The off-season is a time to remake and build up a roster and as a team that has missed the playoffs four straight years the Lakers are a team that needs some improving. Some of that will come from the internal development of recently drafted players, but the rest will come from player acquisition and swaps via the draft, free agency, and trade market.
With that, we recently detailed the types of players/skill sets the Lakers should be looking to add. And we did this using a classic venn diagram:
As I wrote, the hope is to get as many players on the roster as possible who have these skills. But, I know, even this request requires a bit more clarification.
First, we must take into account how good any player is at any of the above skills and how that plays into role, effectiveness, and reliability. For example, I previously mentioned Rick Fox and Robert Horry as players who fit into the middle of that diagram by possessing all three skills. Fox and Horry weren’t great at any of them, but were good enough to not be exposed in any one area. This allowed them to be on the floor in crucial situations, but mostly as role players who played off teammates who were the team’s go-to players.
This also relates to the range of ability within any of the above skill sets and how being good (or bad) enough at one or more of them impacts how you then complement that player with surrounding talent. The Warriors are a great example of this.
Curry is an elite shooter and a fantastic passer whose defense fluctuates from slightly above average to below average. He is paired with Klay (elite shooter, very good defense), Draymond (okay shooter, elite defense, elite passing), and Durant (great shooter, very good passer, excellent defender). Then add in role players like Iguodala (elite defense and great passing, okay shooting), Livingston (very good defense, excellent passing, not an outside shooting threat), and Clark (very good shooting).
These skill sets blend together and cover up for Curry’s defense, while optimizing his shooting with floor spacers and passers who can give him room to operate and deliver him the ball. The Warriors in-turn leverage Curry’s shooting to open up passing angles and generate spacing to optimize the games of Durant, Klay, and Draymond. The same could be said of working off of Durant’s strengths…which is why the Warriors are favored to win the title. They are deep, not only with great players, but with ones who complement and make each other better.
Which leads me to the Lakers. As it stands, they currently have several players who fit into one or two of those circles, but have very few players, if any, who can fit into all three. Here’s a list of how I would break down the current roster:
- Shooting/Passing/Defense: None
- Shooting/Passing: Russell, Zubac
- Shooting/Defense: None
- Passing/Defense: Ingram, Nance
- Shooting (only): Young
- Passing (only): Randle
- Defense (only): Black, Mozgov, Nwaba, Brewer
- Not listed: Deng, Clarkson
Note, just because you’re in the “not listed” category doesn’t mean you can’t be a contributing player. Clarkson is a great example of this. This past year Clarkson shot 32.9% from three, was not a good ball mover, and struggled defensively as the year wore on. But Clarkson was still able to leverage his athleticism to get into the paint, made good 1st level reads as a passer off his dribble penetration, and tried hard defensively (especially getting into passing lanes). Deng, meanwhile, was okay is several areas, but playing the majority of his minutes at SF exacerbated his declining athleticism and was a drag on his all facets of his game. I’d imagine if played mostly at PF, he’d likely move up into the “shooting/defense” category.
It should also be noted there is, with some of the players, expected performance relative to their position and age/experience. I listed Zubac in the shooting/passing category, because he showed viable skill in both those as a C (range out to 18-20 feet, good reads as a high/low passer and in short roll chances out of the P&R). I listed Ingram in the passing/defense category because he’s a natural ball mover/good passer and was a fine defender relative to his age as a 19 year old rookie.
I should add, too, that several of the team’s young players can make their way into other categories through growth and improvement expected for their pedigree and draft position. Randle, for example, can leap into the shooting category by continuing to shoot and hit threes at/slightly above the rate he did in the last 20 games of the year (31.4% on nearly 2 attempts/game). Nance can become a guy who could jump into the shooting/passing/defense category by also adding the three pointer to his tool kit (and by being more aggressive in taking open shots). If Clarkson can hit threes at a league average rate (totally possible) and start to make better reads in the P&R (I am hopeful, but not exceedingly optimistic), he can join the shooting/passing club.
There are other examples, but you get the point. The Lakers still have a lot of young players who are also key parts of the rotation. They are learning on the fly and the hope is that they improve their weaknesses and bolster their strengths to the point that they can do more on the floor with greater consistency, making the Lakers more formidable for longer stretches in the process. Additionally, ideas like basketball IQ, work ethic, athleticism — ones not captured by the diagram posted — influence the trajectory at which players can improve. By multiple accounts, the Lakers’ young players are hungry to improve and willing to put the work in, which can improve their long-term growth potential.
In saying all that, though, you can also see why the Lakers aren’t a very good team, and why I used these three specific skills as desirable to add this off-season. They simply don’t have enough of these skills on the roster in general and, more specifically, lack players who do two or more of them at an NBA level — even relative to their position played or age/experience level. If looking to construct a winning team, this is a problem. Again, look at the Warriors. Nearly every lineup they deploy has guys who do two or more of these things at a high to very high level. How many Lakers lineups can you say the same thing about?
So, when looking forward to the draft or free agency, it’s important to look at the current roster, where the current skill sets lie, and then seek out players who not only do different things, but multiple things well. If it’s a young player (i.e. the draft) how do they project in any of these areas? If it’s an established veteran (free agency or trade), can they fall into several categories? More specifically, can they shoot/defend or pass/defend? These are current areas where the Lakers really lacking talent.
Marty Susman says
Before ANY trade is made Miz and Deng NEED to be included. Getting rid of horrible contracts today will allow for future free agents stars.
Randy Chappell says
Thank you, thank you, thank you! For once I have seen an article about the Lakers actually thinking about the defensive end!!! The Lakers are horrible defensively and drafting Lonzo Ball just makes the Lakers a more inept defensive unit (because Ball doesn’t know anything about defense and I can’t see him applying himself to that end of the court). As long as the Lakers stay enamored with only the offensive end of the court, we will continue to find ourselves bogged down in mediocrity! Please trade Randle — get something for him so we can play someone who is at least interested in defense. Zubac has potential on that end of the court — same with Ingram. Clarkson and Nance already show some promise in that area and DLo’s ability on defense is still yet to be seen. Trade Randle for George — maybe throw in Deng or Mozdov to make it work moneywise but I am for waiting on him for the next year when he is a free agent.
Lakers — stop drafting based on offensive talent and look for the best all around player! Drafting post players like Randle who could care less about defense isn’t going to get us anywhere no matter how much firepower the Lakers have!
Thank you!
Pbz06 says
Randle will never be an interior defender due to his size, but you are diminishing his ability as an On-ball defender that can also switch on perimeter players and cover them. His biggest weakness is off-ball where he tends to ball watch and lose his man, or can be seen upright. But let’s not count him out; he’s like barely 23 and has room to grow. Consider that Nance is also 2 or 3 years older too.
Clarkson has no upside on D or is very close to who he is on offense and defense (isn’t he about to turn 25 soon?). He’s a sieve and has poor footwork and compensates by overpaying and being off balance.
DAR has more promise on D. He won’t be a good defender due to his athleticism and speed (how many point guards actually are??? Or 2-way?). His biggest challenge is fighting through screens and chasing all the elite PGs in the conference. But he’s more fumdemtally sound and stronger than Clarkson so too early to tell. He’s also just turned 22.
Concerned says
His biggest weakness is off-ball where he tends to ball watch and lose his man, or can be seen upright.
__
Well, that and the fact that he does not:
1) have a consistent shot outside the key
2) struggles scoring against taller players inside
3) He can’t do much damage with his right hand
Look Julius is a limited player and the fact that he is up soon for an extension is an issue. If you could trade Randle to the Kings for the 5th and 10th picks I’d do it.
Randy says
Sorry, I don’t buy the “undersized” excuse for Randle’s defense. Two outstanding defenders in the league, Draymond Green and Paul Milsap are both shorter than Randle so that excuse just doesn’t fly. As for ignoring his ability to defend on the perimeter, the reason why I didn’t mention it is because he is so inconsistent. He defensive footwork is awful and given his quickness I believe that comes down to a lack of desire.
I think Clarkson showed some great promise defensively at the beginning of the year when the Lakers were playing well – the n they suffered some injuries and lost their identity and their focus.
The difference, IMO, between Clarkson and Randle is work ethic – I think Clarkson works hard and I don’t think that Randle does – and Randle has more talent of physical ability.
It’s time to trade Randle – if you can get a first rounder this year do it!!!
Lakers Future says
Green has great wingspan for his height. That along with excellent footwork really allow him to excel. Plus, he has a high basketball IQ. Watching him on defense you can tell he sees what’s developing as it happens. He functions like a middle linebacker for Golden State dictating coverage.
Julius has short arms for his size. That seems inconsequential. But considering he’s already undersized for his position the short arms are adding insult to injury. Randle is good moving up and down. But his lateral footwork still needs work. Lastly, I know basketball IQ takes time to develop. But I can’t count the number of times I wanted to pull my hair out watching Julius ignore backdoor cutters.
I like his heart and moxie. But he is a really limited basketball player. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him moved this summer.
Randy says
Not true – Green, Milsap and Randle all have the same wingspan – 7’0″ and Randle is taller than both of these guys. And I agree about lateral footwork but when you have quick feet this is a matter of focus, discipline and hard work – and I don’t see Randle even making any progess down the road. Every now and then a shooter (he had a great block on hardin this year) allow him to block a shot but there aren’t too many backcourt players that can’t driver past Randle. IMO Randle has the same athletic package that’s Green and Milsap do (I agree not the same bball IQ) but what he doesn’t seem to have is the drive and hard work. I compared Randle to those two because he has similar body styles and athletic ability to them. Same wingspan, actually a little taller, all very strong and very quick! I don’t know honk anyone will ever talk about Randle and defense in a positive way!
Vasheed says
Depends on who’s measurements you believe. 7′ is generous for Randle and more likely closer to 6’11”. Both Millsap and Green exceed 7’1″. I do agree though that Randle is not wired for defense and it really hinders him. I harped about this since before he was drafted much to everyone’s annoyance. All that said I highly commend him for his improved on the ball defense.
drrayeye says
The players that stick out the most in this analysis to me are Randle and Clarkston–especially if we add in “best fit” to your criteria. But I’m much more likely to give Clarkson a pass. I think that Clarkston can easily jump into the shoot category next year–if he’s not already there–and might even “fit” his way into defensive schemes. Passing, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to be part of his dna.
Randle is the real misfit for your criteria–especially if we look at both team and individual defense. You credit him with passing skills–very generous. The player that could supplant him at the 4 is already on the squad: Luol Deng. He’s already proven that he could fit and even lead team defensive schemes in his pro history as a 3. He has already shown he can do it at this point of his career at the 4. We need to seriously consider him as the starter at the 4–alternating with Nance for finesse and Black (or Robinson) for muscle.
The Lakers still have not identified the right long term PF–and, IMO, Randle is unlikely to grow into that role.
Renato Afonso says
So, according to this, is Josh Jackson the player to draft? Ahaha. He seems the most likely to become elite on one and above average on the other two, if he works on it… Also, Ingram can be very good at all three. His shooting mechanics is very fluid and once the game slows down, he can be a top player in the league
rr says
The Lakers need to take whomever the FO thinks the BPA is at 2 unless they are drafting a guy to trade to another team. Fultz, Ball (with Russell) and Jackson (with Ingram) have some skillset overlap with Russell and Ingram, but it doesn’t matter.
Would you go with Jackson?
Mid-Wilshire says
Darius,
Excellent discussion. And a very important topic. However, I wonder if the “shooting” criterion might be modified to that of “scoring.” I say that because there are some players who are not pure shooters. But they are excellent scorers. I think Kobe fits into that category. He was, for example, never a great 3-point shooter. That wasn’t his strength. But he did know how to score.
So…D’Angelo Russell, whom you correctly label a “shooter,” averaged only 40.5% FGs overall. Clarkson, meanwhile, who is NOT a shooter, averaged 44.5%. Even Magic Johnson, even though he developed a nice set shot over the last 3-4 years of his career, was never a shooter per se (as his backcourt mate, Byron Scott, was). But he was actually a good scorer. He knew how to get points. Somehow, he figured that out.
As a result, I think that Clarkson could become a decent scorer in the next year or two without necessarily ever being a pure shooter in the classic sense. I also see him as a better defender than DAR, both at present and in terms of future potential.
The point is that with a young team, the Lakers’ collective skill set is still very much in flux. We may have relatively few players who excel at 2 different skills now. but in 2 or 3 years, that could change radically.
That is why it’s important to take a long term view of things. In three years, this will be a much different team, even if most of the players are the same.
Vasheed says
I would add a big circle enclosing all 3 categories. Cost. How much bang for my buck do I get? Deng and Moz aren’t bad players per se but, they cost too much.
CraigW. says
Vasheed’s point is very important. We must stop thinking about Deng & Moz’s contracts. We must evaluate them in relation to their skill sets. Granted we would trade them ASAP and they will not be developing like our youngsters, but while they are on the team we must include them in the overall chemistry and game-plan.
Bill says
To no one in particular:
Fact 1: The Mozgov/Deng contracts do indeed limit the options that the FO has to available to them to improve the team and will continue to handicap the Lakers until they are off the books.
Fact 2: Neither of them contribute much on the floor. Playing Deng at the Four is putting lipstick on a pig. Mozgov is a situational center and the Lakers don’t have any ‘situations’ to use him in. Based on ability to impact the game they are back of the rotation players.
Fact 3: Having to include them in the overall chemistry and gameplan for the team is reflective of the hole the franchise has dug for themselves.
Robert says
Bill: Wow – this is painfully accurate.
“reflective of the hole the franchise has dug for itself” Yes
“don’t have situations to use him in” Hilarious
“until they are off the books” Yes – and the question is do we wait or do we do something like giving someone one of the youngsters to take one of these boat anchors. That’s how bad these deals were (no not just long or too expensive – just plain bad).
rr says
Looks like Bill decided not to heed Craig’s directive.
R says
Good for Bill! I heartily endorse the rejection of any directives about what one “must” think about and by extension, what one “must stop” thinking about.
FredP says
The FO and coaching staff needs to decide what type of team the Lakers will be and commit to it. Last season there was some motion offense and some iso’s. There was a bias towards what the players could currently run vs what they could learn to run. Veterans were still given deference to what they were comfortable doing. I would rather see the Lakers fully commit to the motion offense including weak side actions and reduce the iso plays. This would impact the types of players they look for in the draft and free agency. Ball looks better in this setting and some of the questions about his ability to shoot would be mitigated by his ability to set his teammates up.
The same commitment to defense needs to be made. The overall energy expended on defense waxed and waned and players were allowed to take plays off too often. It looked like there were conflicting thoughts on how to guard pick and rolls. Footwork varied from good at times to ridiculous at others. Much of that can be improved no matter how bad an individual defender a player may be. The team needs to work on these skills next season so it will be easier to determine which players to keep.