Goudelock's Comfort Zone (Trodgers)

When the Lakers selected Andrew Goudelock in the second round of the 2011 NBA Draft, they landed themselves arguably the best shooter coming out of college. He fell to the second round largely because he played at a school well out of the national limelight. Skepticism about how well his game would translate to the NBA was justified.

The results in his first season were mixed. His overall numbers are not pretty, and as he is supposed to be a shooter, his sub 40 FG% looks bad. Having watched him play, many fans are actually surprised not that he did not shoot better but that he did not receive more opportunities. A general trend emerges after looking at his numbers in more detail: with more minutes Goudelock offered increasing productivity. There is an obvious caveat: players who play well see more minutes; players who play poorly tend not to receive extra minutes. Thus, for many bench players, success and more minutes are highly correlated. I grant that thought, but Goudelock's numbers are strikingly correlated:

Ten games Goudelock played his fewest minutes:
FG: 2-9, 3PT: 0-5, 6 points in 29 minutes

Ten games with second fewest minutes:
FG: 10-34, 3PT: 5-16, 28 points in 79 minutes

Ten games with second most minutes:
FG: 20-49, 3PT: 9-23, 49 points in 113 minutes

Ten games with most minutes:
FG: 36-82, 3PT: 14-31, 92 points in 199 minutes

This yields the following breakdown:
FG% / 3pt% / PP36 (points per 36 minutes)
.222 / .000 / 7.45 (fewest minutes per game)
.294 / .313 / 12.76
.408 / .391 / 15.61
.439 / .452 / 16.64 (most minutes per game)

Now, if we take the twenty games in which he played his most minutes (at least 9.5) we get the following results:
20 games, 312 minutes, 56-131 FGs (.427), 23-54 threes (.426), 141 points, 7.1 PPG, 1.08 Points Per Shot (PPS), 16.3 PP36

Compare that with other Guards not named Kobe Bryant on LA's roster (by minutes played):
Blake: .377 FG, .335 3pt, 5.2 PPG, 1.03 PPS, 8.0 PP36
Fisher: .383 FG, .324 3pt, 5.9 PPG, 1.05 PPS, 8.2 PP36
Sessions: .479 FG, .486 3pt, 12.7 PPG, 1.38 PPS, 14.9 PP36

Goudelock's numbers are clearly better than Blake's and Fisher's. They are better than Matt Barnes's if we count him as a Guard, too. There are some conclusions worth drawing from this info.
First, when Goudelock played more, he played better.

Second, when Goudelock played at least 9.5 minutes, he was our second best scoring/shooting guard to put next to Kobe Bryant.

Third, despite being a rookie, Goudelock was trusted to play 9.5 minutes or more in 20 games (half his games and one-third of the season's games).

It's tough to declare him our second best guard just because he's our best offensive option. I think defensively he struggled which is why he ended up playing so seldomly later in the season.

The claim is second best non-Kobe Guard. I can see though that it looks like I'm saying he's better than Sessions. I meant "next to Kobe" as in other than Kobe (so making Gl0ck 3rd best G overall)...not "to put next to Kobe" (meaning he's the second best, after only Kobe).

People knocked Goudelock for his defense most of all. But look at the other defenders: Sessions was atrocious; Fisher was maybe worse; Blake wasn't much better (and Goudelock had a clear offensive advantage).

True. I think it balanced itself out. I advocated for him to get more minutes during the season. I think he's clearly the second best shooting guard on the roster.

Yes, my thought is that although we clearly need to go out and do _something_ with this roster, Goudelock is one of the in-house fixes we can make and be effective. I wouldn't feel terrible about penciling him in for 15 minutes a game every night. We'll see some growing pains, some shoddy D, but he's our best shooter and he has a ton of potential.

I think if the Lakers can upgrade the 2 spot they should, but if there is no options, or if the other options are too expensive, Goudelock is a good enough stopgap piece.

therealdeal wrote:I think if the Lakers can upgrade the 2 spot they should, but if there is no options, or if the other options are too expensive, Goudelock is a good enough stopgap piece.

In thinking about this team's offseason needs, I'm not sure where I put backup 2.

1. Who is going to be our starting PF? (and backup big or two?)
2. Do we move forward with MWP at SF? Do we amnesty him?
3. Does Sessions opt in? If not, we desperately need a PG.
4. I think once we figure out those things we should look at the SG spot, but it's low on the list, and I wouldn't be too concerned moving forward with Goudelock as our backup.

No, I actually agree with you. I wasn't at all implying that it's a priority to fill that spot. If anything, that's the one bench spot I'm least concerned about.

Right now my Lakers team needs are as follows:
1) Trade Pau for 2-3 pieces. These pieces can either be a replacement starting SF or a starting caliber PG with some other fillers.
2) Fill out the bench. The Pau trade should really facilitate this need, but it all depends on what we can get for him. If we can swing an Iguodala deal, then we need to find a way to fill out our PF spot, SF spot, and PG spot. SG comes too, but that can be filled by committee.
3) Either trade or amnesty Blake. Hopefully he can be included in a Pau Gasol deal.
4) Re-sign Hill and Sessions.

My ideal, but realistic looking team would be something like this:

Sessions/???
Bryant/Goudelock
Iguodala/Artest
McRoberts/Hill
Bynum/Vucevic

I picked Blake because he's going to have less value than Artest as either an expiring contract or as a player. Artest would have to adjust to a bench role again, but that team would definitely be a better team than what we fielded last season. Spend the mini-MLE or one of our trade exceptions on a PG and head into the season that way. Obviously a few other holes to be filled, but all-in-all a much better team.

I think that Goudelock and Iguodala would be a fine committee to fill in the SG spot. Iguodala against bigger teams and Goudelock against smaller teams. Either way, they bring scoring to the table which is something this team needs from it's wing/guard positions.

I really eager and excited to see how he performs in the Summer League because he mentioned during his exit interview with the media that he knows the things to work on particularly PG play (ball handling) over all defense during this off-season. He'll obviously get a bunch of minutes during the summer league games and I have a feeling we're going to see some explosions of great play from his.

He certainly sounds and looks like a player who won't just hold to his great shooting morals and wants to improve everything. There is a lot of nervous and anxious time in LA LA land right now, but Glock is someone I am really looking forward to coming back and seeing how much he's improved!

BT: I don't see Goudelock as a PG, but I agree that he needs to work on those skills (ball handling, post entry passing, decision-making). There's no doubt that he needs to work on his D, too. But I don't see why he can't be pretty successful as a defender if he just invests the time and energy. Certainly the player I expect to improve most over last season.

trodgers wrote:BT: I don't see Goudelock as a PG, but I agree that he needs to work on those skills (ball handling, post entry passing, decision-making). There's no doubt that he needs to work on his D, too. But I don't see why he can't be pretty successful as a defender if he just invests the time and energy. Certainly the player I expect to improve most over last season.

O I don't see him as a PG at all either. That's just what Mitch and Coach Brown were telling him to try and work on in the off-season. I do agree with you about the defensive side of the ball. More times than not defense is all about effort and how much you put into it. If he really wants to improve on that side of the ball we'll see it in the hustle he gives next year.