How many games would we have won if Lonzo only missed 5 games last year
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
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%
 9%  [ 7 ]
40
30%
 30%  [ 23 ]
43
14%
 14%  [ 11 ]
45
17%
 17%  [ 13 ]
47
3%
 3%  [ 3 ]
more than 47
10%
 10%  [ 8 ]
less than 37
14%
 14%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 76

Author Message
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:15 pm    Post subject:

200 more games
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:16 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
200 more games


only 200?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PauPau
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 844

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:53 pm    Post subject:

Not sure, but our record would have been worse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Judah
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 4759

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersfever714
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Posts: 11597

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenBeckerman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 2060

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:10 am    Post subject:

something something something..........

LAVARS FAULT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21064
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
where24happens
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 3410

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36360
Location: Nomad

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
StillSWOL
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:24 am    Post subject:

North of 40 seems a little delusional
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cal1piggy
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 2584

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AFireInside619
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Dec 2015
Posts: 11447

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Pierlu92
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 01 Jul 2018
Posts: 25

PostPosted: 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
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JohnDoe
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 14 Jun 2018
Posts: 128
Location: Shenzhen, China

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:09 pm    Post subject:


_________________
"Less is more."
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
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