ISAIAH THOMAS Official Thread (Shams: Lakers plan to sign 10-Day)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77 ... 100, 101, 102  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:37 am    Post subject:

For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:41 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself last year than our entire starting lineup did this season.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:43 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:45 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:47 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


It doesn't, because they will target 2 max FAs, and if they don't get it, I do believe this FO will find sensible options at backup PG. If they just wanted a gunner then we could have kept Lou/JC; clearly they want something else with that backup PG. IT isn't the answer especially b/c he has stated that he isn't the answer as a backup player.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:48 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:49 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


It doesn't, because they will target 2 max FAs, and if they don't get it, I do believe this FO will find sensible options at backup PG. If they just wanted a gunner then we could have kept Lou/JC; clearly they want something else with that backup PG. IT isn't the answer especially b/c he has stated that he isn't the answer as a backup player.


I just listed all of the sensible options... there aren't any other than praying for Seth or one of our draft picks to hit like Kuzma.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigGameHames
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:52 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


IT is a scorer. He’s labeled a PG strictly because of his size. He doesn’t “run the point” really at all unless you consider calling for an on ball “running the point” which I don’t. Our offense looks drastically different when he’s the primary ball handler. Sometimes for the better because he can score but sometimes it hinders the offense. Combine that with his defensive struggles and I don’t think he should be considered a very effective player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:55 am    Post subject:

BigGameHames wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


IT is a scorer. He’s labeled a PG strictly because of his size. He doesn’t “run the point” really at all unless you consider calling for an on ball “running the point” which I don’t. Our offense looks drastically different when he’s the primary ball handler. Sometimes for the better because he can score but sometimes it hinders the offense. Combine that with his defensive struggles and I don’t think he should be considered a very effective player.


He's not as good as Lonzo at the point but he's better than most players... he had way more assists than Clarkson until this recent slump.

He has the vision but he's a little too risky and careless... his height also cuts off certain passing lanes... but he's made many good plays and the fact that he can penetrate and pass out gives us a dimension that Zo hasn't learned yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:02 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.


If Lonzo scored 20 in 71 out of 76 games we'd all be having HOF conversations about him right now. It's far from an arbitrary stat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:04 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


IT is a scorer. He’s labeled a PG strictly because of his size. He doesn’t “run the point” really at all unless you consider calling for an on ball “running the point” which I don’t. Our offense looks drastically different when he’s the primary ball handler. Sometimes for the better because he can score but sometimes it hinders the offense. Combine that with his defensive struggles and I don’t think he should be considered a very effective player.


He's not as good as Lonzo at the point but he's better than most players... he had way more assists than Clarkson until this recent slump.

He has the vision but he's a little too risky and careless... his height also cuts off certain passing lanes... but he's made many good plays and the fact that he can penetrate and pass out gives us a dimension that Zo hasn't learned yet.


All Zo does is pass out after penetration. What he's not going to do is try to dribble into 2 or 3 defenders without a plan, and then just hope there's an available pass if he gets in trouble. Honestly, I can't think of a worse influence on a PG.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:06 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


IT is a scorer. He’s labeled a PG strictly because of his size. He doesn’t “run the point” really at all unless you consider calling for an on ball “running the point” which I don’t. Our offense looks drastically different when he’s the primary ball handler. Sometimes for the better because he can score but sometimes it hinders the offense. Combine that with his defensive struggles and I don’t think he should be considered a very effective player.


He's not as good as Lonzo at the point but he's better than most players... he had way more assists than Clarkson until this recent slump.

He has the vision but he's a little too risky and careless... his height also cuts off certain passing lanes... but he's made many good plays and the fact that he can penetrate and pass out gives us a dimension that Zo hasn't learned yet.


All Zo does is pass out after penetration. What he's not going to do is try to dribble into 2 or 3 defenders without a plan, and then just hope there's an available pass if he gets in trouble. Honestly, I can't think of a worse influence on a PG.


Who's your solution to replace IT?... one who won't cost us any assets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:11 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


It doesn't, because they will target 2 max FAs, and if they don't get it, I do believe this FO will find sensible options at backup PG. If they just wanted a gunner then we could have kept Lou/JC; clearly they want something else with that backup PG. IT isn't the answer especially b/c he has stated that he isn't the answer as a backup player.


I just listed all of the sensible options... there aren't any other than praying for Seth or one of our draft picks to hit like Kuzma.


But why does our backup PG have to be a 20ppg level scorer? I don't expect that. If we have someone who can play D and run the offense, I'm fine with that too. The notion that our backup PG must be a scorer is erroneous to me.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:11 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
BigGameHames wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
What part of "I'm not a 6th man" do we not get? Do you think it's going to end well when you pitch him on that?

And as someone who believes in advanced stats, why are you only using 20 point games as some sort of indicator? Look at the whole picture. His TS% is down for example.


Because I thought it might penetrate people's heads better that IT had more 20 point games by himself than our entire starting lineup did.

If I had time I could go through every stat... but although I'm unhappy with his play, I still try to sign him. If we give him an offer and fail... I can live with that... but I just don't want the FO to be dumb and not even try.

You are probably right that we can't sign him... but all I want is the effort. A creative attempt to find the solution.


I think you're making too big of a deal for something that IT himself isn't looking for (to be a backup to Lonzo for the next few years and non-starter) and the Lakers oft stated FA plans.

I genuinely believe the Lakers desired, in order:

1. cap space
2. Cavs 1st (for draft or in Deng trade)
3. IT/Frye.

They absolutely achieved their goal and the consternation about extending IT long term misses the team's goals.


The idea of Lonzo plus a scrub running the point next season doesn't frighten you. It does frighten me. I'd rather have IT for cover. If we get LBJ then I won't worry.


IT is a scorer. He’s labeled a PG strictly because of his size. He doesn’t “run the point” really at all unless you consider calling for an on ball “running the point” which I don’t. Our offense looks drastically different when he’s the primary ball handler. Sometimes for the better because he can score but sometimes it hinders the offense. Combine that with his defensive struggles and I don’t think he should be considered a very effective player.


He's not as good as Lonzo at the point but he's better than most players... he had way more assists than Clarkson until this recent slump.

He has the vision but he's a little too risky and careless... his height also cuts off certain passing lanes... but he's made many good plays and the fact that he can penetrate and pass out gives us a dimension that Zo hasn't learned yet.


All Zo does is pass out after penetration. What he's not going to do is try to dribble into 2 or 3 defenders without a plan, and then just hope there's an available pass if he gets in trouble. Honestly, I can't think of a worse influence on a PG.


Who's your solution to replace IT?... one who won't cost us any assets.


Well since he's a net negative on the floor, just about any backup PG off the scrap heap will do. As the stat at the top shows, he's been only slightly more effective than Tyler Ennis.

But since I gather you want a name, go with Caruso.


Last edited by greenfrog on Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:12 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.


If Lonzo scored 20 in 71 out of 76 games we'd all be having HOF conversations about him right now. It's far from an arbitrary stat.


No. B/c we know Lonzo's game isn't about scoring.

IT is really a "SG" in a "PG" body. He's more of a passer than Lou was, but in the same mold.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:13 am    Post subject:

Quote:
Who's your solution to replace IT?... one who won't cost us any assets.


But your underlying assumption is misplaced.

You're looking for a scoring PG; we are looking for something more broad than that. I'd be interested to see you break down more advanced stats with IT and the list of players you compiled. Factoring in other things besides scoring, I think a lot of them would be much higher holistically than IT.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:14 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.


If Lonzo scored 20 in 71 out of 76 games we'd all be having HOF conversations about him right now. It's far from an arbitrary stat.


No. B/c we know Lonzo's game isn't about scoring.

IT is really a "SG" in a "PG" body. He's more of a passer than Lou was, but in the same mold.


It's about ability to consistently score at an elite level. It's one thing to go double figures every game... but to go over 20 is something special.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:15 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.


If Lonzo scored 20 in 71 out of 76 games we'd all be having HOF conversations about him right now. It's far from an arbitrary stat.


No. B/c we know Lonzo's game isn't about scoring.

IT is really a "SG" in a "PG" body. He's more of a passer than Lou was, but in the same mold.


It's about ability to consistently score at an elite level. It's one thing to go double figures every game... but to go over 20 is something special.


Is that what a PG's role is? To consistently score?
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:19 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.


If Lonzo scored 20 in 71 out of 76 games we'd all be having HOF conversations about him right now. It's far from an arbitrary stat.


No. B/c we know Lonzo's game isn't about scoring.

IT is really a "SG" in a "PG" body. He's more of a passer than Lou was, but in the same mold.


It's about ability to consistently score at an elite level. It's one thing to go double figures every game... but to go over 20 is something special.


Is that what a PG's role is? To consistently score?


I was still talking about 20 being an arbitrary stance. I agree that passing should be the priority for a PG but I've never said IT was better than Zo at passing. I said he was better than Clarkson and had good vision. More than adequate for a PG backup imo.


Last edited by Sentient Meat on Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
al242
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Sep 2012
Posts: 3120

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:19 am    Post subject:

IT has been Lonzo Ball bad this past week, he is looking at a mid-level contract this offseason with a definitive 6th man role.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:20 am    Post subject:

Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.


If Lonzo scored 20 in 71 out of 76 games we'd all be having HOF conversations about him right now. It's far from an arbitrary stat.


No. B/c we know Lonzo's game isn't about scoring.

IT is really a "SG" in a "PG" body. He's more of a passer than Lou was, but in the same mold.


It's about ability to consistently score at an elite level. It's one thing to go double figures every game... but to go over 20 is something special.


Is that what a PG's role is? To consistently score?


I was still talking about 20 being an arbitrary stance. I agree that passing should be the priority for a PG but I've never said IT was better than Zo at passing. I said he was better than Clarkson and had good vision. More than adequate for a PG backup imo.


But the list of other options do not work for you b/c as you put it, they don't have as many 20+ point games. I don't think that's a good measure of the efficacy of backup PGs. And you like advanced stats, right? I'd wager that doing a more general comparison would show IT is probably at the bottom of the list you provided when factoring more than scoring (let alone efficiency).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:24 am    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Sentient Meat wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
For all those 20 games his NetRTG is only .2 higher than Tyler Ennis, and this comes during a period in the season when they've been playing relatively well.


Yeah, though IT "impacts" the game more than Ennis, just using an arbitrary stat like "# of 20 point games" is not the way to measure that.


If Lonzo scored 20 in 71 out of 76 games we'd all be having HOF conversations about him right now. It's far from an arbitrary stat.


No. B/c we know Lonzo's game isn't about scoring.

IT is really a "SG" in a "PG" body. He's more of a passer than Lou was, but in the same mold.


It's about ability to consistently score at an elite level. It's one thing to go double figures every game... but to go over 20 is something special.


Is that what a PG's role is? To consistently score?


I was still talking about 20 being an arbitrary stance. I agree that passing should be the priority for a PG but I've never said IT was better than Zo at passing. I said he was better than Clarkson and had good vision. More than adequate for a PG backup imo.


But the list of other options do not work for you b/c as you put it, they don't have as many 20+ point games. I don't think that's a good measure of the efficacy of backup PGs. And you like advanced stats, right? I'd wager that doing a more general comparison would show IT is probably at the bottom of the list you provided when factoring more than scoring (let alone efficiency).


And yet here we are once again where you've provided the groundwork for this mythical replacement but no names who actually fill that need adequately. I'm aware the fit isn't perfect... but I simply think his other attributes, most prominent which is scoring, help to offset his deficiencies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:27 am    Post subject:

Quote:
And yet here we are once again where you've provided the groundwork for this mythical replacement but no names who actually fill that need adequately. I'm aware the fit isn't perfect... but I simply think his other attributes, most prominent which is scoring, help to offset his deficiencies.


No, what I'm saying is you arbitrarily assign "scoring PG" as the measure to compare these players, all the while discounting IT's "not 6th man" comment (which disqualifies him) and the Lakers "sacred" cap space which they will not burn on extending IT long term.

You are trying to see this in a biased vacuum, when the "not 6th man" and "sacred cap space" should destroy that vacuum entirely (let alone other options who are not scoring PGs can be just as valuable).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cthroatgtr
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 1375

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:29 am    Post subject:

IT is better than he has been playing, not as good as he was. All players slow down, which is accelerated due to injury. IT will not be able to overcome that as he ages since he is simply short by NBA standards. He will be more effective off the bench going forward, but since he was a 2 time all star, he feels that he should be starting. He will be better next year, but not what he was. He is at best plan C.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Capt.Skyhook
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Feb 2004
Posts: 3991
Location: Louisville, Ky.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:34 am    Post subject:

I do wonder if IT's mostly interested in finding a team that will give him the most money (since he hasn't really been paid yet) or the starting job. It's possible both won't be coming in the same offer.

I don't expect him to be back with the Lakers. If he does return, then something went awry with either IT's search for a team or the Lakers' offseason pursuits.
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 ... 75, 76, 77 ... 100, 101, 102  Next
Page 76 of 102
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
© 1995-2018 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