Near future for the Lakers?

Home for all your discussion of basketball statistical analysis.
Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:19 pm

Tied for second lowest winning percentage. Worst defense, only 20th on offense.

What is coming next?

Battle for 8th seed next year?? That might be best case scenario. Year after more likely but not assured.

Fire Jimmy? Bring in Phil? And then what?

Russell barely improved year to year in box score metrics to less terrible overall. Randle, modest improvement but still below average. Clarkson has gotten worse every year and did not deserve that huge contract. A prime case of can't afford to lose him for nothing idiocy. Ingram having a weak start. Way overpaid vets that will linger and a few value contract guys who will leave fairly shortly. Not pretty.

When will they win a playoff series again? 2020? Seems optimistic to me. Contention? With this core?? I am not expecting it.

Mike G
Posts: 4424
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:02 am
Location: Asheville, NC

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Mike G » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:30 pm

Some D'Angelo Russell stats last year and this year:

Code: Select all

yr  FTA   Pts  ORt  DRt  TRb%  Ast%
16  4.2  23.4   96  112   6.5  21.2
17  5.4  26.7  100  112   7.7  27.6

yr  PER   WS/48   BPM   RPM   e484
16  13.2  .001   -1.8  -3.8    .65
17  15.3  .030   - .5    .4   1.29
Those are per 100 poss FTA and Pts.
His TS% is the same at .507; steals and blocks are up a bit, TO% down a bit.
Seems not bad for someone going from 19 to 20 y.o. Four of 5 summary stats say he's above or near avg. already.
His RPM is 19th among PG in the league.

Randle has similar upticks across the board.

Rd11490
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:54 am

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Rd11490 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:33 pm

The issue isn't Russell and Randal, it's that Mozgov and Deng take up a full max salary slot for multiple years. I agree that this isn't a core that is going to contend, but the real issue is the difficulty they are going to have to add to the core.

Dr Positivity
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:44 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Dr Positivity » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:17 am

Have to hope the Russell, Ingram, Randle combination turns it around. Otherwise things could be ugly for a while with their draft pick obligations and bad deals

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:42 am

Ingram with Randle so far -12 per 100 possessions, 3rd worst pairing. With Russell, -16 and 2nd. (With Mozgov -17, worst).

Russell - Randle, about -2. Clarkson - Ingram, about -2. Clarkson with Randle, horrible -10; with Russell, horrendous -19.

So go with the two only mildly bad pairings and never the terrible ones and maybe they are their way winning a bit more maybe but it is a meh starting point. Half the core at a time.

Mike G
Posts: 4424
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:02 am
Location: Asheville, NC

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Mike G » Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:25 pm

Please help me understand this.
The Lakers thru 48 games have avg MOV = -6.4, for 2304 team minutes.
Randle and Russell are on the floor together for 772 min., in which the team is -1.6 pts/100 poss.

Ignoring the difference between 100 vs 98 poss/G, it seems in the other 1532 min (without both guys, sometimes with one or the other), the team is -8.8 pts/100
Doesn't this mean R&R together make them 7.2 pts/100 better?

(Clarkson + Ingram) has about the same effect.
But put all 4 on the floor (91 minutes total), and they're barely avg LAL @ -5.9
http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... 7/lineups/

Their most used lineup -- Deng, Mozgov, Randle, Russell, Young -- has gone 402 minutes at +6.6
Deng-Mozgov-Young have gone 573 minutes total, at -1.4
That means in the 171 min without R+R, they're -20.2 pts/100
With R+R, they're 27 points better!

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:45 am

You can either use RPM or twist & turn in wonder at all the various lineup pieces with x better than y where y is not x and dozens or hundreds of variations of lineups and situations.

If you consider RPM, one R is on average neutral and the other is a little worse. Clarkson was -2.6 yesterday. Ingram is estimated dead last on overall impact in the league as of right now at -5.3. 440th of 440.

Pairings matter, especially if you are planning on using a lot and in important situations. APM or Winston APM or RPM for pairs is interesting to consider. As much or more so than the raw data.

A handful of the other Lakers are ahead of R&R on RPM or close, while more than a handful are below -2 on RPM including Mozgov at -4.

Either RPM is getting at impact value to some degree or the coaching penchant for hundreds of lineups makes that too difficult. So either consider RPM or change the coaching penchant or do neither and try to sort it out without RPM.

R & R being neutral and slightly under in 2nd and 3rd years isn't bad and typically improves but neither has broken out to above average starter or star levels or given much signal that they will anytime soon by box score metrics. Lakers have some acceptable support pieces but not Mozgov and not Clarkson as used on average. Use them different or trade them or just hope it changes on its own? Ingram used with Clarkson and without R&R based on raw plus minus seems sensible but get the pair adjusted plus minus AND watch video and think and tinker with play calls, instruction, shot distribution / selection, defensive scheme, etc. RPM is a progress report, a guess, a guide but it can change especially for young players and groups. Ingram should get better but he has to do a lot different.

It would be interesting to see the average career curves for RPM by position and by achievement level in year 3, 5, 7. Are Russell and Randle on the path of eventual plus 2s, better or worse? I assume it is not better but not sure if on pace with that or behind. Probably a bit behind. And plus 2s as your leaders is not great. Not terrible but if you want conference finals or beyond, not good enough. So you can play out next 2-5 years and see what happens or at some point decide based on the data to date you aren't likely to get where you want or demand to go... and consider major changes, if you can make them happen and can get better prospects or at least different prospects from them.

Is it better to wait year year 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 of Russell or Randle before changing or act earlier? It depends on rate of improvement in their play and analysis based projection of their ceiling... and what offers you can get or make and get accepted.

If you had the time you could look not only at "potential leader / star" career curves but also for the teams with them. How often do teams with "leaders" who are neutral on RPM in year 2 and 3 get to conference finals by year 5 or 7? Do they need to be at plus 2 already to have more than x% chance (according to historic team similars) of that team result or better? Mo time, mo tools, mo analysis & reflection, mo change, may improve the route and maybe the results.

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:14 am

Over last 10 games, they have MOV at about -12. Backsliding.

tarrazu
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:02 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by tarrazu » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:21 am

Crow wrote:Over last 10 games, they have MOV at about -12. Backsliding.
Dallas game really hurts them which also involved another game of their failed Ingram at PG experiment. They had a real bad stretch earlier in year when they played a series of road games without Russell. Randle has come down to earth after a good start to the season.

Russell has been pretty important for this Lakers team given other options available. Clarkson hasn't shown anything aside from his recent game of incredibly high usage and low TS%, Calderon is a traffic cone on defense, and Lou as 'point guard' is good at getting his own and not much else.

I'd imagine a healthy Russell, Zubac and Nance will coincide with better play going forward although they'll be cognizant of their draft position.

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:14 pm

Barring a true super star going there to rescue them, they have no hope imo of real contention for at least 3 years. Probably will be much longer.

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:38 pm

Last 10 games, Randle, an issue with turnovers. Same with Russell. And Williams and others to lesser degree. Play faster? Probably even more turnovers.

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Mon May 08, 2017 2:23 am

Here is my disposition on their assets:

Randle keep
Russell keep at least a little longer but listen
Clarkson trade for sure
Ingram consider trading but probably not before deadline or next season
Mozgov & Deng try to trade of course, attaching one or more youth is fine to get it done
Young maybe trade but not a big deal
Ennis, Nwaba keep, give more time
Nance keep
Black trade, maybe release if you get cap space
Brewer trade if can
Robinson keep
Zubac keep but trade if helps move a bad salary

Their 4 tasks are: 1) Start f'n playing Moreyball, 2) get a better defensive coach / scheme, 3) Rebound and 4) Cut turnovers by playing faster, but less risky and add a vet PG.

shadow
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 3:38 am

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by shadow » Mon May 08, 2017 8:20 pm

The idea of considering trading Ingram, let alone actually doing it, seems crazy to me. Sure he was a -4.74 in RPM this year which is pretty bad obviously. However, here are some other rookies who didn't look great in RAPM, but turned out OK down the road:

Kevin Durant: -4.4
Chris Bosh: -2.18
Dwight Howard: -2.35
Mike Conley: -2.53
Kevin Love: -2.99
John Wall: -4.07
DeMarcus Cousins: -2.28
Gordon Hayward: -3.91
Kemba Walker: -4.63

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Tue May 09, 2017 12:12 am

True. That is why I hedged.

But what is he going to be elite at? How many things will he eventually be above average at? I don"t see him becoming elite at anything except maybe getting free throws, if given that role. Above average? Probably not that many. But yeah, check again in 9 months. Thing is if he doesn't dramatically improve, his value will drop dramatically. Right now and for a little longer you can try to sell the sizzle of "potential". I think it is fair to say his freshman season was "disappointing", worse or much worse in the boxscore stats than most or all those guys.

RPM usually lags boxscore stats for young players, so this is a case where I am less focused on that.

By matchup results he and team are far, far better at PF. Are they going to share that spot with Randle and Nance Maybe temporarily but not realistic long-term. Could play Randle even more at center but I am skeptical they will be that bold when they move out of the we're terrible, so lets experiment stage.

Crow
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Near future for the Lakers?

Post by Crow » Tue May 09, 2017 1:00 am

How much worse would Ingram have had to do before it wasn't "crazy" to consider trading him in next 9-21 months? If he did worse, it might be impossible to trade him. A number of high draft picks are held until they lose most of their value. The crazy people that were the most critical / least patient of them were right in these cases and the insiders that clung to their hopes too long, lost options and ground.There are cases were patience is the right bet and cases where it is less or much less warranted. I believe more top draft picks end up average or less than above average or elite. So general patience with everyone is going to disappoint some or a lot more often than reward.

Post Reply