Defending Luke Walton
A series of post in this thread on LakersGround.net on 8/14/07.
LakerLanny wrote:Matt Barnes will get paid slightly more than $3M next season (link), where as Luke will get paid $4M (link). Barnes signed a one year contract because he wants to get paid more. Luke started every game he played as a Laker. Barnes started 23 out of 76. The Lakers think Luke is the type of player they want long-term, so they gave him a long-term contract. The Warriors didn't think Barnes was worth committing to far more than a season at a rate that Barnes could find acceptable.LakerSanity wrote:Because the Lakers could have given him a Matt Barnes contract and instead gave him 15 times as much.
Kobe was talked about for like 30 seconds. I don't know why you are coming down so hard on Luke all of a sudden.
LakerLanny wrote:
Which will haunt big time in the future, I already know that and in time of course I will be proven right yet again.
Let's jump back to July of 2005 to see how right LakerLanny was then about Luke:
LakerLanny in 7/05:
Ole'
Another Matador on the roster. And I thought we had too many SFs, what gives?
Just a horrible signing.
LakerLanny in 7/05:BTW, Corliss Williamson has managed 1 start in the last 2 seasons with the Kings - a 20 mpg reserve on a .400 team.brock wrote:No offense, but maybe YOU should take a closer look.
This is absurd. Luke is a great player. He makes his teammates better. He is a better than average shooter and a great passer. He is smart, doesn't make many mistakes, and directs traffic in the game.
I can't help but wonder if most of the "hate" on this thread is just from guys that don't really have an opinion but are jumping on the bandwagon.
Seriously, Luke is a quality player. Anyone who disagrees should take a long hard second look.
A quality player? The rest of the league didn't seem to have him in high demand.
He cannot defend his position. A white guy dribbling between his legs and throwing behind the back passes is cute I guess, but really what is more conducive to winning is guys who can hold there own man to less points than they themselves can score. Pretty simple really.
When a guy like Corliss Williamson can abuse you at will, it isn't pretty. In fact rather than some scrub like Walton, it is old vets like Williamson the Lakers should be filling out the roster with.....not gimmick matadors who's sole purpose of coming into the game is to get scored on and throw away the ball.
LakerLanny in 7/05:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<straylight wrote:3rd string? Try 5th string if the Lakers are smart.
a good 3rd string SF who can come in if offense get too stagnant, or for gimmick/change of pace lineups. unique skills for a (current) laker:good court vision. good for practices. 2nd string if he can ever get his shot to fall consistently.
not a bad signing if we can get rid of some of the SFs in front of him, otherwise wasted roster spot. Even though I really like Jumaine Jones, I think he will easily be thrown in as filler in a trade if necessary - I seem to remeber him having a little trouble in the overload. Much rather get rid of george and caron (for something nice back) though.
-stray
Assuming Caron starts at SF and Odom at 4, then you have the following guys who are better than Walton at SF: Butler, George, Jones, Odom/Kobe.
As long as he is a last resort behind any of the other five mentioned above, I am fine with it.
But I maintain the guy doesn't even sniff the league if his last name wasn't Walton.
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffs wrote:You know, lots of people watch the games. Most people who watch the games have opinions. Why should I pay attention to your opinion? Does your opinion line up with objective reality? If so, you ought to be able to find some objective facts to support it.Dennis_D wrote:John "Chimpy" Hollinger, is that you? You see, the thing is, stats don't tell everything. I actually watch the games
Can you back your opinion of Walton with stats? Because I can present a lot of stats to the opposite.
Jeffs wrote:That's it? You have gone on and on about how Luke is such a terrible defender and how he causes such offensive rebounding problems and as evidence, you cite one game that you can't really remember?
I see that Luke is consistently beaten on the defensive end by bigger, faster, and stronger SFs. Even worse, we lose many offensive and defensive rebounds due to the elite athleticism of the players Luke is matched up with - athleticism that he can't ever hope to match. Watch one of the Dallas games last year when Luke matched up with Josh Howard. Count how many times Howard drove past Luke at will. Count how many offensive rebounds Dallas got because Howard tipped the ball out (I'm not sure exactly which game it was, but it was definitely a Dallas game that came to mind where Howard literally got like 6-7 offensive tip rebounds in the first half).
Dallas averages 11.2 offensive rebounds a game. In the four games against the Lakers, they had 7, 14, 19 and 10 offensive rebounds, an average of 12.5 rebounds. In the game that Dallas had 19 offensive rebounds, Diop is the one who killed the Lakers with 6 ORebs in 13 minutes.
Jeffs wrote:Again, can you support this opinion? Merely repeating the same argument over and over again doesn't make it any more convincing.
Regardless, I never said that Luke was a scrub. He's a decent player, and I would love for him to be the Lakers' 6th man. He's overpaid, and he's one-dimensional, but that doesn't mean he is useless. He knows the triangle better than anyone other than Kobe, and he's one of the best passers on the team. However, anyone who has watched the Lakers for the past few years can clearly see that he is an awful--no, not an average, but an awful--defender. His reasons aren't that he is lazy or that he gambles a lot like Smush. He simply doesn't have the foot speed and athleticism to match up with a lot of the elite swingmen in the NBA. It's not his fault, and I certainly don't blame him for it (in the sense that he could improve if he worked at it - you can't improve genes), but I also don't ignore it.
Jeffs wrote:You are stating a negative opinion of him over and over again that you can't support with objective facts. How is that not bashing?
Oh, and I'm not bashing Luke. I even stated that I had no problem with his interview. I was just pointing out that, while Lanny was certainly very... blunt in how he put things, he was pointing out valid flaws in Luke's game.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gimme_the_rock wrote:Carmelo's '06-'07 scoring averages:
Luke has a tremendous amount of flaws defensively match up-wise. Carmelo does lick his chops when the Lakers and Luke come to town.
28.9 ppg on 47.557% shooting in 38.2 mpg
Carmelo's '06-'07 scoring averages against the Lakers:
30.0 ppg on 47.368% shooting in 40.3 mpg
Gimme_the_rock wrote:That's based upon?
The Lakers did overpay for Luke and for far too long a period.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffs wrote:There is no such thing as an objective observation about something someone is emotionally involved with. If you are predisposed to see Luke playing terrible defense, you are going to see Luke play terrible defense. That's why you (and anyone else) needs to verify their observations against objective facts.
Not a stat, but it's an objective observation. I know you won't accept it, but frankly, I really don't care.
Jeffs wrote:Offensive rebounds as you describe would never be missed in the box score. If Howard repeatedly abused Luke for offensive rebounds, why didn't Dallas have an unusually high number of offensive rebounds? You are making a conclusion based upon your recollection of personal observations that aren't reflected in the record of the game. To me, it looks like your recollection is wrong and therefore your conclusion is wrong.Dennis_D wrote:Offensive rebounds are given to the guy that comes up with the ball - not the guy that tips it. Howard repeatedly tipped the ball away from Luke when Luke (or a more athletic SF) would have rebounded it. Howard used his athleticism, jumping two or three times in the time that it took Luke to jump once, to tip the ball to his teammates and get extra possessions.
That's it? You have gone on and on about how Luke is such a terrible defender and how he causes such offensive rebounding problems and as evidence, you cite one game that you can't really remember?
Dallas averages 11.2 offensive rebounds a game. In the four games against the Lakers, they had 7, 14, 19 and 10 offensive rebounds, an average of 12.5 rebounds. In the game that Dallas had 19 offensive rebounds, Diop is the one who killed the Lakers with 6 ORebs in 13 minutes.
Jeffs wrote:One player averaged above his scoring average against the Lakers. If Luke is an average player, about half the SF's that play against the Lakers will average above the scoring average.
Here are some stats to make you happy: Josh Howard (IMO a good example, as he is one of the few SFs that Luke actually gets stuck with, as Lamar has to defend Dirk) averaged 25.5ppg against the Lakers last season over 4 games. The only team he had a higher average against was Charlotte (27ppg), but that was only a 1 game sample size. Howard averaged 19ppg over the regular season, btw.
Jeffs wrote:Again, people's observations are shaped tremendously by what they are predisposed to see. A classic example is to ask fans of two different teams to watch a game between the teams and ask if the refereeing was fair. The fans will always say that the refereeing was biased against their team. Same game, tremendously different conclusions based upon what people are predisposed to see.Dennis_D wrote:I can support my opinion with objective observations. Sorry, I watch basketball, maybe analyze it at times, but I don't study it. If you want to spend all of you free time tinkering with facts (which, I should point out, can be manipulated to "prove" whatever you want from what I have seen), then that's fine. However, I feel that SEEING Luke's slow footspeed, low athleticism, and poor results on defense is more than enough to support the opinion that I have.
You are stating a negative opinion of him over and over again that you can't support with objective facts. How is that not bashing?
It isn't possible to "prove" whatever you want with stats. Their isn't one stat the conclusively summarizes what happened, so different stats will give slightly different pictures. But no stat will make Smush Parker look like he played well in the playoffs with the Lakers.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffs wrote:I think you are confused about what objective, subjective and bias mean. My GM study was biased in a certain direction, but was objective because it could be reproduced by anyone else. Your observations are subjective because no one sees things exactly the way you do. Now, you may feel how the study was biased was inappropriate and several people did say that. But that is far more interesting debate then shouting subjective assessment of GM's drafting ability at each other.Dennis_D wrote:If you're going to go that route, then you need to understand that NOTHING here fits your definition of objectivity. Guess what? Your GM study - that doesn't fit it, either. You clearly make some subjective observations about some players, and make arbitrary values to represent their worth and the level of the GM's competency. I'd say you were looking for a certain type of conclusion, and thats are the conclusion that you ended up with. Accident? Nope. Simply subjective observations in several cases, which manipulate the results into the mold that you see fit.
There is no such thing as an objective observation about something someone is emotionally involved with. If you are predisposed to see Luke playing terrible defense, you are going to see Luke play terrible defense. That's why you (and anyone else) needs to verify their observations against objective facts.
Jeffs wrote:As far as I know, there is no source that lists who covers who in the NBA, so there is no way that I know of to objectively determine who covers who. People on this site seem to think that Luke covers Melo. You have The Shoes post above your last one and Gimme The Rock saying that, "Carmelo does lick his chops when the Lakers and Luke come to town."
Now you're saying that I need to verify my observations against objective facts. Okay, tell me this - is it not objective fact that Kobe and LO are the ones that end up defending most of the elite SFs in the league? I mean, whether I am emotionally invested in the team or not, I think it's fair to say that I can discern which player is defending whom, no?
Jeffs wrote:How can someone determine if someone is a better/worse defender than Walton? The only thing that comes to mind is the Opp PER from 82games.com.LA_Lakers_Rule wrote:Tad above or below average? Okay, prove it. Look at the depth charts of all of the NBA teams (I provided a link), and give me examples of starting SFs that are inferior defenders to Luke. Seriously, if he's above average, then there should be 16-20 SFs that are inferior defenders. If he's just a bit below average, then you should be able to give me 10-14 examples.
Bottom line some can argue he's a tad below others maybe he's a tad above that of "average'. But the description in terms of "horrible" would lead one to believe that he has no talent or ability at all. Clearly Luke is "savy" and plays decent position defense. Certainly not "great" ofcourse, but I tend to think maybe not "horrible" either.
Somehow, I think you'll have trouble giving more than 2-3, if that.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Starting SF's in the league last season, in order of their Opp PER from 82games.com:
#1 Andrei Kirilenko 11.7
#2 Tayshaun Prince 12.2
#3 Luol Deng 12.3
#4 LeBron James 13.0
#4 Josh Howard 13.0
#6 Shane Battier 13.4
#7 Bruce Bowen 13.7
#8 Richard Jefferson 14.1
#9 Jorge Garbajosa 14.7
#9 Josh Smith 14.7
#9 Corey Maggette 14.7
#12 Paul Pierce 15.1
#12 Danny Granger 15.1
#12 Ron Artest 15.1
#15 Gerald Wallace 15.7
#16 Rasual Butler 16.0
#17 Rashard Lewis 16.1
#17 Luke Walton 16.1
#19 Mickael Pietrus 16.3
#20 Andre Iguodala 16.5
#20 Ricky Davis 16.5
#22 Boris Diaw 16.6
#23 Rudy Gay 16.8
#24 Carmelo Anthony 17.0
#25 Hidayet Turkoglu 17.1
#26 Caron Butler 17.2
#27 Jason Kapono 17.3
#28 Quentin Richardson 17.4
#29 Ruben Patterson 17.7
#30 Ime Udoka 18.3
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffs wrote:The Lakers' record when Luke and Odom were playing/injured
Luke is _NOT_ a quality starter.
Both playing - 14-6
Odom injured - 13-9
Walton injured, Odom hurt - 6-16
Walton hurt, Odom hurt - 9-9
Based upon that, Walton has a much an impact to the Lakers winning percentage as Odom does, if not more. There is a lot more going on than Odom and Walton's injuries, but the trend is impossible to ignore.
Jeffs - these are stats and as you believe that you can prove anything with stats, there is no point in you discussing them
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffs wrote:Lakers' defensive rebounding with Odom and Walton injured/playing:
I actually watch the games, and I see that Luke is consistently beaten on the defensive end by bigger, faster, and stronger SFs. Even worse, we lose many offensive and defensive rebounds due to the elite athleticism of the players Luke is matched up with - athleticism that he can't ever hope to match.
Both playing: 72.4%
Odom injured: 71.8%
Walton injured, Odom hurt: 72.4%
Both hurt: 72.8%
NBA Average: 72.9%
Odom's DReb per game - 7.7, - , 7.9, 8.6
Walton's DReb per game - 3.2, 3.6, - , 3.9
Odom is clearly the better rebounder of the two. Somehow, with Odom hurt, Walton hurt, and Bynum toast, the Lakers almost averaged the league average for defensive rebounding.
Lakers' offensive rebounding with Odom and Walton injured/playing:
Both playing: 28.5%
Odom injured: 24.7%
Walton injured, Odom hurt: 26.0%
Both hurt: 25.6%
NBA Average: 27.1%
Odom's OReb per game - 1.4, -, 2.5, 1.8
Walton's OReb per game - 1.3, 1.7, -, 1.5
When the Walton and Odom were healthy, the Lakers averaged above the league average for offensive rebounds. Looking at the stats, Brown and Bynum were more important to the Lakers' offensive rebounding than Odom and Walton.
Jeffs - these are stats and as you believe that you can prove anything with stats, there is no point in you discussing them
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jeffs wrote:You said that already. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it more persuasive.
I repeat. Luke Walton is NOT a quality starter.
Jeffs wrote:Let me assist you then. You said, "If you want to spend all of you free time tinkering with facts (which, I should point out, can be manipulated to "prove" whatever you want from what I have seen), then that's fine." You also said "You see, I am of the belief that watching basketball and analyzing what you see is a much stronger argument than twisting numbers around to try and prove whatever your opinion may be."
Also, I don't recall stating that you can prove anything with stats. ON THE CONTRARY, I recall pointing out that numbers are very unreliable, and that I would prefer to focus on observations, as they are still the best way to analyze basketball.
Jeffs wrote:Win/loss record - yeah, that's really obscure.
You can continue to throw all of these obscure numbers at me
Jeffs wrote:Now, which game was it last season "where Howard literally got like 6-7 offensive tip rebounds in the first half"? Which game was it last season where a healthy Walton couldn't cover Carmelo?
If you actually watch the game, you see that Luke Walton is hidden on defense when he is supposed to match up against a strong scoring SF. No amount of stats is going to disprove that. If he was an average or above average defender, then he would be allowed to defend those players. However, unfortunately, he is far below average, and the Lakers are forced to switch Kobe or Odom onto those players. Feel free to post more numbers, but they really mean absolutely nothing when you actually watch what happens.
Jeffs wrote:I enjoy games when I watch them. I might make an observation or two while watching, but I don't trust observations from one game and I can't remember games well enough to make multi-game observations. So, most of my conclusions come from analyzing stats.
You seriously strike me as someone who does not watch basketball, but just reads the box scores and stats on 82games.com. I mean, you absolutely ignore what actually happens, and rely solely on the numbers. IMO, that's an extreme short-sighted approach, and is the reason that all of your "findings" are so far off.
You strike me as someone who takes a couple of anecdotes, exaggerates them and then based upon them makes sweeping judgments that fit your pre-conceived notions. For example, it appears to me you saw Howard in one game get a couple of offensive tip rebounds over Walton, which became "Howard literally got like 6-7 offensive tip rebounds in the first half", which then lead to "Even worse, we lose many offensive and defensive rebounds due to the elite athleticism of the players Luke is matched up with - athleticism that he can't ever hope to match." Then, you watched a game where an injured Walton had to be switched off the second best scorer in the NBA, which became "Kobe and LO are the ones that end up defending most of the elite SFs in the league", which then lead to that Walton "is an awful--no, not an average, but an awful--defender". You also strike me as the type that ignores or downplays any facts that don't fit your opinion. You have your opinion based upon your "objective observations" and nothing is going to change your mind.
I hope I am wrong. I have been waiting for you to cite more verifiable evidence. I have been waiting for you to cite more than a couple of unidentified games. We are on page 6 and I am still waiting.
Walton is a starter on a team that I think, if it can stay healthy, will win at least 50 games. I think Walton has a large positive effect on the team's offense, which more than offsets his below average defense. That means to me he is a quality starter. You have a different opinion. Let's leave it at that. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
posted by Dennis_D @ 12:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home