|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| levon wrote: | | tox wrote: | | levon wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | levon wrote: | | [I like what this stat is trying to do but disagree a lot with its derivation. |
Can you expound on that? |
The way I understand it, it punishes 3 point shot creators by regressing it to the average. I'm not entirely sure why the assumption is to take the mean of a player's on/off in terms of 3pt% without providing some kind of prior (like maybe the player's just good at creating 3 pt opportunities), but I suppose that's a lot of the issue with on/off metrics.
The obvious one is it also doesn't seem to account for lineups.
The way you're using it is perfectly informative though, which is within one team and with supplementary knowledge of roles on the Lakers. |
Lineups are definitely the real issue with this stat. If you play next to Brewer, Ingram, Nance, and Randle, the only thing unlucky about having a bad teammate 3FG% is your coach's lineup choices. It wouldn't be hard to find how many 3FGA each teammate had next to you vs. without you (the data is available on NBAwowy so clearly you can pull it from NBA.com programmatically).
I think you are overstating the effects of shot creators though. As mentioned above, the issue tends to be more that shot creators create a higher volume of 3s, not necessarily more open ones. This is most obvious when you take a look at a guy like Ingram. He basically only takes open 3s. So playing next to LeBron or Harden wouldn't raise his 3FG% much (because you don't really get better looks than wide open 3s) but he'd get more of the 3s he's comfortable taking. |
Your second point is nested in your first point though. Shot selection is dependent on players played with. What if instead of Ingram you have a sufficiently trigger happy high volume 3 pt shooter, and having Lonzo on the floor gets that shooter more open looks than off?
I didn't consider that angle though, and based on the amount of 3's taken that might all just be noise and taking a mean might be fine. I guess my two points of contention are related then. |
Yeah, so the effect you are saying would exist. But this "trigger happy high volume 3 point shooter" (let's say he's fine taking every 3 as long as they're not "tightly contested") won't just get more "wide open" 3s. He'll also get more "open 3s" and more "contested 3s."
What you're saying in theory seems reasonable. But in practice, there are a couple things wrong. First, there is a lot of noise from statistical variation. Then, like I said, more of the effects tends to be on frequency. And finally, keep in mind most players not Jayson Tatum or Jordan Clarkson, and don't shoot THAT much better on open 3s vs slightly contested 3s. When you take all of these factors in consideration, the influence of what you're pointing out is really small.
That's exactly why you run studies to try to figure this stuff out, and they've concluded the main effect 3 point creators have is on volume, not accuracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
levon
Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10602
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: |
Yeah, so the effect you are saying would exist. But this "trigger happy high volume 3 point shooter" (let's say he's fine taking every 3 as long as they're not "tightly contested") won't just get more "wide open" 3s. He'll also get more "open 3s" and more "contested 3s."
What you're saying in theory seems reasonable. But in practice, there are a couple things wrong. First, there is a lot of noise from statistical variation. Then, like I said, more of the effects tends to be on frequency. And finally, keep in mind most players not Jayson Tatum or Jordan Clarkson, and don't shoot THAT much better on open 3s vs slightly contested 3s. When you take all of these factors in consideration, the influence of what you're pointing out is really small.
That's exactly why you run studies to try to figure this stuff out, and they've concluded the main effect 3 point creators have is on volume, not accuracy. |
Can you hit me with that sweet link to a study? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| levon wrote: | | tox wrote: |
Yeah, so the effect you are saying would exist. But this "trigger happy high volume 3 point shooter" (let's say he's fine taking every 3 as long as they're not "tightly contested") won't just get more "wide open" 3s. He'll also get more "open 3s" and more "contested 3s."
What you're saying in theory seems reasonable. But in practice, there are a couple things wrong. First, there is a lot of noise from statistical variation. Then, like I said, more of the effects tends to be on frequency. And finally, keep in mind most players not Jayson Tatum or Jordan Clarkson, and don't shoot THAT much better on open 3s vs slightly contested 3s. When you take all of these factors in consideration, the influence of what you're pointing out is really small.
That's exactly why you run studies to try to figure this stuff out, and they've concluded the main effect 3 point creators have is on volume, not accuracy. |
Can you hit me with that sweet link to a study? |
I wish, but I can't even find the articles that hyperlinked to it. I'm looking now. I'll lyk if I can find it.
edit: Actually -- I totally (bleep) up. Lol my bad. I conflated the studies on 3 point defense with 3 point offense, which obviously isn't the case. Even just thinking about it for a second, that last sentence I made is obviously wrong.
I actually just spent some time trying to find an academic article (on Google Scholar) or even a Nylon Calculus post on the effect that shot creators have on 3 point *percentage*. Surprisingly, I've found nothing. I'm especially suspicious because I suspect a lot of 3 point creators like Harden and LeBron and Westbrook might actually force suboptimal 3 point attempts because they need the spacing to open up driving lanes.
Last edited by tox on Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | I wish, but I can't even find the articles that hyperlinked to it. I'm looking now. I'll lyk if I can find it. |
What's that hardcore stats forum? ABPR or something like that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | durden-tyler wrote: | | Thanks for the info. I'm no data expert, but he's saying that "individuals have next to no control of their opponent’s 3-point percent", I'm starting to read more about that, what do you (GT and others) think about that ? That really surprises me... |
I'm not a math guy, so I can't explain it from that angle, but this isn't the first time I've heard that. It makes sense to me that a player wouldn't have a BIG impact on an opponents 3PT% simply as a function of opportunity, but I'd figure that they'd have a bigger impact than what the studies seem to suggest. |
This reminds me of Voros McCracken's work in baseball. You can stop an opponent from shooting or block the shot (strikeout), you can foul him (walk), or you can give him such an easy lane to the hoop that he just blows past you (home run). But if the opponent gets the shot off, the quality of the defender doesn't matter much. Once the ball is in the air, it doesn't make a lot of difference who the pitcher/defender was. It doesn't make zero difference, but the more or less random aspects of shooting (like hitting) will predominate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | durden-tyler wrote: | | Thanks for the info. I'm no data expert, but he's saying that "individuals have next to no control of their opponent’s 3-point percent", I'm starting to read more about that, what do you (GT and others) think about that ? That really surprises me... |
I'm not a math guy, so I can't explain it from that angle, but this isn't the first time I've heard that. It makes sense to me that a player wouldn't have a BIG impact on an opponents 3PT% simply as a function of opportunity, but I'd figure that they'd have a bigger impact than what the studies seem to suggest. |
This reminds me of Voros McCracken's work in baseball. You can stop an opponent from shooting or block the shot (strikeout), you can foul him (walk), or you can give him such an easy lane to the hoop that he just blows past you (home run). But if the opponent gets the shot off, the quality of the defender doesn't matter much. Once the ball is in the air, it doesn't make a lot of difference who the pitcher/defender was. It doesn't make zero difference, but the more or less random aspects of shooting (like hitting) will predominate. |
That makes a lot of sense when it's articulated like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | tox wrote: | | I wish, but I can't even find the articles that hyperlinked to it. I'm looking now. I'll lyk if I can find it. |
What's that hardcore stats forum? ABPR or something like that? |
APBR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | levon wrote: | | tox wrote: |
Yeah, so the effect you are saying would exist. But this "trigger happy high volume 3 point shooter" (let's say he's fine taking every 3 as long as they're not "tightly contested") won't just get more "wide open" 3s. He'll also get more "open 3s" and more "contested 3s."
What you're saying in theory seems reasonable. But in practice, there are a couple things wrong. First, there is a lot of noise from statistical variation. Then, like I said, more of the effects tends to be on frequency. And finally, keep in mind most players not Jayson Tatum or Jordan Clarkson, and don't shoot THAT much better on open 3s vs slightly contested 3s. When you take all of these factors in consideration, the influence of what you're pointing out is really small.
That's exactly why you run studies to try to figure this stuff out, and they've concluded the main effect 3 point creators have is on volume, not accuracy. |
Can you hit me with that sweet link to a study? |
I wish, but I can't even find the articles that hyperlinked to it. I'm looking now. I'll lyk if I can find it.
edit: Actually -- I totally (bleep) up. Lol my bad. I conflated the studies on 3 point defense with 3 point offense, which obviously isn't the case. Even just thinking about it for a second, that last sentence I made is obviously wrong.
I actually just spent some time trying to find an academic article (on Google Scholar) or even a Nylon Calculus post on the effect that shot creators have on 3 point *percentage*. Surprisingly, I've found nothing. I'm especially suspicious because I suspect a lot of 3 point creators like Harden and LeBron and Westbrook might actually force suboptimal 3 point attempts because they need the spacing to open up driving lanes. |
@levon, in case you missed my update |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
levon
Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 10602
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | tox wrote: | | levon wrote: | | tox wrote: |
Yeah, so the effect you are saying would exist. But this "trigger happy high volume 3 point shooter" (let's say he's fine taking every 3 as long as they're not "tightly contested") won't just get more "wide open" 3s. He'll also get more "open 3s" and more "contested 3s."
What you're saying in theory seems reasonable. But in practice, there are a couple things wrong. First, there is a lot of noise from statistical variation. Then, like I said, more of the effects tends to be on frequency. And finally, keep in mind most players not Jayson Tatum or Jordan Clarkson, and don't shoot THAT much better on open 3s vs slightly contested 3s. When you take all of these factors in consideration, the influence of what you're pointing out is really small.
That's exactly why you run studies to try to figure this stuff out, and they've concluded the main effect 3 point creators have is on volume, not accuracy. |
Can you hit me with that sweet link to a study? |
I wish, but I can't even find the articles that hyperlinked to it. I'm looking now. I'll lyk if I can find it.
edit: Actually -- I totally (bleep) up. Lol my bad. I conflated the studies on 3 point defense with 3 point offense, which obviously isn't the case. Even just thinking about it for a second, that last sentence I made is obviously wrong.
I actually just spent some time trying to find an academic article (on Google Scholar) or even a Nylon Calculus post on the effect that shot creators have on 3 point *percentage*. Surprisingly, I've found nothing. I'm especially suspicious because I suspect a lot of 3 point creators like Harden and LeBron and Westbrook might actually force suboptimal 3 point attempts because they need the spacing to open up driving lanes. |
@levon, in case you missed my update |
Yeah thanks man, just read it. I think so too regarding Harden, not just himself but Houston as a whole. They take a lot of suboptimal 3's man. Ryan Anderson's shooting it from Cal sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | durden-tyler wrote: | | Thanks for the info. I'm no data expert, but he's saying that "individuals have next to no control of their opponent’s 3-point percent", I'm starting to read more about that, what do you (GT and others) think about that ? That really surprises me... |
I'm not a math guy, so I can't explain it from that angle, but this isn't the first time I've heard that. It makes sense to me that a player wouldn't have a BIG impact on an opponents 3PT% simply as a function of opportunity, but I'd figure that they'd have a bigger impact than what the studies seem to suggest. |
This reminds me of Voros McCracken's work in baseball. You can stop an opponent from shooting or block the shot (strikeout), you can foul him (walk), or you can give him such an easy lane to the hoop that he just blows past you (home run). But if the opponent gets the shot off, the quality of the defender doesn't matter much. Once the ball is in the air, it doesn't make a lot of difference who the pitcher/defender was. It doesn't make zero difference, but the more or less random aspects of shooting (like hitting) will predominate. |
But if this were true, wouldn't it equal out so every team in each conference (which face the same opponents the same number of times) all have roughly equal percentages in defending the 3 pointers?
In reality, last year you had some teams allow 37-38% of 3-pointers and some allow 32-33%
It may be that the baseball analogy is a little off because it involves one stationary pitcher and one stationary batter. In basketball, however, a good defender can cause an opponent to shoot more quickly than he would like or from a different place than he would like, affecting the percentage. Also teams can work together to affect the quality of the shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | durden-tyler wrote: | | Thanks for the info. I'm no data expert, but he's saying that "individuals have next to no control of their opponent’s 3-point percent", I'm starting to read more about that, what do you (GT and others) think about that ? That really surprises me... |
I'm not a math guy, so I can't explain it from that angle, but this isn't the first time I've heard that. It makes sense to me that a player wouldn't have a BIG impact on an opponents 3PT% simply as a function of opportunity, but I'd figure that they'd have a bigger impact than what the studies seem to suggest. |
This reminds me of Voros McCracken's work in baseball. You can stop an opponent from shooting or block the shot (strikeout), you can foul him (walk), or you can give him such an easy lane to the hoop that he just blows past you (home run). But if the opponent gets the shot off, the quality of the defender doesn't matter much. Once the ball is in the air, it doesn't make a lot of difference who the pitcher/defender was. It doesn't make zero difference, but the more or less random aspects of shooting (like hitting) will predominate. |
But if this were true, wouldn't it equal out so every team in each conference (which face the same opponents the same number of times) all have roughly equal percentages in defending the 3 pointers?
In reality, last year you had some teams allow 37-38% of 3-pointers and some allow 32-33%
It may be that the baseball analogy is a little off because it involves one stationary pitcher and one stationary batter. In basketball, however, a good defender can cause an opponent to shoot more quickly than he would like or from a different place than he would like, affecting the percentage. Also teams can work together to affect the quality of the shot. |
The argument is that most of that difference is just statistical noise. In reality, there's probably *some* signal, but as said earlier, generally better defensive teams limit 3 point attempts, rather than lower accuracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | But if this were true, wouldn't it equal out so every team in each conference (which face the same opponents the same number of times) all have roughly equal percentages in defending the 3 pointers?
In reality, last year you had some teams allow 37-38% of 3-pointers and some allow 32-33%
It may be that the baseball analogy is a little off because it involves one stationary pitcher and one stationary batter. In basketball, however, a good defender can cause an opponent to shoot more quickly than he would like or from a different place than he would like, affecting the percentage. Also teams can work together to affect the quality of the shot. |
Your last sentence is important. Some teams are going to allow open threes to the other team's best three point shooters, while other teams are going to run the best shooters off the line or make them pass to lesser shooters. To use the Voros McCracken analogy, the team will find ways to strike out the best shooters, so that the ball is never in play. Also, the good defensive teams will limit the corner three and will know where the opposing players' favorite spots are.
So sure, team defense can affect three point shooting. The analytics guys are talking about individual defenders, which is a different matter. I haven't actually read any of the papers, but this makes sense to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | But if this were true, wouldn't it equal out so every team in each conference (which face the same opponents the same number of times) all have roughly equal percentages in defending the 3 pointers?
In reality, last year you had some teams allow 37-38% of 3-pointers and some allow 32-33%
It may be that the baseball analogy is a little off because it involves one stationary pitcher and one stationary batter. In basketball, however, a good defender can cause an opponent to shoot more quickly than he would like or from a different place than he would like, affecting the percentage. Also teams can work together to affect the quality of the shot. |
Your last sentence is important. Some teams are going to allow open threes to the other team's best three point shooters, while other teams are going to run the best shooters off the line or make them pass to lesser shooters. To use the Voros McCracken analogy, the team will find ways to strike out the best shooters, so that the ball is never in play. Also, the good defensive teams will limit the corner three and will know where the opposing players' favorite spots are.
So sure, team defense can affect three point shooting. The analytics guys are talking about individual defenders, which is a different matter. I haven't actually read any of the papers, but this makes sense to me. |
Someone can correct me but I'm pretty sure team-wide 3FG% allowed is also unreliable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | But if this were true, wouldn't it equal out so every team in each conference (which face the same opponents the same number of times) all have roughly equal percentages in defending the 3 pointers?
In reality, last year you had some teams allow 37-38% of 3-pointers and some allow 32-33%
It may be that the baseball analogy is a little off because it involves one stationary pitcher and one stationary batter. In basketball, however, a good defender can cause an opponent to shoot more quickly than he would like or from a different place than he would like, affecting the percentage. Also teams can work together to affect the quality of the shot. |
Your last sentence is important. Some teams are going to allow open threes to the other team's best three point shooters, while other teams are going to run the best shooters off the line or make them pass to lesser shooters. To use the Voros McCracken analogy, the team will find ways to strike out the best shooters, so that the ball is never in play. Also, the good defensive teams will limit the corner three and will know where the opposing players' favorite spots are.
So sure, team defense can affect three point shooting. The analytics guys are talking about individual defenders, which is a different matter. I haven't actually read any of the papers, but this makes sense to me. |
Someone can correct me but I'm pretty sure team-wide 3FG% allowed is also unreliable. |
I can believe that, because the percentage does not reflect the shots that were not taken. But as AV points out, there is still a sizable difference in the percentages between teams. The differences are too large to just be statistical noise. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | tox wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | But if this were true, wouldn't it equal out so every team in each conference (which face the same opponents the same number of times) all have roughly equal percentages in defending the 3 pointers?
In reality, last year you had some teams allow 37-38% of 3-pointers and some allow 32-33%
It may be that the baseball analogy is a little off because it involves one stationary pitcher and one stationary batter. In basketball, however, a good defender can cause an opponent to shoot more quickly than he would like or from a different place than he would like, affecting the percentage. Also teams can work together to affect the quality of the shot. |
Your last sentence is important. Some teams are going to allow open threes to the other team's best three point shooters, while other teams are going to run the best shooters off the line or make them pass to lesser shooters. To use the Voros McCracken analogy, the team will find ways to strike out the best shooters, so that the ball is never in play. Also, the good defensive teams will limit the corner three and will know where the opposing players' favorite spots are.
So sure, team defense can affect three point shooting. The analytics guys are talking about individual defenders, which is a different matter. I haven't actually read any of the papers, but this makes sense to me. |
Someone can correct me but I'm pretty sure team-wide 3FG% allowed is also unreliable. |
I can believe that, because the percentage does not reflect the shots that were not taken. But as AV points out, there is still a sizable difference in the percentages between teams. The differences are too large to just be statistical noise. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though. |
I imagine someone has cared enough to actually model it, but just offhand I don't think the difference between, say, 41% and 33% is as robust as it might seem. But we're both just speculating so who knows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freddie Buckets
Star Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 9131
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke says Lonzo likely doesn't play Friday |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leandromato1
Starting Rotation
Joined: 13 Oct 2017
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He is an excellent player, but very soft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bandiger
Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 12555
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| leandromato1 wrote: | | He is an excellent player, but very soft. |
   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| leandromato1 wrote: | | He is an excellent player, but very soft. |
Post better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | tox wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | But if this were true, wouldn't it equal out so every team in each conference (which face the same opponents the same number of times) all have roughly equal percentages in defending the 3 pointers?
In reality, last year you had some teams allow 37-38% of 3-pointers and some allow 32-33%
It may be that the baseball analogy is a little off because it involves one stationary pitcher and one stationary batter. In basketball, however, a good defender can cause an opponent to shoot more quickly than he would like or from a different place than he would like, affecting the percentage. Also teams can work together to affect the quality of the shot. |
Your last sentence is important. Some teams are going to allow open threes to the other team's best three point shooters, while other teams are going to run the best shooters off the line or make them pass to lesser shooters. To use the Voros McCracken analogy, the team will find ways to strike out the best shooters, so that the ball is never in play. Also, the good defensive teams will limit the corner three and will know where the opposing players' favorite spots are.
So sure, team defense can affect three point shooting. The analytics guys are talking about individual defenders, which is a different matter. I haven't actually read any of the papers, but this makes sense to me. |
Someone can correct me but I'm pretty sure team-wide 3FG% allowed is also unreliable. |
I can believe that, because the percentage does not reflect the shots that were not taken. But as AV points out, there is still a sizable difference in the percentages between teams. The differences are too large to just be statistical noise. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though. |
I did a quick look at last season, and it looks like there is no correlation between team's overall defensive rating and how well opponent's shoot 3-pointers against them.
I also didn't notice any apparent correlation between defensive rating and number of 3-point attempts allowed per 100 possessions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vancouver Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 17740
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are the only person that makes this team exciting...sigh.
_________________
Music is my medicine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope durability isn’t a concern long term with him. Has missed a healthy dose of games.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | I hope durability isn’t a concern long term with him. Has missed a healthy dose of games. |
I'm not too concerned. Young PGs have injury issues usually due to frail bodies. John Wall, Steph, Kyrie, Dlo, Lowry, Jrue,etc. They usually continue building up their core with NBA training and nutrition and have become healthier as their careers have gone on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Of the gazillion things we need Lonzo for, it appears rebounding is another. To cover for Lopez who's just abysmal on the boards. Christ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | Of the gazillion things we need Lonzo for, it appears rebounding is another. To cover for Lopez who's just abysmal on the boards. Christ. |
Lopez is a block out guy. The point is to pair him with a Lonzo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
