Lavine and Martin Thread
Posted: Tue May 19, 2015 6:19 am
I figured I would start this because it is long long past due and based on the discussion on the Bjelica thread.
wrote:
Q12543 wrote:
khans2k5 wrote:
Q12543 wrote:
khans2k5 wrote:
I'll try not to bring it up again. I'll just let the fact that Lavine played his best basketball with 30 MPG's last year do the talking for why that is better for him moving forward. There are a lot of good players on those lists. The only player on the lists who was a legitimate star who didn't play more than 20 MPG's was Nash. I'll even give a healthy TMac and O'Neal bumps because they were number 1 guys on playoff teams. So you gave me 3 examples of players who didn't get 20+ minutes in their first two years who became number 1 guys and stars. Meanwhile there's not enough space on this page to list every star number 1 guy who fits my minutes criteria including ones tried to be used against me like Kobe, Harden, Butler and George who all played 26 minutes or more (George played 29.7 for pete's sake that's nitpicky) in year two which is higher than a normal bench player but lower than a normal starter by a couple minutes.
So yes there is more than 1 one get a true star, but my way is how 90% of the top level of them are and sub 20 MPG's appears to account for the other 10%. Sorry I didn't account for that other 10%. I usually like to back ideas that have a stronger track record than a handful of names over the last 25 years in the league. Those tend to come off as outliers to me more than legitimate support for Lavine's minutes can be less with no penalty to future performance as he'll become the same player either way.
Kahns, you continue to have the cause-and-effect relationship reversed. The vast majority of stars got all those minutes to begin with in Year 2, 3, and beyond because they were actually really good!
As for LaVine, I agree he had a nice April - all 8 games of it! If he comes into training camp and pre-season playing at a similar or higher level, than Flip is going to get him minutes. Martin is a bridge, not a building block. He's not going to stand in the way of Zach LaVine if Zach is playing well.
So we should play guys in roles they are statistically worse and hope they improve in that role so they can get back to the role they prove to play better in? Lavine went from statistically the worst rotation player in the league to 4 points below league average in PER. That's how good his finish to the season was. The post all-star break stats show it. Martin gets 6 points more in similar minutes with slightly better shooting percentages and everything else worse. It's nice to say Flip will just start Lavine over Martin if Lavine proves to be better but we know that isn't the case. He had to trade away Brewer to open time. He had to trade away Thad to open time. Flip hasn't relegated vets to the bench outside of Mo who was already coming off the bench. That's why I'm not buying that argument. If Lavine is better than Martin to start the year expect a similar return as the Brewer, Mo Williams trades for Martin. At least my scenario gets us a first round pick.
Huh? So backing up Martin and playing against inferior competition will make Zach play worse? You are basically implying that Zach LaVine is only effective if given 30+ minutes per night against starters. But boy, if we put him up against inferior competition with fewer minutes, than he'll go to hell in a hand basket.....Silliness!
I'll buy that getting playing time - whether it's in the NBA or D-League - is part of a player's improvement. So is coaching. So is practice. So is getting comfortable with the NBA lifestyle and travel. So is diet. So is fitness. So is....it goes on. To simplify it into an arbitrary 20 or more minutes per game rule that you made up doesn't make sense to me. But you won't let go of it, so I give up at this point!
Your theory that playing against second units should give him the opportunity to put up better stats was statistically wrong based on his play last year. He started 40 games and came off the bench 37 and while his minutes doubled between starting and coming off the bench, his overall stats were more than twice as good and his shooting percentages were better in every category except FT shooting which was almost the same. So yes, statistically he played better when he got the extra minutes. Not just the same production level with more minutes and that was as you say yourself against tougher competition. The stats don't back up your theory that he'll play better coming off the bench against lesser competition because he played better as a starter. Hence my comment on backtracking to bench player to earn his way back to the starting lineup where he produced better. Aka playing him in his worse role expecting him to get better just to get back to where he finished this year when he played really well.
(not....going.....to......respond.....must......hold.....back)
wrote:
Q12543 wrote:
khans2k5 wrote:
Q12543 wrote:
khans2k5 wrote:
I'll try not to bring it up again. I'll just let the fact that Lavine played his best basketball with 30 MPG's last year do the talking for why that is better for him moving forward. There are a lot of good players on those lists. The only player on the lists who was a legitimate star who didn't play more than 20 MPG's was Nash. I'll even give a healthy TMac and O'Neal bumps because they were number 1 guys on playoff teams. So you gave me 3 examples of players who didn't get 20+ minutes in their first two years who became number 1 guys and stars. Meanwhile there's not enough space on this page to list every star number 1 guy who fits my minutes criteria including ones tried to be used against me like Kobe, Harden, Butler and George who all played 26 minutes or more (George played 29.7 for pete's sake that's nitpicky) in year two which is higher than a normal bench player but lower than a normal starter by a couple minutes.
So yes there is more than 1 one get a true star, but my way is how 90% of the top level of them are and sub 20 MPG's appears to account for the other 10%. Sorry I didn't account for that other 10%. I usually like to back ideas that have a stronger track record than a handful of names over the last 25 years in the league. Those tend to come off as outliers to me more than legitimate support for Lavine's minutes can be less with no penalty to future performance as he'll become the same player either way.
Kahns, you continue to have the cause-and-effect relationship reversed. The vast majority of stars got all those minutes to begin with in Year 2, 3, and beyond because they were actually really good!
As for LaVine, I agree he had a nice April - all 8 games of it! If he comes into training camp and pre-season playing at a similar or higher level, than Flip is going to get him minutes. Martin is a bridge, not a building block. He's not going to stand in the way of Zach LaVine if Zach is playing well.
So we should play guys in roles they are statistically worse and hope they improve in that role so they can get back to the role they prove to play better in? Lavine went from statistically the worst rotation player in the league to 4 points below league average in PER. That's how good his finish to the season was. The post all-star break stats show it. Martin gets 6 points more in similar minutes with slightly better shooting percentages and everything else worse. It's nice to say Flip will just start Lavine over Martin if Lavine proves to be better but we know that isn't the case. He had to trade away Brewer to open time. He had to trade away Thad to open time. Flip hasn't relegated vets to the bench outside of Mo who was already coming off the bench. That's why I'm not buying that argument. If Lavine is better than Martin to start the year expect a similar return as the Brewer, Mo Williams trades for Martin. At least my scenario gets us a first round pick.
Huh? So backing up Martin and playing against inferior competition will make Zach play worse? You are basically implying that Zach LaVine is only effective if given 30+ minutes per night against starters. But boy, if we put him up against inferior competition with fewer minutes, than he'll go to hell in a hand basket.....Silliness!
I'll buy that getting playing time - whether it's in the NBA or D-League - is part of a player's improvement. So is coaching. So is practice. So is getting comfortable with the NBA lifestyle and travel. So is diet. So is fitness. So is....it goes on. To simplify it into an arbitrary 20 or more minutes per game rule that you made up doesn't make sense to me. But you won't let go of it, so I give up at this point!
Your theory that playing against second units should give him the opportunity to put up better stats was statistically wrong based on his play last year. He started 40 games and came off the bench 37 and while his minutes doubled between starting and coming off the bench, his overall stats were more than twice as good and his shooting percentages were better in every category except FT shooting which was almost the same. So yes, statistically he played better when he got the extra minutes. Not just the same production level with more minutes and that was as you say yourself against tougher competition. The stats don't back up your theory that he'll play better coming off the bench against lesser competition because he played better as a starter. Hence my comment on backtracking to bench player to earn his way back to the starting lineup where he produced better. Aka playing him in his worse role expecting him to get better just to get back to where he finished this year when he played really well.
(not....going.....to......respond.....must......hold.....back)