View previous topic :: View next topic |
How many games would we have won if Lonzo only missed 5 games last year instead of 30 games |
37 |
|
9% |
[ 7 ] |
40 |
|
30% |
[ 23 ] |
43 |
|
14% |
[ 11 ] |
45 |
|
17% |
[ 13 ] |
47 |
|
3% |
[ 3 ] |
more than 47 |
|
10% |
[ 8 ] |
less than 37 |
|
14% |
[ 11 ] |
|
Total Votes : 76 |
|
Author |
Message |
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:13 pm Post subject: How many games would we have won if Lonzo only missed 5 games last year |
|
|
Lonzo missed 30 games.
He may be injury prone.
May be more muscles will help.
Adding Rondo alleviates the pg concern.
But how many games would we have won last year if Lonzo only missed 5 games instead of 30? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
200 more games _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | 200 more games |
only 200? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PauPau Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 Posts: 844
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure, but our record would have been worse |
|
Back to top |
|
|
adkindo Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the likely answer is pretty simple....we were 11-19 without Ball which is a .366 winning percentage.....with Ball, we were 24-28 which is a .461 winning percentage.....if you assume a .461 winning percentage over the 30 games without Ball, that results in a 14-16 record....so we likely would have won 3 more games for a total of 38 (or 37.83). Yes, there are a million other factors as who we were playing, and who else was injured, etc....but my guess is they would have all likely canceled each other out for the most part.
38 is not a choice. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Judah Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2015 Posts: 4759
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Depends on when he got injured. The timing of the MCL injury was a huge blow at that point in the season because the team had finally found a groove after the losing streak and the LaVar drama. It put a halt on the momentum they had started to build. My guess is that, overall, they would've at least cracked 40.
To say they would've won less with him playing is absurd btw. _________________ “Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lakersfever714 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Jan 2016 Posts: 11597
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
A little more but still would have missed the playoffs. _________________ LeGoat! LeMazing! LeGend! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChickenBeckerman Star Player
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 2060
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
something something something..........
LAVARS FAULT |
|
Back to top |
|
|
adkindo Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Judah wrote: | Depends on when he got injured. The timing of the MCL injury was a huge blow at that point in the season because the team had finally found a groove after the losing streak and the LaVar drama. It put a halt on the momentum they had started to build. My guess is that, overall, they would've at least cracked 40.
To say they would've won less with him playing is absurd btw. |
I tried to look at each game, and consider other factors....but it just seemed like they kept going back and forth....and I did not have the attention span to dig deeper. For example, one thing that I think we often forget when declaring Ball to have missed so many games (30)....Ingram missed 23 games himself! There was a lot of crossover down the stretch with both of them being out....and even in that 9 game losing streak, there were games with Ball and Ingram missing, and Lopez was out several games, and KCP was in jail, and on and on. Without Ball, we won at a 37% clip and without Ingram, we won at a 39% clip. The only real conclusion I could reach is we played much better when both Ball and Ingram were on the court.....shocking, I know. We were 3-7 when both Ball and Ingram were out. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
adkindo wrote: | Judah wrote: | Depends on when he got injured. The timing of the MCL injury was a huge blow at that point in the season because the team had finally found a groove after the losing streak and the LaVar drama. It put a halt on the momentum they had started to build. My guess is that, overall, they would've at least cracked 40.
To say they would've won less with him playing is absurd btw. |
I tried to look at each game, and consider other factors....but it just seemed like they kept going back and forth....and I did not have the attention span to dig deeper. For example, one thing that I think we often forget when declaring Ball to have missed so many games (30)....Ingram missed 23 games himself! There was a lot of crossover down the stretch with both of them being out....and even in that 9 game losing streak, there were games with Ball and Ingram missing, and Lopez was out several games, and KCP was in jail, and on and on. Without Ball, we won at a 37% clip and without Ingram, we won at a 39% clip. The only real conclusion I could reach is we played much better when both Ball and Ingram were on the court.....shocking, I know. We were 3-7 when both Ball and Ingram were out. |
yea i wanted to look at the games individually also. furthermore, the team was gathering steam at each of the spans before he got injured. so the effect could have been quite significant.
yes, ingram injury was also very important to the record. however i chose ball because he brought in rondo who could have substituted for ball adequately unlike our backup pg last year. obviously my point is rondo is huge in the sense that ball may be injury prone to the record.
so the acquisition of rondo could be a huge boost in our record if ball is indeed injury prone. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2008 Posts: 21064 Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
The nine game losing streak, the rookie learning curve in November/December, and spending the remainder of the season after early March without an NBA quality 3 when Hart and Ingram were both down cost us a lot of wins. Hard to attribute all of that to Ball though. I think another year with last year's roster and some reasonable health for key players would have netted the Lakers about 45 wins. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
adkindo Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | The nine game losing streak, the rookie learning curve in November/December, and spending the remainder of the season after early March without an NBA quality 3 when Hart and Ingram were both down cost us a lot of wins. Hard to attribute all of that to Ball though. I think another year with last year's roster and some reasonable health for key players would have netted the Lakers about 45 wins. |
before looking more closely at it, I probably would have doubted your projection.....but I think that is about right..maybe even in the 48 range. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | The nine game losing streak, the rookie learning curve in November/December, and spending the remainder of the season after early March without an NBA quality 3 when Hart and Ingram were both down cost us a lot of wins. Hard to attribute all of that to Ball though. I think another year with last year's roster and some reasonable health for key players would have netted the Lakers about 45 wins. |
yea, i voted for 47.
now imagine adding lebron and rondo to the team but minus julius and brook.
we allowed two talent but very-imperfect starters to leave.
but we added a lot of battle tested depth in rondo, stephenson and the warriors center
so yea, i think 55 wins is quite possible this year and we are a reasonable contender like the rockets, but not obviously leading contender like the warriors |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
our poll is hilarious.
most expect a bell curve, but our poll is shaping up to have 3 may be 4 peaks
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
where24happens Star Player
Joined: 08 May 2009 Posts: 3410
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
adkindo wrote: | the likely answer is pretty simple....we were 11-19 without Ball which is a .366 winning percentage.....with Ball, we were 24-28 which is a .461 winning percentage.....if you assume a .461 winning percentage over the 30 games without Ball, that results in a 14-16 record....so we likely would have won 3 more games for a total of 38 (or 37.83). Yes, there are a million other factors as who we were playing, and who else was injured, etc....but my guess is they would have all likely canceled each other out for the most part.
38 is not a choice. |
Most sensible answer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
where24happens wrote: | adkindo wrote: | the likely answer is pretty simple....we were 11-19 without Ball which is a .366 winning percentage.....with Ball, we were 24-28 which is a .461 winning percentage.....if you assume a .461 winning percentage over the 30 games without Ball, that results in a 14-16 record....so we likely would have won 3 more games for a total of 38 (or 37.83). Yes, there are a million other factors as who we were playing, and who else was injured, etc....but my guess is they would have all likely canceled each other out for the most part.
38 is not a choice. |
Most sensible answer. |
Yep. Thats why I picked 37. Lonzo is not worth +5 net add wins in a 38 game span. That would put him at +11 for an entire season. That is all-star, maybe superstar territory. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lakers#1Team Retired Number
Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 36360 Location: Nomad
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Based on the wording of the poll I voted 40. IMO, losing ZO when we did certainly cost us some wins but that factor alone would not have vaulted us to mid 40’s. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | where24happens wrote: | adkindo wrote: | the likely answer is pretty simple....we were 11-19 without Ball which is a .366 winning percentage.....with Ball, we were 24-28 which is a .461 winning percentage.....if you assume a .461 winning percentage over the 30 games without Ball, that results in a 14-16 record....so we likely would have won 3 more games for a total of 38 (or 37.83). Yes, there are a million other factors as who we were playing, and who else was injured, etc....but my guess is they would have all likely canceled each other out for the most part.
38 is not a choice. |
Most sensible answer. |
Yep. Thats why I picked 37. Lonzo is not worth +5 net add wins in a 38 game span. That would put him at +11 for an entire season. That is all-star, maybe superstar territory. |
lonzo may not be +11 above replacement, but this needs to take account of his replacement.
obviously if you replace lonzo with a typical high school player, then lonzo could be effectively +40 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
StillSWOL Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Jul 2018 Posts: 181
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
North of 40 seems a little delusional |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
cal1piggy wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | where24happens wrote: | adkindo wrote: | the likely answer is pretty simple....we were 11-19 without Ball which is a .366 winning percentage.....with Ball, we were 24-28 which is a .461 winning percentage.....if you assume a .461 winning percentage over the 30 games without Ball, that results in a 14-16 record....so we likely would have won 3 more games for a total of 38 (or 37.83). Yes, there are a million other factors as who we were playing, and who else was injured, etc....but my guess is they would have all likely canceled each other out for the most part.
38 is not a choice. |
Most sensible answer. |
Yep. Thats why I picked 37. Lonzo is not worth +5 net add wins in a 38 game span. That would put him at +11 for an entire season. That is all-star, maybe superstar territory. |
lonzo may not be +11 above replacement, but this needs to take account of his replacement.
obviously if you replace lonzo with a typical high school player, then lonzo could be effectively +40 |
Yeah. In this case, his replacement was what, Josh Hart? Don’t currently see an 11 win disparity (nor 5 game over 38 games) between those two. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cal1piggy Star Player
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 Posts: 2584
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | where24happens wrote: | adkindo wrote: | the likely answer is pretty simple....we were 11-19 without Ball which is a .366 winning percentage.....with Ball, we were 24-28 which is a .461 winning percentage.....if you assume a .461 winning percentage over the 30 games without Ball, that results in a 14-16 record....so we likely would have won 3 more games for a total of 38 (or 37.83). Yes, there are a million other factors as who we were playing, and who else was injured, etc....but my guess is they would have all likely canceled each other out for the most part.
38 is not a choice. |
Most sensible answer. |
Yep. Thats why I picked 37. Lonzo is not worth +5 net add wins in a 38 game span. That would put him at +11 for an entire season. That is all-star, maybe superstar territory. |
lonzo may not be +11 above replacement, but this needs to take account of his replacement.
obviously if you replace lonzo with a typical high school player, then lonzo could be effectively +40 |
Yeah. In this case, his replacement was what, Josh Hart? Don’t currently see an 11 win disparity (nor 5 game over 38 games) between those two. |
dont you remember who his replacement was last year? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AFireInside619 Franchise Player
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 Posts: 11447
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
VLF & I are fairly pessimistic, so I said 45. Sorry for the low number LG. 🤣 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
cal1piggy wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | cal1piggy wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | where24happens wrote: | adkindo wrote: | the likely answer is pretty simple....we were 11-19 without Ball which is a .366 winning percentage.....with Ball, we were 24-28 which is a .461 winning percentage.....if you assume a .461 winning percentage over the 30 games without Ball, that results in a 14-16 record....so we likely would have won 3 more games for a total of 38 (or 37.83). Yes, there are a million other factors as who we were playing, and who else was injured, etc....but my guess is they would have all likely canceled each other out for the most part.
38 is not a choice. |
Most sensible answer. |
Yep. Thats why I picked 37. Lonzo is not worth +5 net add wins in a 38 game span. That would put him at +11 for an entire season. That is all-star, maybe superstar territory. |
lonzo may not be +11 above replacement, but this needs to take account of his replacement.
obviously if you replace lonzo with a typical high school player, then lonzo could be effectively +40 |
Yeah. In this case, his replacement was what, Josh Hart? Don’t currently see an 11 win disparity (nor 5 game over 38 games) between those two. |
dont you remember who his replacement was last year? |
It wasn’t entirely Tyler Ennis. I mean, sure, Ennis did get some play, but Hart also saw a rise in minutes when Lonzo was out.
The only game Ennis played Lonzos full minutes was against Houston and I think KCP was out then too because of prison time lol |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pierlu92 Sixth Man
Joined: 01 Jul 2018 Posts: 25
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think about 40, but - being maybe too optimistic - I choose 43. Probably the developement of Lonzo was slowed down by his injuries, then the Lakers could have been even better than the difference between our winning percentage with him and our winning percentage without him. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JohnDoe Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Jun 2018 Posts: 128 Location: Shenzhen, China
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________ "Less is more." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|