While most informed analysis has moved beyond “count the rings” as a measurement of what constitutes success, saying we, as observers/fans/analysts, are beyond the line of thinking where results outweigh process would be incorrect. This, in many ways, is completely understandable. If the ultimate goal is to win, those who win should be lauded — no matter how they got there.
Picking apart the process of how a team wins can be a worthwhile endeavor. But, let’s face it, if you’re winning at the highest level the odds are that success is predicated on a well supported process. Talent can overcome bad process in limited samples, but over the long haul talent which is misguided will not succeed. Just as talent reinforced by proper guidance will, more times than not, see results approaching/at their most optimal.
That may not be enough to win at the highest level, but winning is hard. It takes some luck, especially when you consider lots of teams are really talented. Even with all of them achieving their maximum results, some are still going to fall short. There is only one team standing at the end.
This brings me to this year’s Lakers. This group, as a whole, is not super talented. They are also not achieving results anyone will recall fondly at any point in the future. They are a footnote in any discussion about success in today’s NBA because they have barely experienced any.
But success is relative. This team may not be competing for a championship (or even a playoff berth), but they are trying to find their way towards that type of success. And it starts with talent. These Lakers — these young Lakers — have some of that. More than some, I would argue.
In D’Angelo Russell and Julius Randle, you have highly touted lottery picks. In Larry Nance Jr. you have a late bloomer with NBA bloodlines. And in Jordan Clarkson, you have a bundle of raw ability which did not manifest itself fully in college, but is starting to show now through continued refinement and experience.
That last point, on the timing of their talent emerging, has become a point of contention of late. Everyone is happy the young players — especially Russell — are showing real strides, but with that comes the underlying wave of criticism Byron Scott has faced all season about whether his tactics and approach have stunted or delayed the emergence of what we are seeing now.
There is an argument to be made, Scott — with his hard-riding, media-“man-upping”, and antiquated offense — could have been getting these types of results from this young group earlier. That if his communication style and schematic approaches were different from the outset, this group would be farther ahead than they are now and showing an even more advanced grasp of what it takes to succeed in this league.
The truth is we have no way of knowing if another way would have worked, though I am of the mind it would have. The reason I say that is, because, for the most part, talent prevails. Especially when accompanied with hard work. The Lakers young players have both which aids in their progression. This is why, regardless of how any of us view Scott’s tactics in this short term, the Lakers’ core is likely to be fine over the long haul.
This leaves perceptions of Scott in a gray area. How any of us view his impact on the players to this point is likely to say more about how we view him through our own critical lens than anything else. As noted above, I think Scott could have handled things differently and, in the process, done himself more favors to positively affect his perception. This doesn’t mean, however, his approach didn’t have some positive influence. Measuring that, though, is difficult. Just as it would be if discussing what type of negative, if any, influence it may have. This won’t stop us from having opinions, but it’s always a good thing to remember.
It is also good to remember that player development is not always linear. Players start fast and regress or slow and improve; they show strides within a game or a stretch of games then fall back on poor habits; they have ups and downs, looking for a footing they can establish to springboard into the players they want to become. This is especially true for young players.
This brings me back to the talent these players possess and the process in which they are being exposed to. Since the All-Star break, these kids are playing much better. In that period, Scott has changed the offense, been less acerbic in his public comments about the young players, and, in general, put the young players’ development on the front burner.
Yes, I wish this would have happened sooner. And, no, I do not think just because it is happening now, and the results have improved, that this validates the previous approach. I also do not know if Scott’s job is in danger or, if it is, to what extent and whether improved recent play helps him. What I do know is that in the hopes of cultivating talent and battle of process vs. results the Lakers are on better footing now then they were before. That deserves acknowledgement, even if it only leads to more questions or critique.
R says
Additionally I wonder if the Lakers ownership is maximizing what talent they do have and may have in the future thru analytics, training, scouting here and internationally, coaching and management at all levels. You know, stuff that’s not restricted by a salary cap, but areas the Lakers are, by all accounts, financially able to optimize.
Dr Mike says
The kids have little track record in the NBA so it’s harder to gauge their true abilities and obtainable ceilings. We’ve seen enough of Byron over the years to know what his true ability and ceiling as a coach are. In any case, I would argue that these 3 years are part of normal up and down cycle that all professional teams go through. Lakers made some bad decisions but they also made some good decisions during that time. I personally don’t mind the awful record so much as the ugly selfish unwatchable basketball that was on display most of the year. The key is this offseason. We must bring in a veteran all-star level player and a new coach who can get the maximum from the core that we have.
Mid-Wilshire says
This is an important topic. Even Kobe spoke recently about “trusting the process.”
This is also a difficult matter for fans to deal with…especially Lakers fans who are so used to having results virtually assured for them. But these are different times. And the Lakers are now going through the process of re-building that other teams have had to endure in recent years.
But “the process” can work if it’s managed well. Let’s take a look at Oklahoma City, for example. Below are Kevin Durant’s and Russell Westbrook’s stats from their rookie seasons and, by contrast, the current season:
KEVIN DURANT
2007-08
20.3 ppg, 43% shooting, 28.8% from 3 point range, 4.4 rebounds
2015-16
28.1 ppg, 50.7% shooting, 39.6% from three, 8.4 rebounds
RUSSELL WESTBROOK
2008-09
15.3 ppg, 39.8% shooting, 27.1% from three, 4.9 rebounds, 5.3 assists
2015-16
24.1 ppg, 46% shooting, 29.4 from three, 7.6 rebounds, 10.5 assists
Now, if we look at the team’s records, we see the following trajectory:
2007-08 — 20-62, .244
2008-09 — 23-59, .280
2009-10 — 50-32, .610
2015-16 — 44-20, .688
Several conclusions can be drawn from this.
1) Development takes time;
2) Growth (as Darius notes) is never linear; notice OKC’s dramatic improvement from 2008-09 to 2009-10; no one could have predicted that;
3) Development is a matter, no doubt, of players learning to play together, not simply players getting better individually; and again, learning to play together takes time.
So…the bottom line is this: as fans we should be in it for the long term. It’s like investing in stocks. It takes a while to build a nest egg. There are certain things that you just can’t rush.
It’s dangerous to predict the future, but next year the Lakers might only win, say, 24 games. But the year after that, that number (for all we know) could balloon to 45. And the year after that they could have 50 wins, or more.
The only thing to do is to trust the process and continue to build the team. It will take a while, but with a little bit of luck the Lakers could hopefully be a contender again in 3-4 years. It could happen. But it won’t happen over night.
Time will tell. It’s all a process.
LT Mitchell says
When the Lakers got Dwight and Nash (two elite pick and roll players) what did the Lakers do? They decided to take away the pick and roll by implementing the Princeton offense. Huh? It was no coincidence that the team starting winning immediately after the offense was abandoned.
It was clear that Nash was a shell of his former self on the Lakers, but the Lakers still had three elite post players in Kobe, Gasol and Dwight….. so what did the Lakers do? They decided to hire a coach who despised the post, wanted to play Pau beyond the 3 point line, and thought it was a good idea to run and gun with this slow aging group of vets. Huh? Huh?
When the Lakers drafted Russell with the highest pick in decades, what did they do? The same thing they’ve been doing since Jim took over…. they put in an offense that did not come close to maximizing the players strengths. They also thought it was a good idea to play Russell off the ball. Huh? Huh? Huh?
Again, it is no coincidence that this team started playing better as soon as the Princeton was ditched to an offense that better fit the personnel.
“Any average guy at a bar” can tell you that going after players like CP3 and Dwight were good ideas. You don’t need a Jerry West to tell you that getting an elite superstar is a sound strategy….. but it takes a person who understands basketball at a deeper level to come up with a strategy that maximizes the strengths of the roster, and to sign role players who fit with that strategy. This is a staple of smart organizations. This front office has failed miserably in this regard….when they had talent and when they didn’t.
Even if the Lakers somehow won the lotto by signing Durant, does anyone still believe that Jim Buss has the basketball IQ to maximize Durant and the rest of the team’s strengths?
Felix Garcia says
Goodlord, Amen to this bro!
Dr Mike says
I’ve read accounts (in other places I won’t link) that Jim and Mitch wanted Phil instead of MDA but were overruled by the elder Buss who did not want Phil anywhere near the organization when after he passed. I’ve also read accounts that Mitch wanted Rick Adelman over BS but was overruled. If these accounts are believable then there is at least an internal struggle within the org on who to hire as the HC. There was published article couple of weeks ago that stated that there is internal struggle now as to whether to bring BS back next year. At the very least, I think there are weird dynamics (Phil engaged to Jeannie, Phil publically feuding with Jerry West and Kobe, Kobe feuding with MDA at the end, etc.) at work that has hampered Lakers optics when it comes to hiring coaches. Once Kobe retires and Phil commits to NY for at least one more year, I think the Lakers FO should do a much better job on the next coaching hire.
lil pau says
LT M, you should include in your criticism that DH refused to play PnR because he didn’t think it was macho enough and he saw himself as a back to the basket center in the vain of Shaq, even thought the eye test doesn’t agree and his PnR numbers, when he deigned to play that way, were insane.
if you want to criticize MDA on this particular issue, it should be based imo on MDA’s failure to get/force DH to buy in, but the two Houston coaches this year, or Van Gundy in Orl, didn’t fair much better. Obviously the plan was to play Nash/Howard PNR with Kobe and Meeks as spot up shooters. After the bad luck of the Nash injury, I hold DH as most to blame for the fact this rarely happened, certainly more so than the FO (although they have plenty to answer for on other issues).
R says
DH has had issues with all three franchises he’s played for, which make me wonder – no actually conclude – that he is, in fact, the problem.
Baylor Fan says
LT – you beat me to it. The pre-draft scouting report on Russell was he was the best PG in the draft and would kill running the pick and roll. Commander Scott was brilliant in taking away all of the things that made Russell attractive over Okafor to the Lakers. If Williams was not injured and Kobe reduced to 24 min, would Russell still have had the breakout game against the Warriors? The rest of the season will be interesting now that we have a sampling of what the younger players can do.
Thanks Darius for posting this. It is a hot topic for debate.
KevTheBold says
LT & Balor, great posts !
It was obvious to me that Scott had Russell shackled and caged in a box of an offense, and it gave all the Okafor, Mudiay, and even Portzingas fans all the ammunition they needed to bash the pick.
I would surmise that Russell would be notably further along in his development otherwise, and the league would have given him his due respect.
Watching how Scott managed Russell, I wondered if he were hiding him from attention, saving him, or possibly protecting him?
LT Mitchell says
I’m not criticizing MDA. I’m criticizing the front office for hiring him.
I am no Dwight fan, but let’s be honest. He went to the finals with Orlando and the WCF last season with Houston. Not too shabby. He may have had issues with all 3 franchises, but the Lakers are the only franchise of the three that he failed to win with.
Arthur says
Didn’t realize Dwight won some rings. Then again Dwight DID say he is a champion. so nvm
Baylor Fan says
Maybe the Zombie Sonics and Durant are not the best comparison. The franchise was actively tanking after they drafted Durant so they could be moved to OKC. They replaced the very popular Nate McMillan with the reviled PJ Carlemiso. They traded Ray Allen to the Celtics followed by Rashard Lewis to the Magic. Carlemiso was fired early in the first season in Oklahoma and the following season they started winning. If you think that Russell – Randle – Clarkson = Durant – Westbrook – Harden and Scott = Carlemiso and the Lakers were really trying to lose this season, then yeah the comparison works. I think it is more likely that a positive coaching style aimed at developing the players and working on their strengths as well as weaknesses would have resulted in more wins this season.
BigCitySid says
– Your points are well taken, and may actually be more creditable if there was no Kobe factor to consider. And althought I’m not surprised you didn’t add him into the equation, I am disappointed you didn’t. To act as if his ball dominant presence and the ownerships decision and edict to make 2015 – 2016 “All About Kobe” is just unrealistic.
– I know many will focus on the messenger instead of the message of this point, but so be it. It appears to me ownership is taking the young player’s careers for granted, figuring they’ll get their chance “next year”.
– I truly understand honoring a legend. And I believe it could have been done while developing the kids from the very beginning. Kob’s not the 1st legend to retire, and he won’t be the last. Examples exist on how it could have been done in a much better way. And that’s why I feel our ownership group is way below par.
Mid-Wilshire says
Baylor Fan,
You offer some good points. However, I was not attempting to draw a strict comparison between the Lakers and OKC. I was just reminding others that the process of developing a team takes time and is anything but a linear trajectory.
Therefore, the moral of the story is: be patient. These things really do take time. (Not everyone gets it.) The development of the Sonics/Thunder took several years. It took several years in Golden State to build the Warriors into a juggernaut. (They were horrible, too.)
It will take a while for the Lakers, too. It’s all a process. We should focus on that (for the time being), not on our won-loss record. In 2-3 years that will all change. But for the time being, the key issue is: how are the kids developing?
Forget wins and losses. Let’s just focus on the process.
Robert says
lil pau: MD had a track record with Laker big men so it was not just Dwight. DH, Pau, and Kaman were all miserable under MD. Throw Antawn in there as a kicker. All were Miserable.
Process vs Results: A small amount of results is not very conclusive. Large amounts are. For example, if you are a dominant franchise for 62 years – I would say those results pretty much confirm that it was more than just luck. Ditto on the other side of the coin. If you start breaking multi-year records for futility – it shows bad process. We have missed the playoffs for 3 straight years (first time in 68 years), we have not been in the Finals for 6 years and counting (many laughed 3 years ago when I predicted we would break our all time record of 8 years). Moving over to coach, when I wanted Byron it was as a caretaker. He had a very long track record, and designing innovative offenses and being a nice guy to his players was not on the resume. Looking to the future: Do we want to ride out another year with Byron, or should we see what our coaching hiring “process” comes up with. You know the same process that selected Mike Brown, called Phil at midnight, and interviewed Byron 4 times in a war of attrition. Do we have confidence in this “process”? What type of “Results” has it yielded?
KevTheBold says
Agree totally Mid, it’s like raising crops.
Sid has valid points as well; without a plan from the very beginning as to proper priority of the future, we lost some valuable time.
bluehill says
I agree about being patient with the process. This group will be a lot fun because they can play uptempo and as we live through their ups and downs fans will become more vested in their success. I hope the FO can be patient too and not try to accelerate the timetable by making some moves that may boost short term wins and the expense of longer term consistency.
Speaking of Oklahoma, tanking etc. This guy makes a good point, which Darius and others have made about the odds and luck.
http://patternofbasketball.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-76ers-have-already-won.html
” That’s the biggest problem with what the 76ers are attempting – you can’t expect most young players, no matter where they are picked, to be able to step in right away and carry a franchise. The Oklahoma City Thunder are supposed to be the model for this type of rebuild, but what would have happened if Kevin Durant had went No. 1 in 2007 and they had wound up with Greg Oden? It’s the definition of a high-risk, high-reward plan.
Even having multiple picks in the Top 5 is no guarantee that you can build a contender. Where would the Cleveland Cavaliers be right now if they hadn’t won this year’s lottery? Would the quartet of Kyrie Irving (No. 1), Tristan Thompson (No. 4), Dion Waiters (No. 4) and Anthony Bennett (No. 1) been enough to bring LeBron James back or would they have spent many more years wandering in the wilderness?”
The real worry is that all that losing would permanently damage those young players, strangling their careers while they are still in the crib. Bennett looked like the prime example of that as a rookie, as he was woefully unprepared for the NBA and he seemed to regress amidst a very unsettled and chaotic situation in Cleveland. Tanking only works if you can hit a HR in the draft every season and that is a very difficult thing to do.
In the first two drafts of the Hinkie era, the 76ers have been swinging for the fences, taking the highest upside pick regardless of their NBA readiness – there were huge concerns about Michael Carter-Williams’ jumper, Nerlens Noel and Embiid were both projected to miss their entire rookie seasons and Dario Saric may not come over until 2016. That type of decision-making only fueled the negative buzz surrounding the team.
If those guys don’t live up to expectations, the 76ers are going to be a very bad team for a very long time, especially if they don’t get any more chances to take players at the top of the draft. Being a solid 10-year starter in the NBA isn’t enough – Philadelphia needs a franchise player. They need a guy who can be the best player at his position and a Top 5 player in the league because those are the only types of players that would really justify losing on that level.
R says
I am no Dwight fan, but let’s be honest. He went to the finals with Orlando and the WCF last season with Houston. Not too shabby. He may have had issues with all 3 franchises, but the Lakers are the only franchise of the three that he failed to win with.
———–
OK, lets be honest. The Lakers did have a winning record while Coward was with the team, and they made the playoffs. I would say that meets the definition of “winning”.
Mikey says
The Jim Buss trashing is the result of ignorant thinking, or poorly considered thinking influenced by inflated expectations and media hype.
Is Russell going to be a star ? Most certainly. Is Clarkson a very good complement to him ? Definitely. (both can play off the ball, hit 3’s, and handle the pick and roll). Is Randle a good wing scoring 4, who fits with them ? Definitely (although he takes it in from the wing, but in a year, he;ll he hitting a jumper).
That’s a great young core to come out of a 3 year rebuild. The blame should be on Ted Leonisis, for having Washington, for allowing Washington to cough up the Clarkson pick for a million bucks. He’s worth a BILLION dollars. He punked his team for less than 1 day’s earnings. Now Washington is going to miss the playoffs by a few games, because they didn’t have a third guard who could score off the bench, or fill in for an injured Beal. Incompetence.
Lakers have been hamstrung by Kobe’s albatross of a contract and dominance over the team. This is a ditch that was built over 20 years. Not 3. And now that LA is out of the ditch, they are going to rise back up. LA has the best young core in the league after Minnesota. And they got it together super quickly. Boston’s been out of contention for 2 yearslonger than LA and has a much weaker young core. They have no Russell caliber player.
And all of this ignores the fact that, but for Stern voiding the CP3 trade, or Nash breaking his leg, and the wheels falling off the Dwight era, there wouldn’t even have been a rebuild necessary.
Next season, it will be obvious that LA is back on track.
C says
I don’t get why people are dissecting things. Do you want to know what matters? The perspective to 2011-2016 period 10 years from now. 20 years from now. Until that time comes, nobody knows anything. You can go ahead, and argue one way or another. It is pointless.
Kimberly says
Darius,
I respect your writing a great deal, for its analysis, thoughtfulness, and diplomacy.
But, it’s really not necessary to offer up the possibility that Byron’s methods may have provided some positive influence. Not at all. It’s like trying to highlight how the parenting of an abusive father wasn’t ALL bad. This is probably true (people aren’t all good or all bad). But to highlight it takes away from the fact that he is overall BAD.
Honestly, I think there has been one perspective out there that hasn’t helped the FO in the Byron Scott situation- the idea the another turnover in coaching would show instability or is negative.
Instead, it should be embraced more- that our organization has the ability to try as many different coaches as possible to find that Brad Stevens…that coach with managerial skills, X’s and O’s know how, and charisma to lead. It’s hard to believe there are only a handful of these coaches currently.
Busboys4me says
We had one in Quinn Snyder.
Anonymous says
Well to me, giving coach BS the benefit of the doubt whether it would have worked out way better than what has transpired, I believe he did or is doing a good job “messing” with our young players mindset. Talent, as we all know, is always there – no one’s gonna take away Russell’s scoring touch & court vision or Randle’s aggressiveness especially on rebounding. How these young players are developing is based solely on their mindset. So many young and talented players were given the keys right on when they entered the league, but their confidence and perspective were greatly affected that up until now, they haven’t won any championships or hasn’t acquired that championship mindset. What coach BS did was to make them realize that nothing’s ever given. Even though how talented/skilled you are, you still have to work really hard, keep your feet grounded and never stop working hard to improve. Everything is earned. If you can’t work hard for a starting role, you can never work hard for a championship trophy. I think what coach BS dis to them was to instill work ethic, humility and “mamba mentality” – the mentality that gabe them 5 rings.