Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:32 pm Post subject: Comparing this Lakers team to last seasons OKC Thunder
I know Westbrook is a world of talent, but minus Westbrook the Thunder really didn't have a lot of talent, they had a bunch of role players doing a good job at there position, I believe this Lakers team can end up being like the Thunder team that won 47 games, there players aren't comparable to the Laker players but they probably had good chemistry which is what this Lakers team is gonna rely on to have success.
A good team to compare to as well are the Blazers who ended up winning 41 games although we have no idea how good our young players will be, I think Lakers reaching the level of what the Thunder or Blazers displayed last year is possible.
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:13 pm Post subject: ho ho
If I read you right, your point is twofold.
First, if one takes away a league-best talent (league MVP) from a mid-level team without compensation then you create a worse team. OK, I get that. It would typically be obvious and not worthy of further discussion.
But if you want serious consideration of the second point that there's something about the current Laker team which resembles the OKC team in particular without Westbrook specifically, well, it's not a particularly interesting line of thought.
Why futz around with another franchise's roster at all to find an equivalence ?
It's easy to look at Minnesota and rather more on-point. The T-Wolves have two number one draft picks compared to our number twos and they're still seeking their first .500 finish since, well, a long friken time (2005.) Taken at full strength, the're still awfully close to being a Laker twin in terms of success. Success is fleeting and difficult to achieve.
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: ho ho
70sdude wrote:
If I read you right, your point is twofold.
First, if one takes away a league-best talent (league MVP) from a mid-level team without compensation then you create a worse team. OK, I get that. It would typically be obvious and not worthy of further discussion.
But if you want serious consideration of the second point that there's something about the current Laker team which resembles the OKC team in particular without Westbrook specifically, well, it's not a particularly interesting line of thought.
Why futz around with another franchise's roster at all to find an equivalence ?
It's easy to look at Minnesota and rather more on-point. The T-Wolves have two number one draft picks compared to our number twos and they're still seeking their first .500 finish since, well, a long friken time (2005.) Taken at full strength, the're still awfully close to being a Laker twin in terms of success. Success is fleeting and difficult to achieve.
Well there is no doubt both of LA and Minnesota will be a powerhouse for the next 10-12 years.
If you remove Westbrook from that team I think they struggle to win 30 games, let alone 47
But let's compare the roster anyway
Lakers 2017 and Thunder 2016
Starters:
PG: Lonzo Ball / Russell Westbrook
SG: Kentavious CP / Victor Oladipo
SF: Brandon Ingram / Andre Roberson
PF: Julius Randle / Taj Gibson
C: Brook Lopez / Steven Adams
Yes, if you remove Russell Westbrook from the equation our team talent is amiable if not better at some positions. Thing is.. thats what made Russell Wesbrook so key to their success. He had to average a triple double and 30 ppg to get them to 47 wins. I don't think anyone on our team is emulating that this season.
That said, we should on paper have a much deeper bench. So we'll see where that goes. But even still, I don't see this team winning 47 games. 43 is as high as I'll currently go, So I see us winning 35-43 games this season.
Any higher would be overachieving. But we'll have to see how we start the season. If we take advantage of the early weaker schedule we may create a cushion, but if we're something like 9-16 after the first 25 games we're in trouble as far as 40ish wins go, but we'd be on pace for around 36ish _________________ How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Comparing this Lakers team to last seasons OKC Thunder...
Ok, I will:
THUNDER (2016-2017):
Won 47 games
Had the MVP of the NBA
Traded for Paul George (after the season)
Made the Playoffs
LAKERS (2017-2018):
Lucky to win 37 games
Had a Rookie named Ball, who had some good and bad moments
Signed Paul George (after the season)
Missed the Playoffs
done.... next.... _________________ “Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.”
Comparing this Lakers team to last seasons OKC Thunder...
Ok, I will:
THUNDER (2016-2017):
Won 47 games
Had the MVP of the NBA
Traded for Paul George (after the season)
Made the Playoffs
LAKERS (2017-2018):
Lucky to win 37 games
Had a Rookie named Ball, who had some good and bad moments
Signed Paul George (after the season)
Missed the Playoffs
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:47 pm Post subject: Re: ho ho
Inspector Gadget wrote:
70sdude wrote:
If I read you right, your point is twofold.
First, if one takes away a league-best talent (league MVP) from a mid-level team without compensation then you create a worse team. OK, I get that. It would typically be obvious and not worthy of further discussion.
But if you want serious consideration of the second point that there's something about the current Laker team which resembles the OKC team in particular without Westbrook specifically, well, it's not a particularly interesting line of thought.
Why futz around with another franchise's roster at all to find an equivalence ?
It's easy to look at Minnesota and rather more on-point. The T-Wolves have two number one draft picks compared to our number twos and they're still seeking their first .500 finish since, well, a long friken time (2005.) Taken at full strength, the're still awfully close to being a Laker twin in terms of success. Success is fleeting and difficult to achieve.
Well there is no doubt both of LA and Minnesota will be a powerhouse for the next 10-12 years.
Perhaps you have no doubt of that possible future but I have plenty.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35750 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:38 pm Post subject:
I feel like we sort of resemble last year's Warriors team without Curry, Durant, Green, and Thompson. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
If you remove Westbrook from that team I think they struggle to win 30 games, let alone 47
Interestingly, ESPN Real Plus Minus agrees with your assessment. It attributes about 17 of the wins of OKC to Westbrook. If you exchange win shares of Westbrook and JC (-1.40), the Lakers get to about 44 wins.
MJST wrote:
But let's compare the roster anyway
Lakers 2017 and Thunder 2016
Starters:
PG: Lonzo Ball / Russell Westbrook
SG: Kentavious CP / Victor Oladipo
SF: Brandon Ingram / Andre Roberson
PF: Julius Randle / Taj Gibson
C: Brook Lopez / Steven Adams
Yes, if you remove Russell Westbrook from the equation our team talent is amiable if not better at some positions.
Amiable? I would agree that Lopez is better than Adams. But in 2016-17, Oladipo, Roberson and Gibson were all much better than KCP, Ingram and Randle.
MJST wrote:
Thing is.. thats what made Russell Wesbrook so key to their success. He had to average a triple double and 30 ppg to get them to 47 wins. I don't think anyone on our team is emulating that this season.
Yep.
MJST wrote:
That said, we should on paper have a much deeper bench. So we'll see where that goes. But even still, I don't see this team winning 47 games. 43 is as high as I'll currently go, So I see us winning 35-43 games this season.
It would take almost miraculous improvement at the sf and pf positions for the Lakers to get to 43 wins.
MJST wrote:
Any higher would be overachieving. But we'll have to see how we start the season. If we take advantage of the early weaker schedule we may create a cushion, but if we're something like 9-16 after the first 25 games we're in trouble as far as 40ish wins go, but we'd be on pace for around 36ish
A 10 game improvement (i.e., going from 26 wins to 36 wins) is, in my opinion, overachieving. Ball will be a rookie. Last year, Ingram, Randle and JC were horrible--any improvement would be welcome. Lopez and KCP are big improvements at the c and sg positions, but the Lakers also lost Williams and Young two of their better contributors. If the Lakers get more than 36 wins, I will be ecstatic. _________________ “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
If you remove Westbrook from that team I think they struggle to win 30 games, let alone 47
Interestingly, ESPN Real Plus Minus agrees with your assessment. It attributes about 17 of the wins of OKC to Westbrook. If you exchange win shares of Westbrook and JC (-1.40), the Lakers get to about 44 wins.
MJST wrote:
But let's compare the roster anyway
Lakers 2017 and Thunder 2016
Starters:
PG: Lonzo Ball / Russell Westbrook
SG: Kentavious CP / Victor Oladipo
SF: Brandon Ingram / Andre Roberson
PF: Julius Randle / Taj Gibson
C: Brook Lopez / Steven Adams
Yes, if you remove Russell Westbrook from the equation our team talent is amiable if not better at some positions.
Amiable? I would agree that Lopez is better than Adams. But in 2016-17, Oladipo, Roberson and Gibson were all much better than KCP, Ingram and Randle.
MJST wrote:
Thing is.. thats what made Russell Wesbrook so key to their success. He had to average a triple double and 30 ppg to get them to 47 wins. I don't think anyone on our team is emulating that this season.
Yep.
MJST wrote:
That said, we should on paper have a much deeper bench. So we'll see where that goes. But even still, I don't see this team winning 47 games. 43 is as high as I'll currently go, So I see us winning 35-43 games this season.
It would take almost miraculous improvement at the sf and pf positions for the Lakers to get to 43 wins.
MJST wrote:
Any higher would be overachieving. But we'll have to see how we start the season. If we take advantage of the early weaker schedule we may create a cushion, but if we're something like 9-16 after the first 25 games we're in trouble as far as 40ish wins go, but we'd be on pace for around 36ish
A 10 game improvement (i.e., going from 26 wins to 36 wins) is, in my opinion, overachieving. Ball will be a rookie. Last year, Ingram, Randle and JC were horrible--any improvement would be welcome. Lopez and KCP are big improvements at the c and sg positions, but the Lakers also lost Williams and Young two of their better contributors. If the Lakers get more than 36 wins, I will be ecstatic.
How would you feel about the possible Wade or Shabazz addition would that improve your 36 win projection?
If you remove Westbrook from that team I think they struggle to win 30 games, let alone 47
Interestingly, ESPN Real Plus Minus agrees with your assessment. It attributes about 17 of the wins of OKC to Westbrook. If you exchange win shares of Westbrook and JC (-1.40), the Lakers get to about 44 wins.
MJST wrote:
But let's compare the roster anyway
Lakers 2017 and Thunder 2016
Starters:
PG: Lonzo Ball / Russell Westbrook
SG: Kentavious CP / Victor Oladipo
SF: Brandon Ingram / Andre Roberson
PF: Julius Randle / Taj Gibson
C: Brook Lopez / Steven Adams
Yes, if you remove Russell Westbrook from the equation our team talent is amiable if not better at some positions.
Amiable? I would agree that Lopez is better than Adams. But in 2016-17, Oladipo, Roberson and Gibson were all much better than KCP, Ingram and Randle.
MJST wrote:
Thing is.. thats what made Russell Wesbrook so key to their success. He had to average a triple double and 30 ppg to get them to 47 wins. I don't think anyone on our team is emulating that this season.
Yep.
MJST wrote:
That said, we should on paper have a much deeper bench. So we'll see where that goes. But even still, I don't see this team winning 47 games. 43 is as high as I'll currently go, So I see us winning 35-43 games this season.
It would take almost miraculous improvement at the sf and pf positions for the Lakers to get to 43 wins.
MJST wrote:
Any higher would be overachieving. But we'll have to see how we start the season. If we take advantage of the early weaker schedule we may create a cushion, but if we're something like 9-16 after the first 25 games we're in trouble as far as 40ish wins go, but we'd be on pace for around 36ish
A 10 game improvement (i.e., going from 26 wins to 36 wins) is, in my opinion, overachieving. Ball will be a rookie. Last year, Ingram, Randle and JC were horrible--any improvement would be welcome. Lopez and KCP are big improvements at the c and sg positions, but the Lakers also lost Williams and Young two of their better contributors. If the Lakers get more than 36 wins, I will be ecstatic.
How would you feel about the possible Wade or Shabazz addition would that improve your 36 win projection?
Shabazz and or Wade would lower any projection imo not raise it
If you remove Westbrook from that team I think they struggle to win 30 games, let alone 47
Interestingly, ESPN Real Plus Minus agrees with your assessment. It attributes about 17 of the wins of OKC to Westbrook. If you exchange win shares of Westbrook and JC (-1.40), the Lakers get to about 44 wins.
MJST wrote:
But let's compare the roster anyway
Lakers 2017 and Thunder 2016
Starters:
PG: Lonzo Ball / Russell Westbrook
SG: Kentavious CP / Victor Oladipo
SF: Brandon Ingram / Andre Roberson
PF: Julius Randle / Taj Gibson
C: Brook Lopez / Steven Adams
Yes, if you remove Russell Westbrook from the equation our team talent is amiable if not better at some positions.
Amiable? I would agree that Lopez is better than Adams. But in 2016-17, Oladipo, Roberson and Gibson were all much better than KCP, Ingram and Randle.
MJST wrote:
Thing is.. thats what made Russell Wesbrook so key to their success. He had to average a triple double and 30 ppg to get them to 47 wins. I don't think anyone on our team is emulating that this season.
Yep.
MJST wrote:
That said, we should on paper have a much deeper bench. So we'll see where that goes. But even still, I don't see this team winning 47 games. 43 is as high as I'll currently go, So I see us winning 35-43 games this season.
It would take almost miraculous improvement at the sf and pf positions for the Lakers to get to 43 wins.
MJST wrote:
Any higher would be overachieving. But we'll have to see how we start the season. If we take advantage of the early weaker schedule we may create a cushion, but if we're something like 9-16 after the first 25 games we're in trouble as far as 40ish wins go, but we'd be on pace for around 36ish
A 10 game improvement (i.e., going from 26 wins to 36 wins) is, in my opinion, overachieving. Ball will be a rookie. Last year, Ingram, Randle and JC were horrible--any improvement would be welcome. Lopez and KCP are big improvements at the c and sg positions, but the Lakers also lost Williams and Young two of their better contributors. If the Lakers get more than 36 wins, I will be ecstatic.
How would you feel about the possible Wade or Shabazz addition would that improve your 36 win projection?
Shabazz and or Wade would lower any projection imo not raise it
If you remove Westbrook from that team I think they struggle to win 30 games, let alone 47
Interestingly, ESPN Real Plus Minus agrees with your assessment. It attributes about 17 of the wins of OKC to Westbrook. If you exchange win shares of Westbrook and JC (-1.40), the Lakers get to about 44 wins.
MJST wrote:
But let's compare the roster anyway
Lakers 2017 and Thunder 2016
Starters:
PG: Lonzo Ball / Russell Westbrook
SG: Kentavious CP / Victor Oladipo
SF: Brandon Ingram / Andre Roberson
PF: Julius Randle / Taj Gibson
C: Brook Lopez / Steven Adams
Yes, if you remove Russell Westbrook from the equation our team talent is amiable if not better at some positions.
Amiable? I would agree that Lopez is better than Adams. But in 2016-17, Oladipo, Roberson and Gibson were all much better than KCP, Ingram and Randle.
MJST wrote:
Thing is.. thats what made Russell Wesbrook so key to their success. He had to average a triple double and 30 ppg to get them to 47 wins. I don't think anyone on our team is emulating that this season.
Yep.
MJST wrote:
That said, we should on paper have a much deeper bench. So we'll see where that goes. But even still, I don't see this team winning 47 games. 43 is as high as I'll currently go, So I see us winning 35-43 games this season.
It would take almost miraculous improvement at the sf and pf positions for the Lakers to get to 43 wins.
MJST wrote:
Any higher would be overachieving. But we'll have to see how we start the season. If we take advantage of the early weaker schedule we may create a cushion, but if we're something like 9-16 after the first 25 games we're in trouble as far as 40ish wins go, but we'd be on pace for around 36ish
A 10 game improvement (i.e., going from 26 wins to 36 wins) is, in my opinion, overachieving. Ball will be a rookie. Last year, Ingram, Randle and JC were horrible--any improvement would be welcome. Lopez and KCP are big improvements at the c and sg positions, but the Lakers also lost Williams and Young two of their better contributors. If the Lakers get more than 36 wins, I will be ecstatic.
How would you feel about the possible Wade or Shabazz addition would that improve your 36 win projection?
Shabazz and or Wade would lower any projection imo not raise it
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