Minnesota Sports Forum

m4gor wrote:interesting fact is though that Lavine had 10.6PER at PG and allowed 19.5 PER for opponent, however at SG he had 13.3PER at SG and held opponents to nice 11.8PER, so your argument is not valid and playing Lavine anywhere else than SG is completely and utterly stupid as that is more 10 PER difference, so even 52yo guy with no stat/math background should get this one

monsterpile wrote:

m4gor wrote:interesting fact is though that Lavine had 10.6PER at PG and allowed 19.5 PER for opponent, however at SG he had 13.3PER at SG and held opponents to nice 11.8PER, so your argument is not valid and playing Lavine anywhere else than SG is completely and utterly stupid as that is more 10 PER difference, so even 52yo guy with no stat/math background should get this one

How far did you dig into those numbers?

longstrangetrip wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

longstrangetrip wrote:You make some good points, khans, and reflect the prevailing opinion on this board about Zach at PG. Perhaps my impressions of Zach at PG are colored by the one preseason game I was able to attend, where he was terrific at PG both offensively and defensively. But I agree that he was neither in the Laker game and looked better the 4 minutes he was playing next to Ricky...it's a much easier role offensively.

Your question about whether any advantage Zach might have defensively over Miller and Jones can possibly make up for their superiority in running an offense is a good one, and I think captures exactly how Mitchell is evaluating the situation. But I think he is committed to Wig at the 2, and that makes him committed to Zach at PG for the time being. But if Zach doesn't show he can prevent penetration by his man and show a little more offensive ability, I think his next move will be out of the rotation rather than back to SG, with either Miller or Jones backing up Ricky. But I continue to think we don't know what this 20-year-old can eventually be with more experience at the point , and that Sam's experiment will pay off.

Ricky is signed for 5 years at the PG position. Why do we want Zach to become a PG? He'd provide a lot more value to the team becoming the starting 2 moving forward than being stuck on the bench behind Ricky. He has the skills and physical makeup and we have a long-term spot at the 2 available. Why are we not just putting the square peg in the square hole instead of trying to jam it down the circular hole? It seems like a lot of time is being wasted having him develop as a PG that frankly just doesn't have to be wasted.

It all depends on whether how one feels about Zach as a starter down the road. I think he could be an adequate SG for us, but I see more promise for a Wiggins/Bazz pairing than a Wiggins/Zach pairing. And I see's Zach's best role as a versatile combo guard off the bench. If Tyus turns out to be a very good NBA PG, I would be comfortable with Zach backing up Wig at the 2, but we don't know if Tyus will ever have the size or athleticism to fell that role. But I'm convinced that right now Zach is a better option backing up Ricky than Tyus. There will be some difficult nights for Zach like Wednesday, but with the commitment to Wig at the 2 which I highly endorse, his best chance for getting the minutes he needs to learn the NBA game is at PG.

m4gor wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

m4gor wrote:interesting fact is though that Lavine had 10.6PER at PG and allowed 19.5 PER for opponent, however at SG he had 13.3PER at SG and held opponents to nice 11.8PER, so your argument is not valid and playing Lavine anywhere else than SG is completely and utterly stupid as that is more 10 PER difference, so even 52yo guy with no stat/math background should get this one

How far did you dig into those numbers?

it is from here http://www.82games.com/1415/14MIN4.HTM
look if there would not be this huge difference i would not bring that here, i have a degree in math so i understand what sample sizes are for and what statisticaly sound difference looks like

monsterpile wrote:

m4gor wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

m4gor wrote:interesting fact is though that Lavine had 10.6PER at PG and allowed 19.5 PER for opponent, however at SG he had 13.3PER at SG and held opponents to nice 11.8PER, so your argument is not valid and playing Lavine anywhere else than SG is completely and utterly stupid as that is more 10 PER difference, so even 52yo guy with no stat/math background should get this one

How far did you dig into those numbers?

it is from here http://www.82games.com/1415/14MIN4.HTM
look if there would not be this huge difference i would not bring that here, i have a degree in math so i understand what sample sizes are for and what statisticaly sound difference looks like

Ok well now my expectation for you digging into those numbers with a detailed explanation has raised significantly!!! I've seen the webpage before I posted my earlier question. I am waiting :)

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:I just don't see it.

He can't effectively run an offense and make plays for others. He's proven that for over a year now. Playing him at the point hurts everybody on the team offensively. That is not worth making life a little easier for him on the defensive end. And frankly, his defense on PGs isn't that good either. Yes he has the defensive tools, length and quickness, but he needs to learn how to use them. Tyus and Miller are not very good defenders at the point, but their ability to run the offense and get everyone involved is needed when Rubio isn't on the floor.

Bottom line, the defensive upgrade of LaVine over Tyus at the point doesn't come close to outweighing the offensive upgrade of having a real PG and playing LaVine at his most logical and effective offensive position: SG.[/quo

Drew. I'm not saying Zach is Westbrook, but I think there are similarities...and Westbrook wasn't very good at the point in his rookie season either. He was given the keys to the car, though, and he eventually used his athleticism to become an elite PG. But it wasn't without pain...5.3 APG against 3.3 TOs per game aren't very good numbers when you're playing next to a guy like Durant. Plus, Westbrook had a ton of minutes at the point at UCLA, while Zach had none. Why would we expect Zach to be a great PG right out of the chute with so little experience? We need to give him some time to see if he can parlay his incredible physical gifts and good ball handling into becoming a Westbrook-light kind of PG.

Look, I fully admit you guys may be smarter than me in this argument...that's not a high bar! But I'm less confident that your observations are smarter than both Flip and Sam, who got to see Zach in practice like we can't, and both saw him more as a PG than a SG. Let's give this guy a chance. As Flip often said, letting a young guy play PG makes him a better SG. His value to the team is only enhanced if he is given a chance to develop his PG skills.

m4gor wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

m4gor wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

m4gor wrote:interesting fact is though that Lavine had 10.6PER at PG and allowed 19.5 PER for opponent, however at SG he had 13.3PER at SG and held opponents to nice 11.8PER, so your argument is not valid and playing Lavine anywhere else than SG is completely and utterly stupid as that is more 10 PER difference, so even 52yo guy with no stat/math background should get this one

How far did you dig into those numbers?

it is from here http://www.82games.com/1415/14MIN4.HTM
look if there would not be this huge difference i would not bring that here, i have a degree in math so i understand what sample sizes are for and what statisticaly sound difference looks like

Ok well now my expectation for you digging into those numbers with a detailed explanation has raised significantly!!! I've seen the webpage before I posted my earlier question. I am waiting :)

look at net production per 48 by position, even if you would count off whole Rubio net difference you will still be left with statistical difference

my biggest issue with Flip/Sam is that if you dont believe in math at all, you are not making your rotations well enough so you could end up with good quality data