Early Season evaluation: Zach LaVine

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Overview - Zach was acquired by Flip with the intent of taking a home run swing. His tantalizing combination of speed, length, and leaping ability, combined with an effortless stroke off the dribble, made him too tempting to pass up for Flip, who clearly favors players that he believes come into the NBA with a physical edge, no matter how rough around the edges their actual basketball skills might be. Like so many other players on this roster, Zach now finds himself in a role that was not at all intended for him: Starting point guard for the Timberwolves.

Offense - Like our other rookie, Zach LaVine has been very poor on offense. There is almost nothing he does well from a box score perspective. He's an inefficient scorer that is over-reliant on contested pull-up jumpers. He lacks the strength and desire to get into the paint very often, and when he does, he can only finish with his right hand, making it easier for bigs to block his shot when he's on the left side of the rim. His floor vision is OK, but certainly not good enough at this stage to be an NBA point guard that plays regularly. And his ball handling is also sub-par for a PG, as he gets picked cleanly at times by opposing guards. Lastly, his decision making is questionable, as indicated by his 3.4 TOs per 36 minutes - this despite Flip having to grossly simplify his playbook for Zach in order to get the ball out of his hands early in halfcourt sets.

Now, one could say that Zach was has been thrust into a completely unfair situation, given the fact that he started the season as the 3rd PG on our depth chart. In addition, Flip isn't even sure if he is a point guard! Add to that the sub-par talent playing next to him and you have a fairly long list of pretty good excuses for his poor play. So let's peel the onion back and see if we can identify a couple of signs that give us hope for the future.

First off, his speed and athleticism are undeniable. And he's actually made some pretty "Wow!" plays in the open court, especially when on the receiving or giving end of an ally-oop. It's pretty fun to see him rise up to snag a defensive rebound and then immediately take off toward the other end. This seems to be when he's at his best.

Second, while his success rate hasn't been very good, he really does look effortless pulling up off the dribble and shooting the ball. He is a borderline elite shot creator in how easily he gets that thing off. He shot 38% from the college 3-point line at UCLA, so it certainly seems like there is some potential on his long range shot as well. But here again, the results just aren't there yet.

And last, he has made some promising drives to the hoop (despite the lack of a left hand) where he's either finished or made a nice dump-off pass to a cutter. Unfortunately, he doesn't do this nearly enough.

My biggest concern long-term is his tendency to settle for the pull-up jumper. His instinct is to juke and jive a bit with the ball on the perimeter, probing for an opening to get that shot off. It almost comes as a surprise when he actually tries to blow by his guy off the dribble or turn a sharp corner on the PnR and get into the paint. He is wasting his greatest assets (speed + quickness) by relying on contested "long 2s" off the dribble. Those are the exact shots the defense wants us to take - and boy, do we have multiple players that will oblige, including Zach.

Defense - Zach LaVine has the lateral quickness to guard almost any PG in the NBA. I've seen him isolated a couple of times with some really quick guards and he's been able to keep them in front of him. He also seems to do a pretty good job not reaching in and getting ticky-tack fouls. Like Wiggins, he seems to prefer a more conservative approach to defense, rarely reaching in or gambling for steals, and that's a good thing.

Unfortunately, defense in the NBA goes far beyond one-on-one isos and Zach struggles with pretty much everything else. He is easily screened out of plays, which is typically the first domino that falls just prior to a wide open dunk or 3-pointer for our opposition. He also lacks strength, which means that even if he can stay in front of his guy, they can often just muscle him around the hoop and still get a clean shot off (I keep remembering how easily Corey Joseph brushed Zach aside on his way to the hoop for layups). And like so many other young players, his awareness of team defensive principles and rotations is lacking.

One thing that Zach should do more of is pick up his man at full court or 3/4ths court and apply some pressure. His length and foot speed should make it harder for the opposing PG to get up the floor and set-up the offense. Just making the opposing PG work 5% harder and take an extra tick or two of the clock can make a difference. He certainly has the physical tools for it.

As a rebounder, Zach does a pretty decent job on the defensive glass, averaging 3.4 DReb's per 36 minutes. That's actually better than Corey Brewer and Andrew Wiggins (which is kind of sad).


Summary - A home run swing can often result in a strikeout. It's too early to judge whether that will be the case for LaVine, but his play certainly hasn't done much to allay my fears. On the other hand, he's gaining some really valuable experience at an extremely young age and doesn't seem to be worse for the wear. I've actually been pretty impressed that he and Wiggins have avoided injury and illness for the most part - that must say something about their resiliency (?).

One thing I haven't touched on much is whether Zach should be a PG or SG. Frankly, at this stage in his career, I don't really care. I'm looking for skill and b-ball IQ development. Changing to SG won't suddenly make him a better shooter, dribbler, passer, or defender. And back in the old days, SGs and PGs were nearly interchangeable. It's just that one was usually taller than the other.

[Coolbreeze44]

I wonder how you would have done one of these critiques for Larry Bird after 25 games. Talk about a Debbie Downer. Things aren't nearly this bad or bleak, particularly for a 19 year old player like Zach. He's been a pleasant surprise in a season full of bad luck and disappointment. I'm wondering if you've actually watched the games, or if you are just reading your advanced metrics. Lighten up Q.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Cool, I have watched every T-Wolf game this season and have seen every minute Zach has played. I know that Zach is one of "your guys" (we all have our favorites), but I actually think I was pretty balanced with this write-up, as I pointed out a number of his strengths and areas for potential.

The purpose of these write-ups isn't to try to predict where any of these players will be in three years, but to make fairly detailed observations about their play to date. What do you want me to do, just skip him because nothing counts unless you have 3 years in the league? Or I could make stuff up and say how great he's played.

You say he's been a pleasant surprise for us so far. That's great. So let's hear why.

[bleedspeed]

Q, Another great fair report. I am pretty pro-LaVine and your eval seems very fair.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Zach is a SG being forced to play PG for now. His athleticism, size and play style are much more conducive to a secondary ball handling role while being given the green light to score. That is the exact player we have been praying to get next to Ricky. He and Wiggins both seem like guys who are going to be able to create decent looks at the end of games which is exactly what we have been looking for. Zach is in the same boat as Wiggins. He really shouldn't be judged until his frame fills out because it is going to open up the things he can do by a lot on both ends of the floor. I like the future potential of grabbing a rebound and having both Ricky and Zach on the court to be able to push the ball in transition. I could see playing Zach in a Manu type role where he is the 6th man guard type who also finishes games. He needs the green light to get buckets and the second unit will be the best match for that until his efficiency comes up. If Wiggins and Zach can have an offseason like Bazz and Bennett to build their frames, watch out because they could hit their potential that much quicker. Look how much it has helped Bazz. He looks way more explosive than last year and it has helped him take his game to another level.

[Coolbreeze44]

Cool, I have watched every T-Wolf game this season and have seen every minute Zach has played. I know that Zach is one of "your guys" (we all have our favorites), but I actually think I was pretty balanced with this write-up, as I pointed out a number of his strengths and areas for potential.

The purpose of these write-ups isn't to try to predict where any of these players will be in three years, but to make fairly detailed observations about their play to date. What do you want me to do, just skip him because nothing counts unless you have 3 years in the league? Or I could make stuff up and say how great he's played.

You say he's been a pleasant surprise for us so far. That's great. So let's hear why.

I just don't like the idea of making evaluations on these rookies 20 games into their careers. I respect your opinions because you definitely know the game. But as far back as I can remember, you've looked at our young players and almost immediately pigeon holed them into being this or that. I'm a highly respected basketball coach in my own right, and one thing I know is you can't tell much about a player in 45 days time. They develop in spurts, and will mix in periods where they seem to regress. I'd much rather see where they are at midseason next year, then talk about how poor of an offensive player someone is after 20 games. Especially when we've seen some very good efforts mixed in with the growing pains. Jim Pete talked last night about Wiggins needing to develop physically before we will see the true player. He went as far as to call him a potential superstar. I just don't see what good it does to tell us how terrible he's been when he obviously has so much room to grow.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

khans, two things.

1. This is Q's early season evaluation. He's been fair on all accords based on what our players have done to this point (December).. You said it's not fair to judge LaVine (and Wiggins) until they fill out their frames. You more than likely feel the same about Bennett in that we have to wait for him to... I don't know... whatever excuse there is for him now. So, what are to do until that happens? Are we not to discuss their play, both positive and negative? My opinion s that Q's been very fair in each evaluation.

2. " If Wiggins and Zach can have an offseason like Bazz and Bennett to build their frames" -- I'm gonna nitpick/clarify something here. Bazz and Bennett didn't build their frames necessarily. They lost weight/extra bulk that was unnecessary to have for them. That weight loss is a likely component as to why they're more explosive and quicker this year. Wiggins and LaVine need to bulk up somewhat. I don't know if you're a workout guy or not, but it's much easier to shred than it is to bulk with muscle, especially for guys that are naturally lean. LaVine's talked about it before: how he's been in the weight room trying to add weight, and has gotten stronger, but hasn't added bulk. I assume the same is true for Wiggins. I'm not saying that they won't add bulk, but it might be three/four years from now before they get to their man bodies, per say.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

LaVine is one of the most difficult guys for me to evaluate. I was not at all on board with drafting him after watching his forgettable year at UCLA, and his stats so far his rookie year are abominable. And yet I have to admit I enjoy watching him, and he has exceeded my expectations. Andy G. at PunchDrunkWolves has just issued his first quarter report on each Wolves players (with a few incompletes) and gave Zach a B+. Keep in mind Andy's grades are based on performance against his expectations, so using that scale, Zach would earn a B or B+ from me also. I admit I was likely wrong about him, and think he can develop into a decent NBA player.

Anyway, with Q doing his very thorough analysis, I thought it would be worthwhile to read the PunchDrunk analysis.

http://punchdrunkwolves.com/2014/12/14/quarterly-timberwolves-report/#more-7143

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Cool, I have watched every T-Wolf game this season and have seen every minute Zach has played. I know that Zach is one of "your guys" (we all have our favorites), but I actually think I was pretty balanced with this write-up, as I pointed out a number of his strengths and areas for potential.

The purpose of these write-ups isn't to try to predict where any of these players will be in three years, but to make fairly detailed observations about their play to date. What do you want me to do, just skip him because nothing counts unless you have 3 years in the league? Or I could make stuff up and say how great he's played.

You say he's been a pleasant surprise for us so far. That's great. So let's hear why.

I just don't like the idea of making evaluations on these rookies 20 games into their careers. I respect your opinions because you definitely know the game. But as far back as I can remember, you've looked at our young players and almost immediately pigeon holed them into being this or that. I'm a highly respected basketball coach in my own right, and one thing I know is you can't tell much about a player in 45 days time. They develop in spurts, and will mix in periods where they seem to regress. I'd much rather see where they are at midseason next year, then talk about how poor of an offensive player someone is after 20 games. Especially when we've seen some very good efforts mixed in with the growing pains. Jim Pete talked last night about Wiggins needing to develop physically before we will see the true player. He went as far as to call him a potential superstar. I just don't see what good it does to tell us how terrible he's been when he obviously has so much room to grow.

These write-ups are called "Early Season evaluation", not "Career evaluation". When talking about the young guys, no where do I mention where I think someone's floor or ceiling is or imply that they will never improve. I'm simply sharing observations - both good and bad - from their first 20+ games. I don't see why Zach should be excluded.

May be go back and re-read my post. You seem to be placing too much weight on the negative parts and completely ignoring some of the positive things about Zach that I think you would agree with.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

LaVine is one of the most difficult guys for me to evaluate. I was not at all on board with drafting him after watching his forgettable year at UCLA, and his stats so far his rookie year are abominable. And yet I have to admit I enjoy watching him, and he has exceeded my expectations. Andy G. at PunchDrunkWolves has just issued his first quarter report on each Wolves players (with a few incompletes) and gave Zach a B+. Keep in mind Andy's grades are based on performance against his expectations, so using that scale, Zach would earn a B or B+ from me also. I admit I was likely wrong about him, and think he can develop into a decent NBA player.

Anyway, with Q doing his very thorough analysis, I thought it would be worthwhile to read the PunchDrunk analysis.

http://punchdrunkwolves.com/2014/12/14/quarterly-timberwolves-report/#more-7143

LST, Those are good write-ups. It was nice to read Andy G's similar stance on Zach's best position, which is the same as mine: It really doesn't matter right now. It's all about skill development, which will help no matter what position he ultimately plays. One could argue that playing PG early in his career is better for his long-term development as a SG if that's where he ends up.