OFFICIAL LONZO BALL THREAD
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 759, 760, 761 ... 770, 771, 772  Next

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


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 7829

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:50 am    Post subject:

Nashlight wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Of the 11 positive net rating lineups, the following primary players appear in:

Randle - 9 of 11
Clarkson - 7 of 11
Ball - 7 of 11
Kuzma - 7 of 11
Ingram - 6 of 11
KCP - 5 of 11
Lopez - 3 of 11
Nance - 1 of 11

Of the 11 negative net rating lineups, the following primary players appear in:

Ball - 8 of 11
KCP - 8 of 11
Ingram - 8 of 11
Kuzma - 6 of 11
Randle - 5 of 11
Nance - 5 of 11
Lopez - 4 of 11
Clarkson - 4 of 11



Appending to what you and GT have already stated, hare are the NET +/- lineups broken down individually:

Randle: +4
Clarkson: +3
Kuzma: +1
Ball: -1
Lopez: -1
Ingram: -2
KCP: -3
Nance: -4


Clearly Randle on the floor helps net the most, while Nance has the most loss. You can also see that all the starters are in the negatives, they're not helping each other at all.

I'm inclined to believe that Luke should try starting Randle over Nance to get some of that positive juices flowing with that lineup.


Hmmmmmmmmm....

GoldenThroat wrote:
Here are all of the 5-man lineups that Lonzo's been in that've played at least 10 minutes together, and their Net Rating:

Overall

Lonzo + Clarkson + Blue + Kuzma + Randle................+40.2 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Randle + Lopez....................+32.7 (12 minutes)
Lonzo + Clarkson + Brewer + Kuzma + Randle............+31.6 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Randle..................+28.6 (52 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Nance + Lopez................+22.3 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Ingram + Randle................+18.0 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Hart + Kuzma + Randle........................+0.2 (18 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez......................-2.8 (217 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez..................-8.9 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Lopez.......................-9.7 (155 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Bogut.....................-11.5 (11 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Randle....................-19.8 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + Deng + Ingram + Nance + Lopez....................-26.8 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Kuzma + Randle..................-28.6 (16 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Nance.....................-93.8 (12 minutes)


And the answer to the Laker's woes comes full circle.

LG Analytics > Lakers Analytics.
_________________
Quote:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nashlight
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 1758

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:57 am    Post subject:

Jordan-esque wrote:
The topics in this Lonzo thread are everywhere. All these stats should be plastered in the Luke Walton thread if anything.


Or in this thread:
http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=183018

Weíve been talking about questionable rotations sadly since training camp.
_________________
Tacos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
2019
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 4553

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:59 am    Post subject:

Jordan-esque wrote:
Nashlight wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Of the 11 positive net rating lineups, the following primary players appear in:

Randle - 9 of 11
Clarkson - 7 of 11
Ball - 7 of 11
Kuzma - 7 of 11
Ingram - 6 of 11
KCP - 5 of 11
Lopez - 3 of 11
Nance - 1 of 11

Of the 11 negative net rating lineups, the following primary players appear in:

Ball - 8 of 11
KCP - 8 of 11
Ingram - 8 of 11
Kuzma - 6 of 11
Randle - 5 of 11
Nance - 5 of 11
Lopez - 4 of 11
Clarkson - 4 of 11



Appending to what you and GT have already stated, hare are the NET +/- lineups broken down individually:

Randle: +4
Clarkson: +3
Kuzma: +1
Ball: -1
Lopez: -1
Ingram: -2
KCP: -3
Nance: -4


Clearly Randle on the floor helps net the most, while Nance has the most loss. You can also see that all the starters are in the negatives, they're not helping each other at all.

I'm inclined to believe that Luke should try starting Randle over Nance to get some of that positive juices flowing with that lineup.


Hmmmmmmmmm....

GoldenThroat wrote:
Here are all of the 5-man lineups that Lonzo's been in that've played at least 10 minutes together, and their Net Rating:

Overall

Lonzo + Clarkson + Blue + Kuzma + Randle................+40.2 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Randle + Lopez....................+32.7 (12 minutes)
Lonzo + Clarkson + Brewer + Kuzma + Randle............+31.6 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Randle..................+28.6 (52 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Nance + Lopez................+22.3 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Ingram + Randle................+18.0 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Hart + Kuzma + Randle........................+0.2 (18 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez......................-2.8 (217 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez..................-8.9 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Lopez.......................-9.7 (155 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Bogut.....................-11.5 (11 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Randle....................-19.8 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + Deng + Ingram + Nance + Lopez....................-26.8 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Kuzma + Randle..................-28.6 (16 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Nance.....................-93.8 (12 minutes)


And the answer to the Laker's woes comes full circle.

LG Analytics > Lakers Analytics.


Nance should not be starting-- for sure. And while Randle every bit derserves to be a starter, for a number of reasons, but the issue is (as evidenced by that last line item) that Nance is just not a good option at C. Even when playing with 4 of our best guys, a lineup with Larry at the C is weak. Now you can point to other factors but I just cannot see a situation where Randle is not our best backup C and the C that closes games.

I like Kuz starting at the PF in a mins rotation like this:

Lopez (22) | Randle (26)
Kuzma (32) | Nance (16)

End of the day, I feel like a Randle/Nance/Clarkson trio off the bench is athletic enough to cause major problems for opposing benches and it still allows Julius to close games.


Last edited by 2019 on Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19373

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:00 pm    Post subject:

Jordan-esque wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:
Here are all of the 5-man lineups that Lonzo's been in that've played at least 10 minutes together, and their Net Rating:

Overall

Lonzo + Clarkson + Blue + Kuzma + Randle................+40.2 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Randle + Lopez....................+32.7 (12 minutes)
Lonzo + Clarkson + Brewer + Kuzma + Randle............+31.6 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Randle..................+28.6 (52 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Nance + Lopez................+22.3 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Ingram + Randle................+18.0 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Hart + Kuzma + Randle........................+0.2 (18 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez......................-2.8 (217 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez..................-8.9 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Lopez.......................-9.7 (155 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Bogut.....................-11.5 (11 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Randle....................-19.8 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + Deng + Ingram + Nance + Lopez....................-26.8 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Kuzma + Randle..................-28.6 (16 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Nance.....................-93.8 (12 minutes)


And the answer to the Laker's woes comes full circle.

LG Analytics > Lakers Analytics.


Eh. It's dangerous to extrapolate from 12 minutes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nashlight
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 1758

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:18 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Jordan-esque wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:
Here are all of the 5-man lineups that Lonzo's been in that've played at least 10 minutes together, and their Net Rating:

Overall

Lonzo + Clarkson + Blue + Kuzma + Randle................+40.2 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Randle + Lopez....................+32.7 (12 minutes)
Lonzo + Clarkson + Brewer + Kuzma + Randle............+31.6 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Randle..................+28.6 (52 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Nance + Lopez................+22.3 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Ingram + Randle................+18.0 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Hart + Kuzma + Randle........................+0.2 (18 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez......................-2.8 (217 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez..................-8.9 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Lopez.......................-9.7 (155 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Bogut.....................-11.5 (11 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Randle....................-19.8 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + Deng + Ingram + Nance + Lopez....................-26.8 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Kuzma + Randle..................-28.6 (16 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Nance.....................-93.8 (12 minutes)


And the answer to the Laker's woes comes full circle.

LG Analytics > Lakers Analytics.


Eh. It's dangerous to extrapolate from 12 minutes.


Itís actually more dangerous that Luke had only played that lineup for 12 mins.

I was actually more of a proponent of Kuzma over Nance as starter until I dove deep into the numbers and found that Randle has had the most positive impact in almost every single lineup.
_________________
Tacos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 458

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:42 pm    Post subject:

Nashlight wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Jordan-esque wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:
Here are all of the 5-man lineups that Lonzo's been in that've played at least 10 minutes together, and their Net Rating:

Overall

Lonzo + Clarkson + Blue + Kuzma + Randle................+40.2 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Randle + Lopez....................+32.7 (12 minutes)
Lonzo + Clarkson + Brewer + Kuzma + Randle............+31.6 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Randle..................+28.6 (52 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Nance + Lopez................+22.3 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Ingram + Randle................+18.0 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Hart + Kuzma + Randle........................+0.2 (18 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez......................-2.8 (217 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez..................-8.9 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Lopez.......................-9.7 (155 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Bogut.....................-11.5 (11 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Randle....................-19.8 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + Deng + Ingram + Nance + Lopez....................-26.8 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Kuzma + Randle..................-28.6 (16 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Nance.....................-93.8 (12 minutes)


And the answer to the Laker's woes comes full circle.

LG Analytics > Lakers Analytics.


Eh. It's dangerous to extrapolate from 12 minutes.


Itís actually more dangerous that Luke had only played that lineup for 12 mins.

I was actually more of a proponent of Kuzma over Nance as starter until I dove deep into the numbers and found that Randle has had the most positive impact in almost every single lineup.


The 2 lineups that need to get more burn to see if it's actually as legit as our eye test and analytics say is: Ball/KCP/BI/Kuz/JR and Ball/KCP/BI/Randle/Lopez

The fact that Luke isn't rolling out those 2 lineups for more minutes just to see if they can sustain their positive rating is ridiculous. He's either purposely ignoring the analytics via stubborness or he's too dumb to understand the info.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jordan-esque
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 7829

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:53 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Eh. It's dangerous to extrapolate from 12 minutes.


Hey, don't eh me especially after I gave LG some love.

And please quote my whole quote:

Jordan-esque wrote:
Nashlight wrote:
adkindo wrote:
Of the 11 positive net rating lineups, the following primary players appear in:

Randle - 9 of 11
Clarkson - 7 of 11
Ball - 7 of 11
Kuzma - 7 of 11
Ingram - 6 of 11
KCP - 5 of 11
Lopez - 3 of 11
Nance - 1 of 11

Of the 11 negative net rating lineups, the following primary players appear in:

Ball - 8 of 11
KCP - 8 of 11
Ingram - 8 of 11
Kuzma - 6 of 11
Randle - 5 of 11
Nance - 5 of 11
Lopez - 4 of 11
Clarkson - 4 of 11



Appending to what you and GT have already stated, hare are the NET +/- lineups broken down individually:

Randle: +4
Clarkson: +3
Kuzma: +1
Ball: -1
Lopez: -1
Ingram: -2
KCP: -3
Nance: -4


Clearly Randle on the floor helps net the most, while Nance has the most loss. You can also see that all the starters are in the negatives, they're not helping each other at all.

I'm inclined to believe that Luke should try starting Randle over Nance to get some of that positive juices flowing with that lineup.


Hmmmmmmmmm....

GoldenThroat wrote:
Here are all of the 5-man lineups that Lonzo's been in that've played at least 10 minutes together, and their Net Rating:

Overall

Lonzo + Clarkson + Blue + Kuzma + Randle................+40.2 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Randle + Lopez....................+32.7 (12 minutes)
Lonzo + Clarkson + Brewer + Kuzma + Randle............+31.6 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Randle..................+28.6 (52 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Nance + Lopez................+22.3 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Ingram + Randle................+18.0 (24 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Hart + Kuzma + Randle........................+0.2 (18 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez......................-2.8 (217 minutes)
Lonzo + Brewer + Ingram + Kuzma + Lopez..................-8.9 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Lopez.......................-9.7 (155 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Bogut.....................-11.5 (11 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Nance + Randle....................-19.8 (10 minutes)
Lonzo + Deng + Ingram + Nance + Lopez....................-26.8 (13 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Clarkson + Kuzma + Randle..................-28.6 (16 minutes)
Lonzo + KCP + Ingram + Kuzma + Nance.....................-93.8 (12 minutes)


And the answer to the Laker's woes comes full circle.

LG Analytics > Lakers Analytics.


There. Much better.

Negating the top half of the quote makes a big difference. I was just putting 2 and 2 together.
_________________
Quote:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
deal
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 9736
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject:

Just curious: so what does sorting JC over Lonzo look like statistically compared to the actual?
_________________
The move
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19373

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:12 pm    Post subject:

Jordan-esque wrote:
And please quote my whole quote:

. . . .

Negating the top half of the quote makes a big difference. I was just putting 2 and 2 together.


No, I'm not going to do that. With a long post like yours, I'm going to quote the part that I am responding to. If someone wants to go back and read your long post, all they need to do is scroll up. In fact, the mods have frequently asked people to cut down their quotes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PHILosophize
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 4745

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Jordan-esque wrote:
And please quote my whole quote:

. . . .

Negating the top half of the quote makes a big difference. I was just putting 2 and 2 together.


No, I'm not going to do that. With a long post like yours, I'm going to quote the part that I am responding to. If someone wants to go back and read your long post, all they need to do is scroll up. In fact, the mods have frequently asked people to cut down their quotes.



_________________
one dog goes that way the other dog goes the other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 11340

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:15 pm    Post subject:

Let me help y'all out:

Randle doesn't make fiscal sense for the Lakers unless they abandon the 2-max-players-not-currently-on-the-team plan.

The 2-max plan is the correct strategy to pursue because it is the quickest way to assemble a championship roster. It may not work (might not get the 2 guys you want to sign, might sign them but not win it all, etc.), but if it is an option you have to explore it until it is no longer an option. Example: Jerry West & Shaq signing - West had ample reasons to break off the Shaq pursuit (couldn't match the money in Orlando, etc.), but went all in and when the Magic stumbled, the Lakers were the last team standing.
_________________
Suck it, whiners. I have TWC!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19373

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:21 pm    Post subject:

The Juggernaut wrote:
The 2 lineups that need to get more burn to see if it's actually as legit as our eye test and analytics say is: Ball/KCP/BI/Kuz/JR and Ball/KCP/BI/Randle/Lopez

The fact that Luke isn't rolling out those 2 lineups for more minutes just to see if they can sustain their positive rating is ridiculous. He's either purposely ignoring the analytics via stubborness or he's too dumb to understand the info.


Again, I don't know that the results from 12 minutes constitute analytics. If you want to say that Randle should start over Nance, that's fine. I was never a fan of using Randle off the bench, so I'm not going to fight with you about that. But saying that analytics support it is a stretch.

I'm not as much of a fan of the Kuzma/Randle lineup. That's a small ball lineup that will work situationally, but I'm not sold on using it on a regular basis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 35132

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:31 pm    Post subject:

While I agree that there isn't enough data with a lot of our lineups to extrapolate that they'd be good in a larger sample, I think there's enough data on the current starting lineup to determine that we should be trying different things.
_________________
If you have any tickets to buy for anything coming up, use the Promo Code: LFR to get $20 your first order on SeatGeek. Sign-up Here: https://sg.app.link/lfr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 19373

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:35 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
While I agree that there isn't enough data with a lot of our lineups to extrapolate that they'd be good in a larger sample, I think there's enough data on the current starting lineup to determine that we should be trying different things.


Oh, sure. In fact, we don't need analytics to reach that conclusion. We're 8-15, for goodness sake. Staying the course is not indicated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PHILosophize
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 4745

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:36 pm    Post subject:

the nutty thing is, we literally changed up the starting lineup after one game, sending deng to the bench

this starting lineup has had tons of time together and almost always gets us off to terrible starts - yet luke won't budge
_________________
one dog goes that way the other dog goes the other way
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nashlight
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 1758

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:45 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
The 2 lineups that need to get more burn to see if it's actually as legit as our eye test and analytics say is: Ball/KCP/BI/Kuz/JR and Ball/KCP/BI/Randle/Lopez

The fact that Luke isn't rolling out those 2 lineups for more minutes just to see if they can sustain their positive rating is ridiculous. He's either purposely ignoring the analytics via stubborness or he's too dumb to understand the info.


Again, I don't know that the results from 12 minutes constitute analytics. If you want to say that Randle should start over Nance, that's fine. I was never a fan of using Randle off the bench, so I'm not going to fight with you about that. But saying that analytics support it is a stretch.

I'm not as much of a fan of the Kuzma/Randle lineup. That's a small ball lineup that will work situationally, but I'm not sold on using it on a regular basis.


That 12 min lineup youíre saying was not even used in my analysis.

I came to the conclusion that Randle would be the best fit in the starting lineup on my seperate lineup analysis. It wasnít until Jordanesque put those two together with GTs that I saw that data of Randle in the lineup.

Suffice to say it took two different analysis to come up with basically the same conclusion.
_________________
Tacos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Nashlight
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 1758

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:49 pm    Post subject:

Doube post
_________________
Tacos


Last edited by Nashlight on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Joe Pesci
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 785

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:49 pm    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
Let me help y'all out:

Randle doesn't make fiscal sense for the Lakers unless they abandon the 2-max-players-not-currently-on-the-team plan.

The 2-max plan is the correct strategy to pursue because it is the quickest way to assemble a championship roster. It may not work (might not get the 2 guys you want to sign, might sign them but not win it all, etc.), but if it is an option you have to explore it until it is no longer an option. Example: Jerry West & Shaq signing - West had ample reasons to break off the Shaq pursuit (couldn't match the money in Orlando, etc.), but went all in and when the Magic stumbled, the Lakers were the last team standing.

Why does Randle not make fiscal sense? Am I missing something?

If Randle ends up getting 10-15 mill/yr, heíll be a Laker. The Lakers can afford a 13 million dollar Randle, yes, even with George and James:

65 mill - (George and James)
20 mill - (Ingram, Ball, Nance, Hart, Caruso, Bryant, Thomas, Kuzma, Wear)
13 mill - (Randle caphold)
100 mill (approx.)

Four years, fifty million is good value for Randle. Very fiscally sensical, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 35132

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:51 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
While I agree that there isn't enough data with a lot of our lineups to extrapolate that they'd be good in a larger sample, I think there's enough data on the current starting lineup to determine that we should be trying different things.


Oh, sure. In fact, we don't need analytics to reach that conclusion. We're 8-15, for goodness sake. Staying the course is not indicated.


I think lineup data helps to identify where the team has been the weakest or strongest, within their obvious overall struggles.
_________________
If you have any tickets to buy for anything coming up, use the Promo Code: LFR to get $20 your first order on SeatGeek. Sign-up Here: https://sg.app.link/lfr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jordan-esque
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 7829

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:58 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Jordan-esque wrote:
And please quote my whole quote:

. . . .

Negating the top half of the quote makes a big difference. I was just putting 2 and 2 together.


No, I'm not going to do that. With a long post like yours, I'm going to quote the part that I am responding to. If someone wants to go back and read your long post, all they need to do is scroll up. In fact, the mods have frequently asked people to cut down their quotes.


Then don't say it's dangerous for me to extrapolate some 12 minute data as if you were inferring I did from that half a quote, because that's just giving an answer to only half the data.
_________________
Quote:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Joe Pesci
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 785

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:04 pm    Post subject:

I think theyíre playing Nance so much to showcase him. He gets great numbers as a starter.

Thatís the only explanation I have.

Randle and Nance rarely ever share the floor anymore. Having a ďPFĒ and a ďCenterĒ that canít play together, makes it really complicated in distributing minutes, it becomes disjointed.

Thatís why Iím such a proponent of experimenting with a Nance/Randle Center platoon. Since they are both the weakest shooters, let them sub for one another so it is assured they (Nance and Randle) are the only non shooter in each lineup. Just makes it more simple. I know the numbers with Nance at Center are horrendous, but Iíd like to see how heíd respond if he was completely given that role (starting placeholder Center) and practiced and prepared for it. I think heís an asset at Center, especially with two maxes.

People forget that Nance is 6í9 with huge hands and a 7í2 wingspan. The strength to play the position will come with preparation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kevin61
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 1059

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:05 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Looking at these net ratings and Ingramís, it is evident how our starters have been negative.

No kidding? That's what it looks like when you're 8-15.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TheBlackMamba
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 5525

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:52 pm    Post subject:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2017/12/7/16744356/lonzo-ball-los-angeles-laker-shot

Quote:
Not every executive and scout had Ball ranked first or second leading up to Juneís draft. Iíve talked to a handful that had him in the nos. 5-8 range. Theyíre looking smart now. I have to admit, Iím questioning myself for even ranking him third overall behind Markelle Fultz and Jayson Tatum.


Obviously his shot is off right now (understatement of the year, yes), but this is a ridiculously unfair assessment which doesn't at all account for Lonzo's other contributions, as compared to his peers. But yeah, let's all pretend that everybody's pre-draft darlings DSJ, Jackson, and Fox are lighting the NBA on fire with their trash ass shooting (almost as bad as Lonzo's, actually, which NOBODY mentions - all barely 40% FG/30% 3-PT or below), without the same impact in other areas as Lonzo does to compensate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 8563
Location: DMV

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 pm    Post subject:

TheBlackMamba wrote:
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2017/12/7/16744356/lonzo-ball-los-angeles-laker-shot

Quote:
Not every executive and scout had Ball ranked first or second leading up to Juneís draft. Iíve talked to a handful that had him in the nos. 5-8 range. Theyíre looking smart now. I have to admit, Iím questioning myself for even ranking him third overall behind Markelle Fultz and Jayson Tatum.


Obviously his shot is off right now (understatement of the year, yes), but this is a ridiculously unfair assessment which doesn't at all account for Lonzo's other contributions, as compared to his peers. But yeah, let's all pretend that everybody's pre-draft darlings DSJ, Jackson, and Fox are lighting the NBA on fire with their trash ass shooting (almost as bad as Lonzo's, actually, which NOBODY mentions - all barely 40% FG/30% 3-PT or below), without the same impact in other areas as Lonzo does to compensate.

I actively avoid Kevin O'Connor articles that have anything to do with the Lakers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
saetarubia
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 3395

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:57 pm    Post subject:

Hope ZO comes out aggressive tonight. Focus on rebounding and take it from there.
_________________
Showtime 2.0
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 ... 759, 760, 761 ... 770, 771, 772  Next
Page 760 of 772
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