Luke Walton: Legendary "Appreciation" Thread

kray28 wrote:

LO7cK35 wrote:This is the same guy that said its a "myth" that radmanovic has horrible defense. You have to just leave the convo alone when someone says something like that

Compared to Luke...Vlad was freaking lockdown.

Quick...who scored the first basket of the second half last night at Cleveland....who was supposed to be guarding him and was late on the rotation?

Radman PER = 13.2 Opponent's PER = 13.6 = NET of -.4
Luke PER = 11.6 Opponent's PER = 14.1 = NET of -2.5

There you go Kray.

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809LAL.HTM

kray28 wrote:

knm131 wrote:^ Well, it's also the same guy that said he had a gut feeling that Lamar wasn't going to play just to spite Phil.

Then Lamar came out and played a pretty good game.

Not everyone's gut can be trusted, apparently.

You're in a pretty weak argumentative position...so a change of subject is obviously convenient. This has nothing to do with gut..or speculation. It's numbers...numbers which show that Luke is basically doing little to nothing out there....other than not getting in the other four guys' way.

Why don't you provide with some statistical evidence that Luke isn't a waste of space?

I will. As soon as you answer the question regarding the help value stat you posted as evidence.

So who has better help value in the game @NYK when Kobe scored 61? Luke or Kobe. I'll answer your questions the moment you answer just this ONE.

borri wrote:

kray28 wrote:

LO7cK35 wrote:This is the same guy that said its a "myth" that radmanovic has horrible defense. You have to just leave the convo alone when someone says something like that

Compared to Luke...Vlad was freaking lockdown.

Quick...who scored the first basket of the second half last night at Cleveland....who was supposed to be guarding him and was late on the rotation?

Radman PER = 13.2 Opponent's PER = 13.6 = NET of -.4
Luke PER = 11.6 Opponent's PER = 14.1 = NET of -2.5

There you go Kray.

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809LAL.HTM

Since you're using it, would you say that a player's PER or Roland Rating, is sufficient to compare players in terms of who is better?

EDIT: Second question. By posting that link, are you suggesting that Luke play power forward then?

Here are some interesting stats.

Here are the PERs for Vlad and Luke:

Vlad - Own: 13.2 Opp: 13.6 Net: -0.4
Luke - Own: 11.6 Opp: 14.1 Net: -2.5

In LA's 9 losses this season, this is how Vlad's minutes compared to Luke's time on the court:

1) Vlad: 15 Luke: 0
2) Vlad: 23 Luke: 0
3) Vlad: 22 Luke: 0
4) Vlad: 5 Luke: 17
5) Vlad: 20 Luke: 9
6) Vlad: 24 Luke: 0
7) Vlad: 28 Luke: 0
8) Vlad: 27 Luke: 0
9) Vlad: 7 Luke: 18

Here's how the team's on court/off court numbers compared for Vlad and Luke:

Vlad - On: +5.7 Off: +9.9 Net: -4.2
Luke - On: +6.3 Off: +9.1 Net: -2.8

Here's how the 5-man units compare (min. 100 minutes):

Fisher-Bryant-Radmanovic-Gasol-Bynum: 15 Wins 15 Losses
Fisher-Bryant-Walton-Gasol-Bynum: 11 Wins 8 Losses

Fisher-Bryant-Radmanovic-Odom-Gasol: 16 Wins 8 Losses
Fisher-Bryant-Walton-Odom-Gasol: 13 Wins 2 Losses

Conclusion: Vlad appears to be a more talented player when compared one on one to Luke. His defense is slightly better and his offensive production is also superior according to the PERs as borri posted and I restated.

However, the team plays better as a whole with Luke on the court as opposed to Vlad, for reasons that are hard to pinpoint. Results don't lie, the Lakers win even when Luke plays 20+ min (11-0), but have had less success when Vlad plays 20+ min (12-6). The 5-man units show the Lakers play better with the same lineup + Luke as opposed to the same lineup + Vlad. The on court and off court numbers again show that as a team the Lakers play better with Luke.

You can bash Luke's lack of defense, his incredibly slow reactions, his poor decision-making, his inconsistent shot, but that doesn't change the fact that the Lakers are more likely to win with Luke on the court as compared to Vlad getting similar minutes. That doesn't mean Luke is a better or more talented player than Vlad, but it's highly likely Luke fits in better for whatever reason.

^ Those are awesome stats but I really don't think many folks care what's best for the team.

If that really mattered, there wouldn't be a whole lot of room for debate, at least not with the way the team plays so far with Luke in it.

Why does any of this matter anymore?

Bottom line : Vlad is gone. Luke is still a Laker. Morrison is a bench warmer. Ariza likes to come off the bench.

Luke is going to be starting unless Morrsion ends up being an above average passer that can also hit shots ( insanely unlikely). Therefore, Luke is the starter. You don't like it? Suck it up. You like it? Yippee for you.

I haven't had time to check it out yet, but I'll bet matchups have a lot to do with it. And not just who Luke is matched up against, but the other guys and the other coach (see Larry Brown). There's just too many variables. Just a gut feeling at this point.

Heh, I just read the Celtics are undefeated when Brian Scalabrine plays 14 minutes or more (14-0). I guess he's their Luke.

theinsanity wrote:Heh, I just read the Celtics are undefeated when Brian Scalabrine plays 14 minutes or more (14-0). I guess he's their Luke.

Well, that isn't a very good comparison because he doesn't start so in theory many of his minutes could be garbage minutes.

A better comparison might be Matt Bonner. When he starts and plays more than his average of 23 mins/game, the Spurs are 19-4.

And no guys, cmon, it's not because Bonner is secretly the league MVP ok?

Actually I've seen a number of games where Scal knocked down key jumpers in non garbage time minutes and he did start when KG or Perkins was out. He's definitely comparable to Bonner as well as a goofy looking big white guy who shoots threes.

In any case, I think the biggest reason for stats like these is that the Spurs, Lakers, and Celtics tend to win a lot. I'm not disputing that Luke helps us, I think he does and it would be a bad move to bench him cause he plays better as a starter and Ariza plays better off the bench. But take most statistical splits and those teams will have a pretty good record. For example, I think we're 10-2 on the second of back to backs, 18-5 on the road among other impressive things.

Those are awesome stats but I really don't think many folks care what's best for the team.

Yes, because only you know what's "best for the team".

There are plenty of variables which aren't being accounted for in the ON/OFF stats and the 5-man unit numbers that RushDelivery posted. Consider that after Vlad's initial benching in early to mid December...he never really returned to the level of performance he averaged in the first 20 or so games. You can hold that against him, but there is no denying that he was playing well out of the gates and the sudden benching disrupted that rhythm....he never really regained consistent playing time after that...although there was a brief January stretch where Luke's injury forced him back into the starting lineup. The team as a whole was somewhat injury depleted at the time and having an assortment of depth related difficulties....that in turn affected other numbers as well in addition to overall team performance. Other unaccounted for factors: home or away games, back to backs, strength of schedule.

I'll take a shot at deciphering this....by no means an exact science or with great validity.

In LA's 9 losses this season, this is how Vlad's minutes compared to Luke's time on the court:

1) Vlad: 15 Luke: 0 - Det Game...Kobe + Fish = 16-46 FG. DET was hitting almost every they put up. Most people chalked it off as one of those games where the other team was playing unbelievable. Given how DET has played since....it sounds right.

2) Vlad: 23 Luke: 0 - IND game...the infamous last second tip...and the 19 OFF reb allowed. We were up 15 at one pt in the 3rd and got OWNED in the 4th 32-16 of which Vlad played 4 mins in the 4th. He enters with the Lakers up 5...leaves with the Lakers up 3. Scores 2 gives up 2. This was PJ's fault for putting Vlad in to guard Granger....bad idea...stupid idea really. I recall bashing PJ about this.

3) Vlad: 22 Luke: 0 - SAC game....this one VLAD really did stink up the joint...3 bad TO's i recall.

4) Vlad: 5 Luke: 17 - MIA game....Vlad was a non factor...playing only 5 mins. Luke stunk it up second game back in the lineup.

5) Vlad: 20 Luke: 9 - ORL game....Luke stunk again and was pulled early. Vlad was 4/6 with 4 steals in this one. Many of us wondered why Vlad wasn't getting more minutes after this game...he shined in this loss.

6) Vlad: 24 Luke: 0 - NOH game...Luke injures toe. This loss was mainly because WEST DESTROYED PAU... with 40 pts on 14/23 shooting

7) Vlad: 28 Luke: 0 - SAS game....Luke still injured. Vlad didn't shoot well. This was the infamous "foul" on Fish that cost us the game. We had it won. This was the game where Mason went OFF on Kobe. Well all Spurs went off on this one...Manu and Mason were 18/29 from the floor. Vlad wasn't guarding Manu in this game. Trev and Sasha got torched.

8) Vlad: 27 Luke: 0 - ORL game....Vlad played well in this game. 5/9, 0 TO's. This was the game where Nelson torched Fish in the 4th...hitting every shot in sight.

9) Vlad: 7 Luke: 18 - CHA game....I remember this one vividly. Luke gots SMOKED by Wallace early on. 3 layups in 2 minutes of play. PJ actually pulled Luke quite early in this game. Vlad played 7 minutes...didn't take a shot.

Honestly, I can only recall one game where Vlad had a major part in us losing. The SAC game where he made 3 TO's in a span of 2 minutes that killed us. Other than that, you can't blame Vlad for any of those other losses. More importantly, I don't think it would have matter if Luke played in those games at all.

Luke, I can make a case for at least 2 losses...MIA and CHA.

Biases aside, Vlad being a part of those 9 losses are pretty damn minimal if you ask me. Same with Luke...haha as he was only in part of 3 of those losses.

borri illustrates the difference between actually watching the games and reading the box scores.

kray28 wrote:borri illustrates the difference between actually watching the games and reading the box scores.

Yup, if people don't trust me...just go to the GD thread of each game and the WMC thread read chronologically. The explanations...almost play by play are there.

the fact that borri and kray think that stats show how good a players defense is very

just for fun he are some other "horrible" defenders stats.

Battier 10.5 12.9= NET -2.4

Bell 14.3 15.7 = NET-1.4

Bowen 6.5 12.8= NET -6.3

So radman can lockdown guys better then BOWEN!!! and we just traded him away

kray28 wrote:borri illustrates the difference between actually watching the games and reading the box scores.

His analysis excludes Luke and Vlad's impact on the performance of the rest of the team, and without that you can't simply conclude anything definite.

As I've stated before, clearly Vlad > Luke in a one to one comparison. The debate gets much more muddled when we look at stats that seem to indicate the overall team performs somewhat better with Luke than with Vlad. Even if Luke doesn't directly account for any wins and Vlad doesn't directly account for any losses, it's entirely plausible that their indirect effects on their teammates do lead to the seemingly contradictory stats we see. In other words, Luke elevates his teammates a bit more than Vlad did, which is not surprising since Vlad honestly only contributed when his shot was on and many times he was cold.

In the end it looks like everyone got what they want. Vlad got out of LA after he decided not to play as hard as he was before getting benched, Morrison got out of Charlotte to get a fresh start, Buss will save almost $9 million, Mitch will now have more flexibility to resign Odom and Ariza, and Phil retained his preferred player in Luke for the starting unit.

LO7cK35 wrote:the fact that borri and kray think that stats show how good a players defense is very

just for fun he are some other "horrible" defenders stats.

Battier 10.5 12.9= NET -2.4

Bell 14.3 15.7 = NET-1.4

Bowen 6.5 12.8= NET -6.3

So radman can lockdown guys better then BOWEN!!! and we just traded him away

LOL the fact that you can't read the stats correctly makes me laugh even more.

Battier give up 12.9 PPG to opp players he guards per 48 mins...is actually really good given the fact that he guards some of the best players out there. Battier doesn't score and look for his shot enough to have a good chance at getting a + net.

Bell...since when has Bell been a decent defender...dude is overrated as it comes.

Bowen....12.8 per 48 is quite good given the calibre of players he guards. See Battier Re: not a scorer/shooter

Luke gives up 14.1....while often never guarding an explosive SF. Who guards Lebron? PP? Imagine how bad it would be if he did.

Vlad while not great give ups 13.6........better than 14.1 don't you think.

It's not solely about the Net PER. Its mainly the OPP Per.

For example if player A scores 30 ppg but gives up 27 PPG...and has a net PER of 3...does that mean he's a better DEFENDER than Battier?

Everyone here agrees that Vlad is a better offensive player than Luke. That's a given. The debate is whether Luke D is better than Vlad. And whether Luke's passing is better for the team than Vlad's shooting. That's when the NET PER comes into play.

You get it now? LOL.

RushDelivery wrote:

kray28 wrote:borri illustrates the difference between actually watching the games and reading the box scores.

His analysis excludes Luke and Vlad's impact on the performance of the rest of the team, and without that you can't simply conclude anything definite.

As I've stated before, clearly Vlad > Luke in a one to one comparison. The debate gets much more muddled when we look at stats that seem to indicate the overall team performs somewhat better with Luke than with Vlad. Even if Luke doesn't directly account for any wins and Vlad doesn't directly account for any losses, it's entirely plausible that their indirect effects on their teammates do lead to the seemingly contradictory stats we see. In other words, Luke elevates his teammates a bit more than Vlad did, which is not surprising since Vlad honestly only contributed when his shot was on and many times he was cold.

In the end it looks like everyone got what they want. Vlad got out of LA after he decided not to play as hard as he was before getting benched, Morrison got out of Charlotte to get a fresh start, Buss will save almost $9 million, Mitch will now have more flexibility to resign Odom and Ariza, and Phil retained his preferred player in Luke for the starting unit.

Exactly. I admitted so. Frankly I am not sure if there's even a reliable way to show that. Way too many factors involved. What I did try to show you is that....contrary to what the record seems to indicate when Vlad plays more than Luke and our W/L record....it isn't as cut and dry as it seems. There were much more tangible explanations for why we lost those game...not because of something that involved Vlad.

That was my whole point.

borri wrote:The debate is whether Luke D is better than Vlad. And whether Luke's passing is better for the team than Vlad's shooting.

The debate is deeper than that. I think it's clear Vlad has more talent and is the better individual player than Luke. I also think that Vlad plays better man-to-man defense and is much better at scoring points.

However, Luke seems to be better at helping the offense flow independent of how many assists he gets credit for as he's often the guy who makes the pass that leads to the assist. Luke also seems to be better at team concepts of defense, even though his man-to-man defense leaves much to be desired.

Bottom line is Luke is a better team player, and the contributions he provides for the team are often not visible, whereas Vlad's individual contributions were as plain as day with his timely threes and sporadic but decent man-to-man defense.

borri wrote:Exactly. I admitted so. Frankly I am not sure if there's even a reliable way to show that. Way too many factors involved. What I did try to show you is that....contrary to what the record seems to indicate when Vlad plays more than Luke and our W/L record....it isn't as cut and dry as it seems. There were much more tangible explanations for why we lost those game...not because of something that involved Vlad.

I completely agree, there are far too many factors involved. That's why I personally give more weight to the 5-man unit statistics, as they tend to restrict the unknown factors given the fact that Vlad and Luke are compared to the times they played with the same teammates.

There seems to be just enough stats to suggest Luke is the better team player, while it's as clear as day that Vlad is the better individual player. This is also why Luke gets so much hate, his contributions involve making his teammates better so he still looks fairly poor even when he's doing his job well.

Luke gives up 14.1....while often never guarding an explosive SF. Who guards Lebron? PP? Imagine how bad it would be if he did.

If you recorded the last lakers celts game please watch it again and tell me who Luke guarded most of the time he was in the game.

Everyone here agrees that Vlad is a better offensive player than Luke. That's a given. The debate is whether Luke D is better than Vlad. And whether Luke's passing is better for the team than Vlad's shooting. That's when the NET PER comes into play.

Vlad is clearly a better shooter that is the only given. theres no way in hell you can say vlad has a better post game than Luke.I'll admit I was never one for all of the useless stats such as a player PER or what not , especially when your trying to determine how good a player plays defense. theres so many things that you just can't take into account with defense on stats that the fact that you tried i think is just ridiculous.
I mean you don't need useless calculations to see that Vlad Is always a step to slow, can never stay in front of his man they just drive right by him usually resulting in Vlad giving up a foul or our big men picking up the slack getting them in foul trouble.
The ONLLLLY REASON Luke took the starting role was because of defense. Radman was shooting lights out this season yet after a couple games he could not get off the bench. Please explain that one to me.

I completely agree, there are far too many factors involved. That's why I personally give more weight to the 5-man unit statistics, as they tend to restrict the unknown factors given the fact that Vlad and Luke are compared to the times they played with the same teammates.

There seems to be just enough stats to suggest Luke is the better team player, while it's as clear as day that Vlad is the better individual player. This is also why Luke gets so much hate, his contributions involve making his teammates better so he still looks fairly poor even when he's doing his job well.

However, there are other factors that make this 5 man team stats not that conclusive at all. SOS is a major factor. Luke was a participant in 2 Knicks, 2 GS games while Vlad wasn't with the starting lineup etc. Also Vlad played with the main group earlier in the year...20 games to start the season...where Pau and Drew had never shared court time before. Period of adjustment is a major factor. Luke benefited from getting into the starting lineup 21 games into the season. Efficiency of the group certainly has matured since the first 20 games. Luke benefitted from the Monster streak Drew went on, which I do not think had anything to do with Luke....remember Pau's game suffered quite a bit during Drew's monster streak.

Just pointing our the deficiencies of the 5 man unit analysis...which I tend NOT to use and trust less. Specifically to THIS case. It would be ALOT more valid if for instance....this year...Vlad plays all season long with the starting team. Next year Luke plays instead of Vlad all season long with the starting team. Compare and contrast. At least we can take out anamolies as SOS, which time of the year did that particular starting unit play...etc.

For me at least, in our scenario, the 5 man unit analysis is more likely than not a WORSE indicator of performance than personal PER.

kray28 wrote:

knm131 wrote:

sugi942 wrote:It's also possible that Luke is just taking up space which would account for why his +/- is good. He's on the floor with two all stars most of the time.

Well, it's also possible that he isn't.

Except he is....just taking up space. It's the biggest criticism of the plus-minus stat.

Luke had a plus-minus of +13 in yesterday's game, Lamar only had a +9. Guess Lamar sucks compared to Luke, right.

That's why there are other stats which measure a player's actual contribution to the margin while they're in there, like help value and productivity.

Comparison of help value:
Luke: 5
Lamar: 18

Comparison of productivity:
Luke: .4
Lamar: 1.21

cf. http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/boxscore.cgi?date=20090208&game=LALCLE

You rely on 'help value' to make comparisons between players, yet never really wanted to directly answer my question earlier regarding help value (no surprise). The question was, who would you expect to have better 'help value' in the game @ Knicks when Kobe scored 61. Kobe or Luke? You didn't answer the question, and time has run out (you've made multiple posts in between though). The answer is: Luke Walton.

Since you said yourself "...there are other stats which measure a player's actual contribution to the margin ... like help value". Are you suggesting that Luke's actual contributon to the margin in the game @ Knicks was greater than Kobe's? (Kobe had an HV of 2, Luke 8).

Man, between your gut (who told you Lamar wouldn't play just to spite Phil, only to have Lamar play and play GREAT) and your reliance on stats like help value, I think it might be time to make every day, opposite day.

borri wrote:

I completely agree, there are far too many factors involved. That's why I personally give more weight to the 5-man unit statistics, as they tend to restrict the unknown factors given the fact that Vlad and Luke are compared to the times they played with the same teammates.

There seems to be just enough stats to suggest Luke is the better team player, while it's as clear as day that Vlad is the better individual player. This is also why Luke gets so much hate, his contributions involve making his teammates better so he still looks fairly poor even when he's doing his job well.

However, there are other factors that make this 5 man team stats not that conclusive at all. SOS is a major factor. Luke was a participant in 2 Knicks, 2 GS games while Vlad wasn't with the starting lineup etc. Also Vlad played with the main group earlier in the year...20 games to start the season...where Pau and Drew had never shared court time. Period of adjustment is a major factor. Luke benefited from getting into the starting lineup 21 games into the season. Efficiency of the group certainly has matured since the first 20 games. Luke benefitted from the Monster streak Drew went on, which I do not think had anything to do with Luke....remember Pau's game suffered quite a bit during Drew's monster streak.

Just pointing our the deficiencies of the 5 man unit analysis...which I tend NOT to use and trust less. Specifically to THIS case. It would be ALOT more valid if for instance....this year...Vlad plays all season long with the starting team. Next year Luke plays instead of Vlad all season long with the starting team. Compare and contrast. At least we can take out anamolies as SOS, which time of the year did that particular starting unit play...etc.

For me at least, in our scenario, the 5 man unit analysis is more likely than not a WORSE indicator of performance than personal PER.

You never answered my question before. Would you say then, that PER can be used to compare players and that typically, a guy with a higher PER is a better player than the guy with the lower PER or not?

KNM, although I don't agree with your assessment of Luke, I have to say, this line made me laugh.

knm131 wrote:I think it might be time to make every day, opposite day.

Bottom line you have to watch games and understand basketball to get what is going on. Stats don't always tell the truth and can be manipulated to support one's argument.
The reason Luke is the favorite in Jacksons eyes is;

1. He moves the ball well in the triangle, and Phil can live with his lack of athleticism, skills, quickness etc. as long as he has someone in there that can get the ball to the right people (Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Fisher) efficiently. Vlad was not that type of player. He was just a hired gun that would space the floor with two big men however; many times the offense did not move and the big guys did not get enough touches.

2. There is pressure to keep Walton. He is in fact the son of Bill Walton and I'm sure that may play a role in how Luke gets treated. I'm not saying the Lakers will not make changes if necessary, but there are ties in basketball that influence in how players are treated.
Luke is in fact the less talented player but the Lakers will find a way to fit him into their system without it having to many set backs. In a team with a superstar and thee other stars I don't think there is much of a problem. When Luke was in the bench for all those games I'm sure some people made some phone calls.

3 Vlad was just the kind of player that would get lost offensively and defensively (thus the nickname space cadet), not only that he was also inconsistent. When his shot was on things looked good, but when he was off he seemed to make more bone headed plays than anyone to ever play the game. Is as if he never knew the offense. Phil could simply not accept this lack of consistency and he was simply a player that could be trusted in major games. Phil has to have guys who he trusts night in and night out, this is what a championship team is all about.

4. As Mitch pointed out having a guy making so much money on the bench is just not smart. So the move was basically a way to release some cap space and who knows maybe one of these new players will shine. It's not a bad chance to take when you're the team with the best record.