|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 43990
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:05 pm Post subject: HOW GOOD WOULD THE LAKERS HAVE BEEN WITH DEMAR DEROZEN OR BUDDY HIELD |
|
|
| David Friedman wrote: | How Good Would the Lakers Have Been With DeMar DeRozan or Buddy Hield?
This is not suspense story, so I will not make you wait to know the answer to the title question. The answer is "Not very good." It is amazing and amusing that so many people take seriously the notion that the Lakers' train wreck 2022 season would have turned out wonderfully if only the Lakers had acquired DeMar DeRozan or Buddy Hield instead of Russell Westbrook.
Forget for a moment that, due to salary cap rules/restrictions, the Lakers probably could have only signed DeRozan by sending Kyle Kuzma and Montrezl Harrell to the San Antonio Spurs, which is not the deal that the Spurs wanted (the DeRozan sign and trade that the Spurs did with the Chicago Bulls yielded two players with expiring contracts, plus three draft picks); also forget for a moment that it seems improbable that Gregg Popovich would be inclined to make any deal that might help a Western Conference rival, let alone a rival that has so much playoff history versus the Spurs.
Let's assume that the Lakers could have acquired DeRozan. The Eastern Conference playoff picture is very fluid, but right now DeRozan's Chicago Bulls are in sixth place with a 45-35 record: they have had a solid season, but they are probably heading toward a first round exit. DeRozan has had a good impact on the Bulls, but he is hardly a miracle worker, and he made just one playoff appearance in three seasons in San Antonio.
DeRozan is averaging a career-high 28.0 ppg this season while shooting .504 from the field, and he is averaging 5.2 rpg plus 5.0 apg, exceeding his career averages of 4.4 rpg and 3.9 apg. DeRozan is also averaging 20.3 FGA/g this season. Do you know something that has never happened in NBA history? No LeBron James teammate has ever averaged 20 FGA/g--not Kyrie Irving (he came close--once--during his final season alongside James), not Kevin Love, not Dwyane Wade, not Chris Bosh, not Anthony Davis, and not Russell Westbrook, who has averaged at least 20 FGA/g five times during his career. Westbrook averaged 19.0 FGA/g in 2020-21 with the Wizards, and then he averaged 15.8 FGA/g this season with the Lakers.
A lot of things might have happened had DeRozan joined the Lakers, but one thing that would not have happened is DeRozan attempting 20 shots a night, which means he also would not have averaged even close to 28.0 ppg. Without exception, every star who has played alongside James sublimated his game and his statistics to blend in with James. DeRozan is a high usage player, and that is another thing that would have gone by the wayside if he had joined the Lakers.
"Stat gurus" believe that all numbers translate from one situation to another. If a player shoots .600 from the field in 25-30 mpg because he has a superstar teammate who draws double teams, "stat gurus" believe that player can shoot .600 from the field in 40 mpg as the best player on the team. Call this the "Andrew Bynum theory," because that is the nonsensical notion "stat gurus" propagated when Bynum played alongside Kobe Bryant. By the way, has anyone seen Bynum since he left the Lakers? I hope that he is doing OK. One thing he is not doing, has not done, and never will do is shoot .600 from the field in 40 mpg as the best player on his team.
Similarly, "stat gurus" believe that if DeMar DeRozan can score 28.0 ppg on .504 field goal shooting for the Chicago Bulls then he can put up the same numbers for the L.A. Lakers. Unlike the more limited Bynum, it is possible that DeRozan could put up similar numbers on a different team than Chicago--but there is no way he is putting up those numbers while playing alongside LeBron James. When projecting how a player will perform, one has to take into account the overall context, and not just move numbers around on a spreadsheet.
Further, even if DeRozan had been able to score as prolifically and efficiently with the Lakers as he has with the Bulls, that would not have addressed the Lakers' biggest problem: the Lakers are one of the worst defensive teams in the league, primarily because of their lack of paint presence.
The reality, based on how LeBron James' previous All-Star teammates have fared, is that if DeRozan had joined the Lakers, he likely would have scored--at most--20 ppg while shooting between .460 and .480 from the field, and the Lakers' record would have been no better than it is now.
This analysis takes nothing away from the excellent season that DeRozan has had. The point is not to denigrate DeRozan, but rather to objectively analyze what would have happened had DeRozan joined the Lakers.
The notion that Buddy Hield could have saved these Lakers is even more outlandish than the notion that DeRozan could have saved these Lakers. At least DeRozan is a five time All-Star who has played in 58 playoff games.
Do you remember when Buddy Hield played in the All-Star Game and then had big playoff performances? Of course not--Hield is a six year veteran who has yet to make the All-Star team or play in a single playoff game. Hield has played for three NBA teams and has never been on a squad that posted a .500 record. His career field goal percentage is .430 (the much-maligned Westbrook has a .438 career field goal percentage, including .444 this season). Hield averages less than 2 FTA/g during his career. He is an OK, but not great, rebounder for a shooting guard (4.3 rpg for his career), and he is not a playmaker (2.5 apg for his career). Hield's best skill set attribute is three point shooting, and he has shot .366 from three point range this season. The Lakers' three point shooting percentage this season is .349.
This is not about bashing Buddy Hield. He has had a solid NBA career while playing for bad teams. Maybe he can be a contributor to a winning program, but that has not happened yet. Are we supposed to take seriously the notion that if the Lakers subtracted Westbrook's elite rebounding and playmaking and replaced one of the greatest players of all-time with a one dimensional player who shot .366 from three point range--which ranks 82nd in the league--then the Lakers would have been better?
Why do so many "stat gurus" and media members create narratives that are absurd? Why is there such a robust market for ideas that are demonstrably nonsensical?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GOODRICH25
Star Player
Joined: 17 Jun 2017
Posts: 3366
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2022 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How good would the Lakers be with Kevin Durant or Joe Harris
_________________
48 49 50 52 53 54 72 80 82
85 87 88 00 01 02 09 10 20
17 99 19 22 44 13 25 Mic.
52 33 32 42 34 8 24 16 23 3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J.C. Smith
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 12676
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2022 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to agree that Hield is vastly overrated on this forum because people got attached to the idea of him in a trade. He would have helped with spacing, but the Lakers already had a no defense chucker in Ellington this season and he had a hard time getting off the pine.
DeRozen is a mystery. The concerns was his lack of a three point shot and his unwillingness to take it. Mysteriously he shot 35% this season and started took 1.9 per game, which was a career high in percentage, and the most he had taken in four years and the third most of any point in his career.
I think DeRozen would have been a better fit than Russ though. I'm not sure if he would have made a significant difference this season though or not though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cathy78
Star Player
Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Posts: 1416
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hield is overrated. Derozan would have fit better, but he would never had the same stats in LA. Especially 3pt% drops significantly as soon as any player puts on the purple and gold... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kblo247!
Star Player
Joined: 05 Oct 2015
Posts: 3866
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J.C. Smith wrote: | I tend to agree that Hield is vastly overrated on this forum because people got attacked to the idea of him in a trade. He would have helped with spacing, but the Lakers already had a no defense chucker in Ellington this season and he had a hard time getting off the pine.
DeRozen is a mystery. The concerns was his lack of a three point shot and his unwillingness to take it. Mysteriously he shot 35% this season and started took 1.9 per game, which was a career high in percentage, and the most he had taken in four years and the third most of any point in his career.
I think DeRozen would have been a better fit than Russ though. I'm not sure if he would have made a significant difference this season though or not though. |
The Lakers had a high turnover prone, rebound watching, brick laying, no defense at all playing guard available most the games all year and it’s why they sucked too
You could have kept Dennis in that spot and win more games
Hield helps because two things happen. Lebrun plays point guard again like Frank preferred. You also retain KCP so you have defense and spacing. Then you could theoretically redirect the mini mole to give AD a big next to him. It may derail Lebrun chasing Kareem some but the team is better and Frank has the defense he asked for.
Derozan pretty much can play make like Russ with less turnovers, plays better defense, and he can score versus anyone. At his worse he’s going to give you 20/5/5 with better defense and less turnovers. Oh and you retain KCP
Notice a trend with either, you keep KCP and you have spacing and someone guarding the best perimeter guy night in and out. Because we got (bleep) without him. He took Lillard, Harden, Murray, and Herro in the bubble. He kept Booker in check in the playoffs to he got hurt and then Wes and CArusi were destroyed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RG73
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2001
Posts: 11508
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is a total straw man argument. Who are these "stats gurus"? Oh right, Friedman created them out of thin air.
Seriously, find me a single stats "guru" that believes that box score statistics are additive. Like if we add Embiid, Lebron and Giannis to the same team they will all average 30 ppg. No one ever made that argument. So the premise here is idiotic.
Once we dispense of that idiocy, the question then becomes not one of counting stats, but fit and winning. Would DDR be a better fit and would this have yielded more wins? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cthroatgtr
Star Player
Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 1375
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Based on Nunn's injury and AD's injuries, not that much better. Derozan would have had the bigger impact and perhaps they make the playin. Hield would have been a great fit but if AD goes down, not enough. Truth be told players picked up in the offseason were all misses and a good chance they miss again swapping Russ for one of them. Still there would be more money left so I would say definitely play-in perhaps 6th or higher assuming they added one more solid piece. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58344
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
There would be no Hield and DDR. It would be a sign and trade for DDR. Pop likes Kuz, so he's going there, plus the 2021 pick. Then to make the salaries work, you need to probably add in Trez. DDR is making 25M a year. He got 81M-3 years with Chicago. Lets assume we keep Caruso.
But this would be a much better defensive team.
Caruso, KCP, DeRozan, Bron, AD.
With AD out half the year, you run
Caruso, KCP, DeRozan, Bron, Dwight/Stanley lineups.
The main difference is at least you're still elite at 2 things without AD.
1) Defense. You have Caruso/KCP/DeRozan level defenders vs Monk/Westbrook/Melo.
2) Closing. You have an elite QB closer in Lebron and an elite shot maker/creator in DeRozan.
Look I'm not saying it's a title. But there were a number of names last year I heard. Lillard. DDR. Westbrook. Hield. Off them, Dame and DeRozan were the guys that I thought would have fit, and I didn't see any big net benefit of Hield (Good shooting added for far worse defense) and I wanted no part of Westbrook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
