negative +/-.
Russell-Young-Ingram-Randle-Black are -40 in 137 minutes.
Russell-Clarkson-Young-Ingram-Randle are -13 in 71 minutes.
Russell-Young-Ingram-Randle-Mozgov are -39 in 63 minutes.

If you want to look at individual player impact you can compare lineups which are otherwise similar, but have the player of interest subbed. But then you need also correct it for minutes played. I don't know where such stats can be found and am too lazy to start calculating myself. In principle, you can see that it does not matter wether Mozg or Black are in the middle. There is no comparison with Zubac available (yet?).

If you want info about Deng, a first glimpse could be:
Russell-Young-Ingram-Randle-Mozgov -39 vs
Russell-Young-Deng-Randle-Mozgov +44
_________________
.

Lakers depth chart

PG Johnson / Goodrich
SG Bryant / West / Scott
SF Baylor / Worthy / Cooper
PF Mikkelsen / Hairston / McAdoo / Gasol
C Chamberlain / Abdul-Jabbar / O'Neal / Mikan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 4738

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:29 pm    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44
Not sure what you're asking. The lineup (not Deng individually) scored 44 points more than the other team in aggregate over its 400+ minutes. The main bench unit was +28 in about half that many minutes. When you mixed those two units, or subtracted one of the main guys from either lineup and replaced them, for the most part the lineup imploded (the value of continuity).

Remember, these units played heavily together in training camp, and had familiarity and fit together. There are some changes that actually tended to improve lineups, notably bringing in either ingram or black with the starters in place of Randle.
Thanks for the info

Starting lineup scores 44 more points than the opponents
Bench scored 28 more points than the opponents
Team is dead last in defensive efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency)
Team is 25th in Offense Efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency)
Team has the second worst win/loss

Looking forward to learning how all these facts accurately describe this team
You're on the right track. Let me know what you find.
Maybe more specific examination of the starters' efficiency since the team was usually behind big by the end of the first quarter

Breakdown of the bench's efficiency can probably attributed exclusively to LouWill's production

Question
If the stats are accurate, why was Jim/Mitch fired and Magic/Rob have little need to change things or players
How can our record represent a team that has scored (44+28) 72 more points than our opponents?
What stats provides an accurate and complete picture of our current demise?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 10084

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:48 pm    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
Maybe more specific examination of the starters' efficiency since the team was usually behind big by the end of the first quarter

Breakdown of the bench's efficiency can probably attributed exclusively to LouWill's production

Question
If the stats are accurate, why was Jim/Mitch fired and Magic/Rob have little need to change things or players
How can our record represent a team that has scored (44+28) 72 more points than our opponents?
What stats provides an accurate and complete picture of our current demise?

The stats are accurate. That's the wonderful thing about numbers

Why did the team suck? It's simple, most "hybrid" lineups sucked.

Russell/ Young/ Deng/ Randle/ Mozgov? Good.
Russell/ Young/ Ingram/ Randle/ Mozgov? Bad.

Surprising? Maybe. But them are the facts.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Bard207
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 4139

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:19 am    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44
Not sure what you're asking. The lineup (not Deng individually) scored 44 points more than the other team in aggregate over its 400+ minutes. The main bench unit was +28 in about half that many minutes. When you mixed those two units, or subtracted one of the main guys from either lineup and replaced them, for the most part the lineup imploded (the value of continuity).

Remember, these units played heavily together in training camp, and had familiarity and fit together. There are some changes that actually tended to improve lineups, notably bringing in either ingram or black with the starters in place of Randle.
Thanks for the info

Starting lineup scores 44 more points than the opponents
Bench scored 28 more points than the opponents
Team is dead last in defensive efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency)
Team is 25th in Offense Efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency)
Team has the second worst win/loss

Looking forward to learning how all these facts accurately describe this team


I usually use the Hollinger numbers, but will use Team Rankings since that is the site that you are looking at.

Combining the Offensive and Defensive numbers with an alphabetic sort by city gives:

Code:

..........Offense   Defense
Atlanta   1.02   1.027
Boston   1.075   1.05
Brooklyn   1.009   1.087
Charlotte   1.049   1.044
Chicago   1.035   1.049
Cleveland   1.106   1.061
Dallas   1.033   1.05
Denver   1.095   1.091
Detroit   1.037   1.042
Golden State   1.115   1.008
Houston   1.118   1.048
Indiana   1.043   1.049
LA Clippers   1.081   1.055
LA Lakers   1.024   1.096
Memphis   1.04   1.03
Miami   1.038   1.031
Milwaukee   1.064   1.06
Minnesota   1.066   1.067
New Orleans   1.01   1.038
New York   1.043   1.075
Okla City   1.046   1.04
Orlando   1.002   1.069
Philadelphia   0.995   1.054
Phoenix   1.031   1.08
Portland   1.061   1.081
Sacramento   1.041   1.072
San Antonio   1.083   1.002
Toronto   1.086   1.051
Utah   1.058   1.015
Washington   1.074   1.053




Find the difference by subtracting the number from Defense from the number for Offense.

Code:

..........Offense....Defense.....Difference
Atlanta   1.02   1.027   -0.007
Boston   1.075   1.05   0.025
Brooklyn   1.009   1.087   -0.078
Charlotte   1.049   1.044   0.005
Chicago   1.035   1.049   -0.014
Cleveland   1.106   1.061   0.045
Dallas   1.033   1.05   -0.017
Denver   1.095   1.091   0.004
Detroit   1.037   1.042   -0.005
Golden State   1.115   1.008   0.107
Houston   1.118   1.048   0.07
Indiana   1.043   1.049   -0.006
LA Clippers   1.081   1.055   0.026
LA Lakers   1.024   1.096   -0.072
Memphis   1.04   1.03   0.01
Miami   1.038   1.031   0.007
Milwaukee   1.064   1.06   0.004
Minnesota   1.066   1.067   -0.001
New Orleans   1.01   1.038   -0.028
New York   1.043   1.075   -0.032
Okla City   1.046   1.04   0.006
Orlando   1.002   1.069   -0.067
Philadelphia   0.995   1.054   -0.059
Phoenix   1.031   1.08   -0.049
Portland   1.061   1.081   -0.02
Sacramento   1.041   1.072   -0.031
San Antonio   1.083   1.002   0.081
Toronto   1.086   1.051   0.035
Utah   1.058   1.015   0.043
Washington   1.074   1.053   0.021



Take the above and sort from worst to first.
Put the ordering from Tankathon in ().


...............................Offense....Defense.....Difference
1. Brooklyn (1)..........1.009.......1.087.........-0.078
2. LA Lakers (2).........1.024.......1.096.........-0.072
3. Orlando (4)............1.002.......1.069.........-0.067
4. Philadelphia (5).......0.995.......1.054.........-0.059
5. Phoenix (3)............1.031.......1.08...........-0.049
6. New York (6)..........1.043.......1.075.........-0.032
7. Sacramento (8).......1.041.......1.072.........-0.031
8. New Orleans (7).......1.01 ........1.038.........-0.028
9. Portland (12)...........1.061.......1.081.........-0.02
10. Dallas (11).............1.033.......1.05..........-0.017
11. Chicago (13)..........1.035.......1.049........-0.014
12. Atlanta (19)...........1.02.........1.027........-0.007
13. Indiana (18)...........1.043.......1.049........-0.006
14. Detroit (15)...........1.037........1.042........-0.005
15. Minnesota (9).........1.066........1.067.......-0.001
16. Denver (16)............1.095........1.091.......0.004
17. Milwaukee (17)........1.064........1.06.........0.004
18. Charlotte (10).........1.049.......1.044........0.005
19. Okla City (22)..........1.046.......1.04..........0.006
20. Miami (14)...............1.038.......1.031........0.007
21. Memphis (20)..........1.04.........1.03..........0.01
22. Washington (24).....1.074........1.053........0.021
23. Boston (25)............1.075........1.05..........0.025
24. LA Clippers (23)..... 1.081........1.055........0.026
25. Toronto (21)...........1.086........1.051........0.035
26. Utah (25)................1.058........1.015........0.043
27. Cleveland (27).........1.106.........1.061.......0.045
28. Houston (28)...........1.118........1.048.......0.07
29. San Antonio (29)......1.083........1.002......0.081
30. Golden State (30).....1.115........1.008......0.107



The difference isn't a perfect predictor, but it does gives a general idea on what to expect for a W/L record compared to other teams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Shaber
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 2971

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:49 am    Post subject:

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44
Not sure what you're asking. The lineup (not Deng individually) scored 44 points more than the other team in aggregate over its 400+ minutes. The main bench unit was +28 in about half that many minutes. When you mixed those two units, or subtracted one of the main guys from either lineup and replaced them, for the most part the lineup imploded (the value of continuity).

Remember, these units played heavily together in training camp, and had familiarity and fit together. There are some changes that actually tended to improve lineups, notably bringing in either ingram or black with the starters in place of Randle.
Thanks for the info

Starting lineup scores 44 more points than the opponents
Bench scored 28 more points than the opponents
Team is dead last in defensive efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency)
Team is 25th in Offense Efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency)
Team has the second worst win/loss

Looking forward to learning how all these facts accurately describe this team
You're on the right track. Let me know what you find.
Maybe more specific examination of the starters' efficiency since the team was usually behind big by the end of the first quarter

Breakdown of the bench's efficiency can probably attributed exclusively to LouWill's production

Question
If the stats are accurate, why was Jim/Mitch fired and Magic/Rob have little need to change things or players
How can our record represent a team that has scored (44+28) 72 more points than our opponents?
What stats provides an accurate and complete picture of our current demise?


You are still confusing single lineup numbers (which does not play the whole game) with the team record. + you add up numbers which might come from totally different games.
_________________
.

Lakers depth chart

PG Johnson / Goodrich
SG Bryant / West / Scott
SF Baylor / Worthy / Cooper
PF Mikkelsen / Hairston / McAdoo / Gasol
C Chamberlain / Abdul-Jabbar / O'Neal / Mikan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 4738

PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:58 pm    Post subject:

s_habe wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
It's not logic. It's a fact. The logic is that your eye test or preconceptions may be misleading you.
Maybe you can share how a lineup that is +44 used more and/or not resulted in more wins

Curious on how Deng's multiple 0fer games resulted in a +44
Not sure what you're asking. The lineup (not Deng individually) scored 44 points more than the other team in aggregate over its 400+ minutes. The main bench unit was +28 in about half that many minutes. When you mixed those two units, or subtracted one of the main guys from either lineup and replaced them, for the most part the lineup imploded (the value of continuity).

Remember, these units played heavily together in training camp, and had familiarity and fit together. There are some changes that actually tended to improve lineups, notably bringing in either ingram or black with the starters in place of Randle.
Thanks for the info

Starting lineup scores 44 more points than the opponents
Bench scored 28 more points than the opponents
Team is dead last in defensive efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency)
Team is 25th in Offense Efficiency (https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency)
Team has the second worst win/loss

Looking forward to learning how all these facts accurately describe this team
You're on the right track. Let me know what you find.
Maybe more specific examination of the starters' efficiency since the team was usually behind big by the end of the first quarter

Breakdown of the bench's efficiency can probably attributed exclusively to LouWill's production

Question
If the stats are accurate, why was Jim/Mitch fired and Magic/Rob have little need to change things or players
How can our record represent a team that has scored (44+28) 72 more points than our opponents?
What stats provides an accurate and complete picture of our current demise?
You are still confusing single lineup numbers (which does not play the whole game) with the team record. + you add up numbers which might come from totally different games.
Understand your points

Stats/Analytics shared that the starters and reserves score more points than the opponents, yet we have our record

What is missing?

Luke doesn't like playing lineups that are producing?

My sentiments are very similar to the views of the media pundits (Big Game, Ireland, Muychal, DFish, Toine, Reggie, Sir Charles, Stern, Lowe and others that the Lakers are not productive

What has Magic/Rob has seen that they shared in their one-on-one meetings that occurred yesterday with all the players
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Thoughts and Ratings 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
© 1995-2010 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