Heading into the season, there was a hope that Roy Hibbert would be a viable — even if only short term — solution to the Lakers’ problems at the Center position. After losing Ed Davis to FA and allowing the Jordan Hill era to expire, the Lakers’ hole in the pivot needed filling. After an unsuccessful run at LaMarcus Aldridge and Greg Monroe, the Lakers pulled what looked to be a rabbit out of their hat with the trade for former all-star and defensive anchor from the Pacers.
I won’t rehash every detail of what I wrote when the Lakers acquired Hibbert, but suffice to say I liked the move. His history told the story of a big man with real and measurable defensive impact who also had positive qualities the team could use offensively (as well as familiarity with the Princeton Offense). He wasn’t the perfect player, but that’s why he was available for a future protected 2nd round pick.
Now, let’s go on a bit of a tangent. Below are statistical profiles of the four Lakers who have spent time manning the middle – note all counting statics are per/36 minutes:
- Player A: 8.4 points, 6.7 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, 8.1 PER
- Player B: 12.5 points, 14.1 rebounds, .9 blocks, 12.5 PER
- Player C: 12.5 points, 8.4 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, 18.3 PER
- Player D: 9.5 points, 8.3 rebounds, 2.3 blocks, 11.8 PER
None of these players are world beaters, though the PER of player C implies efficient play. All three are low usage guys so that is not a consideration here. Note I did not include any on/off stats since the minutes distribution is highly skewed towards two of the four players, making the sample too small to really come to conclusions about how much impact — positive or negative — those other guys might have if the sample grew.
With that out of the way, can you guess who’s who? Here they are:
- Player A is Robert Sacre
- Player B is Tarik Black
- Player C is Brandon Bass
- Player D is Roy Hibbert
I do not write this to jump on Hibbert’s back or to trash him. Hibbert’s been a good soldier this year, saying the right things, playing hard, blocking some shots, and, by all accounts, being a positive influence on the young players. I have nothing against him, but his numbers on the court imply a player who is not playing well enough to have secure rotation spot.
The other takeaway here is that Tarik Black likely needs more playing time and, if we’re being fair, it should probably come at the expense of Hibbert. Last season Black posted similar numbers — per/36 he had averages of 11.4 points, 11.1 rebounds, and .7 blocks — though with a higher PER (14.7). Black just turned 24 years old in November and is young enough to be part of the “core” Jim Buss and Mitch Kupchak talk about, should he prove to be a viable player in this league.
But he has to play to prove what he is or isn’t. Black has only played 115 minutes this season. Of the four players above, that is the lowest and is over 900 fewer minutes than Hibbert. I understand why Hibbert was given the role he was when the season began. I also understand “veteran status” and all that he’d accomplished before coming to the Lakers. Again, you can read the post I wrote when he was acquired for how I felt about the trade.
Halfway through the season, however, we have a better view of where the team is, how individual players are performing, and can better recognize potential changes in looking towards the rest of the year.
Black has his warts — he is undersized, has limited utility offensively due to his still developing jumper and post game, and can be foul prone. Unlike Hibbert (and Bass), Black still offers mistakes of inexperience, too. Maybe a rotation isn’t sniffed out early enough or he doesn’t quite get the subtleties of position defense with angles and timing. There will be tradeoffs for inserting him in the lineup because of these limitations.
But Black also does have some strengths and knows how to utilize them. He is strong, seems to understand how to use his low center of gravity to generate leverage, possesses good hands, is reasonably athletic, has a great motor, and good feet. He can move well enough to show and recover in the pick and roll and has enough juice in his tank to make those types of rotations and still chase out of area rebounds.
And, maybe most importantly, he is a maturing dive man in the P&R who goes to the front of the rim, hands ready, looking to finish with power at the basket. This trait, more than any other, is useful to this particular Laker team, especially D’Angelo Russell and Jordan Clarkson who use a lot of possessions in the P&R, but do so without a classic roll man. Their development is paramount to the team’s future (especially Russell’s), so pairing them with bigs who complement their skill set in a play they like to run makes sense.
In a lot of ways, I do not envy Byron Scott. As we have discussed all season, this roster was constructed with multiple and at times conflicting goals. The mix of veterans who are used to playing and young players who also need minutes to develop was always going to require a balancing act which is possible to achieve in theory, but much harder to make happen in actual practice.
Inserting Black into the lineup will mean further shifting the pendulum away from a veteran (either Bass or, as I am suggesting, Hibbert) and towards a younger player. But, with the trajectory of the Lakers’ season what it is, I really do not think this should be contemplated much more. Black needs to play and it’s about time he gets his chance.
Robert says
Darius: “I do not envy Byron Scott” I have said similar many times this year, while others were blaming Byron for everything. I do not think the roster or objectives were set up for any coach to be successful.
Darius Soriano says
Robert,
There’s all kinds of things wrong with this team. Byron is certainly part of that equation and contributes to the things that are wrong. But, again, he’s not alone. Anyone who says otherwise…well, I’m not buying that.
Craig W. says
Black seemed to appear out of nowhere to play in the last game. Perhaps this is evidence that Bryon has made another of his shifts to a different combination of players – we can all hope.
IMO, Black has been a non-complaining soldier this year, when he could have verbally asked why – after his performance last year – he didn’t get at least some run this year, to see if he could repeat or improve upon what he did last season. He stayed quiet and now he deserves a chance to see if he can help lift the team out of their draft pick this year. Oops! Ruffled a few feathers there.
Anonymous says
The greatest mistakes all Buss-led FOs have made have been in the coaching hire department. Riley was a poor decision that we were all lucky turned out perfect. All other subsequent hires, with the exception of Phil Jackson, were bad decisions that have not worked out, particularly when considering the state of the rosters and where the team was realistically heading at the time of each coaching hire. That’s not a Jim Buss issue. Its an issue that goes back to the time Dr Buss and the Logo were running the team and continues now that Jim and Mitch are running the team. This is a problem that needs to be addressed the moment Byron Scott is let go at the end of the season (and he will be let go not withstanding Robert’s protestations to the contrary).
Given where the team is today and where we will be at the end of the season (i.e. rebuilding mode), which coaches do you all think the team should go for? I personally would like to see Madsen and maybe Luke (if he is willing to leave GS) get a shot at this team, based on the assumption that as recently-retired players they are more likely to connect with our young core. I dont think a “seasoned” or “hard ass” coach is the answer on a team that will not have a solid veteran core. Then again, I’m not sure. Any thoughts on the matter?
Mid-Wilshire says
Darius,
An excellent analysis. And an important topic.
The statistic that struck me the most was the rebounds per 36 minutes for the 4 players: 6.7 rebounds for Sacre, 8.3 for Hibbert, 8.4 for Bass, and 14.1 for Black. As a result, I looked at the basketball-reference.com site and did the following research. The Lakers rebounding stats through the first 41 games of the year are extremely telling, both in terms of the numbers of rebounds gathered and allowed:
LAKERS’ REBOUNDS
ORB — 10.9 per game (7th in league)
DRB — 32.4 per game (10th in league)
TOT RB — 43.2 per game (8th in league)
OPPONENTS’ REBOUNDS
ORB — 11.8 allowed (29th in league)
DRB — 35.7 allowed (30th in league)
TRB — 47.4 allowed (30th in league)
DIFFERENTIAL — minus 4.2 rebounds per game
By contrast, Utah, a very mediocre team with a 17-22 record (which places them 8th, right in the middle of the Western Conference standings), averages 42 rpg while allowing only 40.7 rpg, a differential of plus 1.3.
Moral of the story: rebounds matter.
I think it is interesting that the team with the worst record in the conference has the worst rebounding in terms of rebounds allowed and rebounding differential.
Obviously, then, if rebounding is a major issue for this team (and it is), then the solution is to play the center who is the strongest rebounder.
Playing Tarik Black not only makes sense analytically. Playing Tarik also validates the eye test. Anyone who saw Tarik Black last night against Golden State, a difficult opponent to say the least, could not have helped but have been impressed with his activity, his energy, and his forceful, determined attitude toward gathering every possible rebound, something that the Lakers fans have not seen this season.
In short, the Lakers need Tarik Black. He should be playing as many minutes as possible. Any other decision, based on the Lakers’ current needs, would be indefensible.
stats says
Darius – Thanks. Really enjoyed this post. Have to say that I like what I saw from Black last night, but I am biased because I liked him last year, too. I also have to say that I think Bass has been given a tough hand. He’s been playing out of position but has worked hard and (at least to the eye test) has improved as the season progresses. I confess I like the guy.
Both your stats and the eye test tell me the same things about Hibbert: a good dude, but no longer a top flight player.
Vasheed says
As I understand Upshaw has been showing progress in the D-Leaugue. Maybe time to bring him back?
I really did like how he worked the pick and roll with Russell in summer league. This has been a weakness for Lakers bigs. Upshaw would set solid picks and then follow by making himself a target.
Upshaw’s biggest flaw has been drawing fouls but they are mostly silly fouls reaching out at PG’s or running into people. Correctable mistakes. If Hibbert doesn’t look like part of the future rotation then it is time to see if Upshaw can make progress on his game.
Sacre is Sacre, and Black while I like how he plays is another PF masquerading at Center. He isn’t really meant to man Center 247. I’m actually surprised Bass has such a high PER. Not sure what to make of that.
TempleOfJamesWorthy says
I thought the Roy Hibbert pickup was a good one with very little downside, but I’ve been surprised that he hasn’t played better for the Lakers.
It’s difficult to say exactly why.
Some of it may be age/eroding athleticism.
Some of it may be that the league as a whole has moved to spread offenses with limit Hibbert’s defensive effectiveness.
Some of it may be that Indiana had strong defenders on the perimeter (Paul George, Lance Stephenson, et al.), which enabled Hibbert to cover fewer defensive lapses and fewer driving angles, increasing his effectiveness compared to his play behind the Lakers’ perimter defensive turnstiles. Some players need ***exactly*** the right kind of teammates/system to succeed; maybe Hibbert is one of those palyers.
I agree that, unless the Lakers are trying to “showcase” Hibbert in the hopes that another team will trade for him, his minutes should be reduced in favor of developing other centers who are more likely to be with the team in the upcoming years (e.g. Tarik Black).
It’s a bit of a shame. Hibbert seems to be a good teammate, a hard-working professional, and a decent fellow in general. But his production just doesn’t live up to his reputation and contract.
Warren Wee Lim says
Several weeks ago, I had intimated on another site what the Lakers’ biggest positional needs are: Center and Small Forward. Our a team has a retiring superstar at SF and we have Hibbert at the other (CE). That said, the Lakers’ ability to improve at these important positions might have to be addressed in FA rather than within.
Running lineups always require some degree of politics. Because Hibbert is paid 17M he is our defacto starting center, even though nothing in his play warrants him being such. Even without looking at the PER numbers, Brandon Bass has passed the eye test as the best center in the team. Even though you would say he’s been touted as a power forward all his career, Eric Pincus of LA Times argues he was signed to be our team’s backup C, and he has been that since pre-season.
Tarik Black’s PER is quite deceiving. Some players are very efficient with limited minutes but plateau at a certain point when given more. This is what I call the Jordan Hill and Brandan Wright theory. Those players were above 20’s in PER during limited minutes but reduce to average when asked to play more time. That’s not to say Black is one of them, I definitely like his high motor and knack for rebounding, but he is a limited player himself. But I agree that he has to be given playing time to prove what he is, or he’s not.
Dreaming about developing our youngsters and improving through free agency, while not the sexiest of propositions, we should give a long, hard, look at some frenchmen in the FA pool this coming summer. That’s if the assumption that Durant isn’t coming to LA is right.
2016/17 season is when we start fielding a team that can fight for a playoff spot. Au revoir.
Craig W. says
Nice to see you again Warren. You and TOJW make some good points.
IMO, Black will never be a starting center, or play much more than 20 minutes on a good team. However, he is quite good for a small, running lineup – something that most teams today need to have in their repertoire.
I suspect we will see less of Hibbert if he isn’t gone by the trade deadline. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Upshaw is signed around that time. We all have to remember putting the club together is a jigsaw puzzle, not a series of simple moves or signings. Timing and progressive fit matter more than simple dollars and cents.
Robert says
Ano: “withstanding Robert’s protestations to the contrary” I need to be more “redundant”, because I have said numerous times that it is time for Scott to go. In fact – I would prefer him to be gone now (only for a permanent coach) so that the “honeymoon period” will be over and Jim will not be able to attempt to lobby for more time. Firing Byron for an interim makes no sense. As to the history of Laker coaches during the entire Buss reign, I do not agree with you. At the start of the Magic Johnson era, we had Jack McKinney. Due to injury, Paul Westhead replaced him and coached for 2 years and brought us a title in 1980. Westhead (.689) falling out with Magic and was replaced by Riley who won 4 titles in 7 trips to the Finals in 9 years. Why was this a bad decision? Riley (.733) is one of the greatest of all time. Then came Mike Dunleavy (.616) who coached for 2 years and had 1 trip to the Finals only to lose to the Bulls, largely due to the James Worthy injury. So that covers the first 13 years of the Jerry Buss reign. In summary, 5 titles, 9 trips to the Finals and no coach who had worse than a .616 winning percentage. I would say that is pretty good. Now in 1992, the Lakers named Randy Pfund (.452) coach, which was a less than stellar selection. This however was in the post Magic era and talent was low. I will also point out in spite of this being the most chaotic period in Laker history, Pfund’s .452 winning rate exceeds the Mike D’Antoni rate. Of course, then Magic Johnson followed and this was also a mistake, but also one that was quickly corrected (16 games). So between Pfund and Magic we had 2 bad years in the post Magic playing period. Then comes Del Harris (my least fav of all time), who experienced a .659 winning rate over his tenure. We all know that Del was then replaced by the greatest coach in NBA history, who won 5 titles in 7 trips to the Finals. So that is 10 titles and 16 trips to the Finals in the 32 years that Jerry Buss was in charge. Critics in the coaching areas like to cite Magic, Rambis, and Rudy. Combined, the 3 did not coach 100 games for us, so they are a blip. D’Antoni (.435) and Scott (.243) have the worst results in Laker history for any Laker who coached more than 50 games. Not all their fault, but the results are what they are. This is not a down period “like we have had before”. For 62 years, we won 16 championships in 31 Trips to the Finals (we made the Finals every other year and won it every 4th year). During that time we missed the playoffs 5 times and were never out the Finals for more than 8 years. Some cite the West/Baylor period or the 90’s as “down periods”. Please check the record books to see what we did during those periods and you will clearly see that this period is by far – the worst. Three straight playoff misses for a team that missed it 5 times in the previous 65 years is not a “down period” – it is a complete catastrophe. I stated that we were in danger of breaking all of these records 3 years ago, and many said I was too pessimistic and that the team “would surprise people”. Now the same people are saying that this is going to take years and we need to be patient. They are correct on both counts. It will take years and I am being patient, waiting for the summer of 2017, which is the “start” of the re-build.
Anonymous says
When I look at Hibbert, I think of Larry Bird and smile.
Larry’s the guy that publicly denigrated Hibbert, and said the team wanted to move in a different direction. Bird gave us all the information we needed, and we still took a $17 mil bite.
Bird’s acumen as a player was unrivaled, and for those of you that didn’t know, I believe he’s the only NBA player to ever win MVP, then go on to win coach of the year, then executive of the year.
Undoubtedly Hibbert is a good locker room guy and he’s an unselfish player. So he’s no cancer and he’s not the reason we are in the cellar. As stated here by others, he’s just a nice, tall, slow-footed throwback to an era when the game was played below the rim.
Fulofunk says
Thanks for the post Darius. I’m not sure Tarik is a starter and he must have done something/or not done something, as BS has eluded to, that caused him to disappear from not only the bench, but the building for much of the first half of the season. I got nowhere when I tried to look into it. Needless to say I’ve been a Tarik believer since we got him last year. I should say I’m a HOPEFUL believer. I know he is undersized, I know he makes ( rookie) mistakes, but I like his attitude on and off the court from day 1 with the Lakers. I don’t know, there’s something about the guy when he first arrived last year that made me hopeful, same with LNjr when we drafted him. Couldn’t understand why Tarik got zero playing time for so long, but am very hopeful, especially after Thurs’ game, that Tarik gets more playing time, at least a better chance during this second half to catch a glimpse of what he can do night in night out. Haven’t checked matchups for the second half, but very clear that Hibbert is relied on for anyone approaching 7 feet, for better or worse.
I must say, it was great to see all the young ones on the floor at the same time for brief periods on Thurs. THAT was exciting.
Thanks btw for those who weighed in on our LAL history a few posts ago. I for one greatly appreciate the comparisons and insights from the LAL fan vets as we head in to what may or may not be a few years of playoff wilderness while we develop a promising young core of competitors. I can take losing for a few years at the expense of watching the next Laker era develop…..the playoff wilderness might be bearable, for a few years….but I cannot see the Lakers being a mediocre team for very long at all. I really don’t think the League would be healthy without a good Laker team….maybe I’m living in a different era, maybe I’m naive to the way the NBA has changed and will be in the future, maybe I’m just a blind, loyal, ever hopeful Laker faithful . All that to say, I haven’t missed a single game in a few years and I don’t plan on break in’ my streak anytime soon. Regardless of our record, If our guys compete, I’m in all the way.
Anonymous says
2016/17 season is when we start fielding a team that can fight for a playoff spot.
—
Likely not until 2017/18 and only if the Lakers are able to sign an elite that summer. We have four rotation players to build on — we need a lot more talent. This summer looks thin on the free agent, draft (do we keep the pick?) and trade fronts. The kids will be better next year but not 8th seed better.
Anonymous says
I want to sign Meyers Leonard this summer. He’s a c/pf with 3 pt range and rebounds well. He’s restricted but Portland has been using him solely as a pf and that’s a crowded position for them. They may see him as expendable.
He plays a position of need: center. He’s on the same timeline as our kids – at 23/24 yrs old. He rebounds and plays defense — which is helpful. And, he shoots a high percentage from inside and out.
What’s not to like?
rr says
Leonard: His 3p% has cratered this year, going from 42% to 34%. Most likely he would settle somewhere in the middle. He is OK, and would make some sense with Randle, at least on O. If the Lakers are going to commit to Randle, they do need a floor-spacing big to play with him. But Leonard is probably not good enough to be an effective starter.
Dunleavy: I think the Lakers lost the 1991 Finals mostly because of the who the Bulls had at shooting guard (and small forward and coach).
History: I posted in the other thread, pointing out as is done above, that yes, in fact, this period is unprecedented in Lakers history. The Clippers, meanwhile, are on a long winning streak and Paul is playing brilliantly. It is very unlikely that they get past GS/OKC/SA of course, but even so, the droning beat of the veto goes on.
Batum/DeRozan/FAs: Since presumably Durant will not come here, and Horford will probably stay in Atlanta, I see people already speculating about DeRozan and Batum. Nothing wrong with that, but both of those guys will have many offers and will cost a lot of money. As Pelton said a couple of months ago, the Lakers will need to be patient in FA and avoid spending money on guys just to spend money, like Joe Dumars did a few years ago when he gave huge deals to Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva. Dumars ended up losing his job, and Detroit is only pulling out of the tailspin now. At the same time, with the new cap and the NBA FA market being non-linear sometimes, there will be contracts given out this coming summer that look very large—but may not be bad deals.
Hibbert: I would agree that Indiana is a pretty astute organization, and I said at the time that they probably wanted Hibbert out for good reasons. I am still OK with it, though, because it is an expiring deal.
Coaches: If the Lakers go with a guy who has already coached in the NBA, Scott Brooks would seem to be a possible choice. Brooks took a lot of flack from the sabermetric media for his tactics on O, but he has shown that he can work with young guys, he has been to the Finals, and he is a SoCal guy. If the OKC FA had simply kept James Harden and/or Durant and Westbrook had been healthier, Brooks’ resume might look a lot different. Finally, if the Lakers’ FO is dreaming of getting Durant and/or Westbrook to come here, the obvious guys to recruit them are Brooks and Kobe. Both Durant and Westbrook have spoken of Kobe in reverential terms.
I am not saying that I necessarily want Brooks—just that I could see the FO wanting him. In any case, while I think Byron has been blamed more than he should be, I absolutely do not think that he should be brought back. I think the FO should offer him a buyout and a sinecure, and then try someone else.
KevTheBold says
@Folofunk, I’m with you, and why not?
If we choose: To gloss over the base reasons we fell out of contention, Dismiss or downgrade the potential of our kids, And generally say ‘to hell’ with being thankful for the great unprecedented runs of success we have enjoyed, then the world looks dark and dreary.
I for one choose a different perspective. After all, you, nor I have any control over the outcome. We can only control our outlook, which when applied to true life, shapes our health and relationships.
bmcburney says
1. Meyers Lenard is not going anywhere. No way Portland lets that happen.
2. Hassan Whiteside will be an unrestricted free agent and Miami does not have full Bird rights. In today’s NBA you probably need both a big center and a small one.
3.The NBA is different now than it was from the 1980s to 2010. The salary cap was intended to make it difficult for teams like the Lakers to duplicate their prior success.
Anonymous says
bmc–
1) agree on Leonard. He’s having a bit of a down year but he’s a valuable piece.
2) Whiteside has plateaued. Not worth the money. See rr’s comments on the Dumars’ Pistons.
Warren Wee Lim says
The Lakers can assess the team in a way where we could play either FA, draft (no choice) and the trade market. That’s the beauty of the flexibility that Mitch has set us up with, by not committing to mid-tier-above-average guys that increase our winning % but not our odds of making the playoffs. You can argue Lou Williams is one of them, but at 7M per year for 3 years, that’s an awesome deal.
The relevance of such outlook is the involvement of us taking Roy Hibbert when we realized we couldn’t land DJ or LMA. We were certain of our needs that we had a real plan. By taking Hibbert, we prevented ourselves from signing the likes of Robin Lopez. The problem with chasing big names also is we’re missing out on signing deals like that of Ed Davis.
With cap space soaring next season, then skyrocketing the next, the Lakers must decide on several roster matters for them to have a clear plan. Plan A will always be Durant. No question. Plan B, according to Pincus’ opinion is Derozan and Whiteside, with us matching a non-Bird max of Clarkson. Plan C, involves something in between Joakim Noah, Nicolas Batum, Ian Mahinmi and quite possibly Evan Fournier (Lets call them my frenchmen). This is, of course, assuming no trades are done in between now till the deadline.
Filipino pride and all, my plan is to trade Clarkson for a legitimate center on a team in disarray. Cannot be more specific but such a move can include Nick Young and (I hope not) Julius Randle. By doing such, we exchange the future salary of these 3 for a legitimate center (Dunno if you want to gravitate away from that) and a legitimate scoring option and big-named player. Beside Russell and our top 3 pick, we have our trio. By doing such, we increase the odds of having KD join us. If not, signing Derozan to a max deal will seem like the greatest idea ever.
Warren Wee Lim says
Oh and glad to see you’re still here Craig. Old times.
Bmcburney says
Anno.
Whiteside is a beast. A double double machine with three to four blocks a game thrown in for good measure. Some plateau. Miami is desperately trying to convince the world he isn’t all that much in an effort to bring his price down to something they might be able to pay. That won’t fool anybody.
Jim C. says
I’d feel a lot more sympathy for Byron Scott if the fanbase hadn’t been screaming for Black to get minutes at the Center position for months now.
But just like it took months for Anthony Brown to get a look, it took months for Black to even get a sniff of playing time. When Robert Sacre and Brandon Bass get looks and time at the backup center spot before Black you know you have an utterly clueless coach. Ditto watching Nick Young/MWP getting backup SF minutes all season long until finally Anthony Brown was given a shot
Yes, the FO constructed a roster with conflicting goals and some questionable fits, but if normal fans can see something months before your head coach then you lose a lot of sympathy. And repeatedly, the fanbase had screamed their heads off for certain moves to be made way earlier that eventually did get made months later.
Unfortunately it all boils down to Scott’s pathological issue: he just does not trust young players and will ALWAYS play veterans over them unless he has absolutely no choice whatsoever. Brown and Black finally getting minutes isn’t some revelation on his part that playing guys that might have a future on the team during a 9-33 year is a smart move. It was literally the last option available and he had his hand forced, in part due to absolutely catastrophically bad play from the options ahead of them and in part because of injuries.
Just like last year when Jordan Clarkson didn’t sniff the court until injuries forced Scott’s hand.
rr says
Yes, the FO constructed a roster with conflicting goals and some questionable fits, but if normal fans can see something months before your head coach then you lose a lot of sympathy.
—
I look at it the other way: given the length and breadth of Byron’s track record, his time on TV with the team, the multiple interviews, and Jim and Mitch’s preseason comments about the team’s prospects, I don’t have much sympathy for the FO.
I think people who go off on Byron while giving the FO a lot of rope are doing it partly as a way to keep their hopes up (not saying Jim C is doing that here per se). If Byron is so terrible that he is holding everything up and hurting the team in basically almost every way that a coach can, then that makes it easier to hope for better times ahead, since the alternatives are the team goes nowhere until the FO guys are replaced and that the Lakers’ young guys are just guys.
Jim C. says
If Byron is so terrible that he is holding everything up and hurting the team in basically almost every way that a coach can, then that makes it easier to hope for better times ahead, since the alternatives are the team goes nowhere until the FO guys are replaced and that the Lakers’ young guys are just guys.
—
I don’t think it’s necessarily mutually exclusive thoughts here. Byron Scott could definitely be holding young guys back by mismanaging their minutes, the lineups, hurting their confidence with poor communication, etc. AND they could be not quite as good as the fanbase hopes they turn out.
Similarly, it isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive that the front office has problems and isn’t as good as we might like AND that Byron Scott is just as terrible of a coach as we think. He isn’t being kept on because of some stealth tanking effort and preseason comments weren’t just to sell tickets to a fanbase not wanting to watch another lousy season, etc. but also because the front office really does think he’s an “innocent bystander”.
For me, I am basing some of my opinions on eyeball test. In other words, from watching the team and seeing the young players and what they are doing well, where they are struggling, etc. They don’t look like just guys to me. They look like VERY young players with great potential.
If Kobe was KOBE…the version we saw with the last healthy season where he was a top-10 player, and Hibbert was the same guy we had previously seen, then I don’t think it would have been unrealistic to think the Lakers could have competed for a playoff spot with the present roster.
I don’t think most people expected either of those two players to have fallen as far as they have as fast as they have. Both look like complete shells of their former selves.
rr says
Never said any of those things were mutually exclusive. But it comes back to the same thing: it was pretty clear who Byron is as a coach before they hired him. Maybe they expected him to change; maybe he told them he would. Don’t know. But there are specific reasons that people were down on Byron before he ever coached a game here. The FO hired him anyway.
Kobe and Hibbert: if the FO actually thought that Kobe would do significantly better than he has, I am not sure what to say to that. The odds were heavily against him from the day he blew out the Achilles. Hibbert…maybe. But the guys running Indiana are pretty smart, and they wanted him gone. His contract has tactical value.
Young guys: Randle is quick and strong, but as Pelton/Ford detailed, he has trouble finishing, doesn’t have a mid-range game, and does not appear to be fluid enough to guard 3s or tall enough to guard 4s. He is a 21-year-old (essentially) rookie with only one year of college ball, so there is time. But guys like Millsap and Faried were better than Randle when they were rookies (Faried was 22 as a rookie). Maybe JR will look a lot different next year. Nance, Brown, Black and Clarkson are all 23 or 24, and probably have some incremental growth ahead of them. But Clarkson is actually doing a little worse this year. Some of that is probably Byron, some of it is probably the roster, some of it may be the league adjusting to him, but some of it is probably that JC is just not that good.
Russell turns 20 next month, and I still think he has a high ceiling.
matt says
Tarik black looked good at first then sort of faded back, maybe it’s inexperience, but he was outmatched, hibbert is a notch better at this time and maybe that is due to more experience, whatever the case the lakers are weak at center, and have inexperienced power forwards, brandon bass has to be the best player here but he’s also mismatched most of the time, i would agree with the coach being put in a hard place to figure out what works, but when tarik black plays it looks like the d league out there, we are losing most games though so what does it matter, maybe only play him in matchups he can handle, not against a 7 foot guy, it seems like 2 pf/c players at the same time works well in certain circumstances, so maybe develop, black and randle as a small ball front court. Who cares about hibbert, he should only play when the matchup insists on it, against another 7 footer.