Luke Walton: Legendary "Appreciation" Thread

kray28 wrote:[It would be a colossal shame if it were the reason we are denied a championship. .

we would ALL owe borri an apology

Borri: Funny you should only mention offense when you bring up the +/- stat.

Millsap was in foul trouble for most of the night, but when he was on the floor, the Lakers had to work on the inside. When he was out (majority of the 1st half), the Lakers had a field day on the inside.

Likewise, Luke only played 17 minutes, so of course the +/- is skewed when it comes to comparing him to other starters and their minutes. But the fact of the matter is, that when Luke was on the floor, our team defense wasn't horrid. Case and point: Luke got the bulk of his minutes in the 1st half and the Lakers were up at half-time.

The +/- doesn't say the entire story, but it does tell part of it.

Luke had his part in this loss, like any other Laker. But more times than none, he's the scapegoat for our recent deficiencies. In limited minutes, I really can't see how Luke hurts us as much as others make it out to seem.

That's like saying LO is balling right not compared to last month, completely ignoring that he was a bench player with limited minutes last month, compared to a starter with significant minutes now. Of course there's going to be a noticeable difference.

Luke before his big pay day: Starter with significant minutes.
Luke after his big pay day: Fluctuating between 3rd tier and starter with limited minutes.

Our team has significant talent on it, so at this point Luke is just a luxury to have in terms of depth. But I highly doubt the Lakers are standing pat when it comes to his contract and it what it could mean financially down the line.

Till that day comes, Luke is a Laker and he has this fan's support. He gets blame when deserved, but there's not one Laker on this squad that warrants a full on assault, IMHO.

At least that's not how I conduct my fanship.

If you want further confirmation re: Luke and his +/- stats....Remember...LUKE ALWAYS PLAYS WITH THE FIRST UNIT. He's the ONLY person in the first unit that PJ has yet to run with the second unit.

Question: Which LA unit is better? The first unit? The second unit? or a combination of first and second?

If you watch games you would know the answer to this question. I'll tell you....the first unit. There's a reason why 4 of the 5 guys on our team is on the first unit...one one exception...is Luke.

Simply put, our guys are GOOD enough to cover for Luke's patheticness on MOST nights. The nights when our starting 4 are off....we could sure well use more than 3pts on 40% shooting, not even mentioning the defensive part of the game. Good luck having Luke their to help you out if you get beat....most of the time he'll contribute an AND 1.

Man why can't there be a stat or some sort of measure for that awesome play Luke had where He had clear path to the basket, couldn't dunk, tries a layup...misses but gets fouled and proceeds to miss both FT's

khmrP wrote:Man why can't there be a stat or some sort of measure for that awesome play Luke had where He had clear path to the basket, couldn't dunk, tries a layup...misses but gets fouled and proceeds to miss both FT's

maybe i should make a BONEHEAD PLAYS thread (the anti showtime thread)?

Likewise, Luke only played 17 minutes, so of course the +/- is skewed when it comes to comparing him to other starters and their minutes. But the fact of the matter is, that when Luke was on the floor, our team defense wasn't horrid. Case and point: Luke got the bulk of his minutes in the 1st half and the Lakers were up at half-time.

Im sorry. No way you say that if you watched the game. No way. How many pts did Utah put up in the first period? They were scoring at will on us. Until PJ put trev in in place of Luke. The tide was stemmed. Did you watch the game? Do you know how we got the lead? Kobe went OFF at the end of the second quarter...LUKE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Again. LUKE BENEFITS FROM BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY LAKER NEVER TO PLAY A SECOND WITH THE SECOND UNIT OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE SECOND UNIT. Of course his +/- is gonna look good.

I like how you ignore the CLE stat. How the HELL does LO have a lower +/- than Luke. As i said before, LO plays big minutes with Sasha, Trev, Powell, and of course those guys aren't as good as our first unit. LO playing with them hurts his +/-.

Insert ANYONE else in our starting 5....you will see the same damn good looking +/- stat that Luke gets.

Frankly it is BEYOND my comprehension that you so willing give credit to Luke for our success. It boggles my mind. Really it does. Are you watching the games? I must ask. Really do you watch the games? That's the only explanation.

LOL I am so beyond belief and frustrated that I am actually having a debate and conversation about this that I want to pull my hair out....

LOL I quit. I give up. Vash....go on with that belief. I don't what else I can say. Really. Man i was having a good day before i stopped into this thread. Sheez....

khmrP wrote:Man why can't there be a stat or some sort of measure for that awesome play Luke had where He had clear path to the basket, couldn't dunk, tries a layup...misses but gets fouled and proceeds to miss both FT's

That one just goes down as two missed freethrows. No FGA because of the foul.

But seriously...he couldn't beat a slow as a frakkin snail, wannabe nut dancer Mehmet Okur down the floor for an easy layup.

Borri: Firstly, I saw the game. Which is why I can't fathom why some believe defenders are cheating off Luke to go double Pau and our post players. That happens on occasion, but in this Jazz game Luke wasn't on the floor for most of the 2nd half to be taken advantage of.

Secondly, did you read what I said about the +/- stat. Like any other stat, it only tells part of the story. I'm not claiming it as the holy grail of hoops.

Thirdly, I also saw the Cleveland game and the reason Luke has a higher +/- compared to LO is cause LO was on the floor longer. The +/- is somewhat skewed when there is a disparity in minutes. However LO played 8 more minutes than Luke in that game and the disparity in numbers isn't significant. We're talking about a +4 difference here (2 possessions).

When you take Luke by himself, he's not a good defender. But as a help guy in our team defense, the proof is in the pudding. He isn't as bad of a defender (in the team game) as most make him out to be. Of course Bron had Kobe and Trevor on him...but the times when Luke was on him, he did get help once Bron penetrated. However, on the perimeter, Luke gave plenty of room for him to shoot and thankfully he had a bad shooting night (attempted 8 treys and made only 2). Luke needed that extra buffer to counter Bron's speed, but it worked out for us...which explains the +13 (which is only part of the story).

You guys can complain about Luke all you want. The fact of the matter is, he doesn't receive a high volume of minutes for him to be the primary culprit in a loss. He adds depth so that hustle guys like Trevor can go all out at the end of games. He's a luxury but with a bad contract. He contributes to Ws as much as he contributes Ls....minimally.

I don't see anyone praising Luke during our wins...so why all the hate with a loss?

minimal minutes = minimal acclaim/blame

Finally, I hope I wasn't the primary reason to ruin your day. You'll feel better on Tuesday. I'm certain. -gulp-

thats a good line Vash MINIMAL MINS=MINIMAL blame.....Lukes new nickname and befitting of his all around
Luke "MINIMAL" Walton

^^ Better than "Puke"

I can't stomach that pseudonym anymore.

I don't see anyone praising Luke during our wins...so why all the hate with a loss?

Because we win despite him.

^

Pretty much.

Luke sucks. He looks like he doesn't belong in the NBA.
Will he ever figure out how to make a lay up? Will Mr. High B-Ball I.Q. ever stop jumping to pass? Who knows.

If you don't get the hate for Luke, watch him play. That will fill you in on the reason for the hate. I am honestly not sure he could start for any other team in the NBA yet Phil starts him time and time again.

Pau16Kobe24Drew17 wrote:I am honestly not sure he could start for any other team in the NBA...

Probably not.

i am honestly not sure he could start for any other team in the NBA...

start for any other team? hed be lucky to get off of the d-league squad

I bet if Magic Johnson was around he could make Luke decent like he did Rambis or Green.

KareemTheGreat33 wrote:I bet if Magic Johnson was around he could make Luke decent like he did Rambis or Green.

Well its not like LUKE IS GETTING WIDE OPEN JUMPERS AS IT IS. And it's not like anyone on the Lakers is doing this for Luke....OPP teams DARE HIM to shoot.

hahaa, just found this video...
reminded me of the good ole days at the start of the season when luke was the victory cigar

borri wrote:

KareemTheGreat33 wrote:I bet if Magic Johnson was around he could make Luke decent like he did Rambis or Green.

OPP teams DARE HIM to shoot.

All 4 times per game?

knm131 wrote:All 4 times per game?

All 4 times per game that he summons the balls to shoot.

kray28 wrote:

khmrP wrote:Vash...so can you honestly say we would've stood a better chance of winning had Luke been in the game longer, especially in the last 5mins or so?

Someone else (Rush Delivery) pointed out that Luke played less than 20 minutes...that's why we lost. LOL.

Next time Phil will remember to keep Luke in there just a few minutes longer and it will be all good.

This is also incorrect. He didn't come to that conclusion. Again, your gut cannot be trusted man. He didn't say because Luke didn't play 20 mins, the Lakers lost.

He said when Luke plays 20 mins, they Lakers are 11-0. He's not making any predictions or conclusions about the NEXT game. The simple fact is, that the Lakers are 11-0 when Luke plays 20 mins or more.

They're 7-4 when he plays less than 20 mins (since he started).

Why is that? What's the explanation? Again, no one is saying Luke is the #1 reason for it, but you have to come up with some reasonable explanation as to why that is instead of pretending it isn't there.

LOL...I think you missed the sarcasm on that one....actually it was quite clear that Rush Delivery wasn't really plugging the "fact" all too seriously...while it appears here that you are. Now that is funny.

What's the point of explaining an advanced statistical concept like confounding factors to you....when you seriously use them to buttress a fallacious line of argument with no sense whatsoever to just how wrong you are or how idiotic you look to those who actually...I don't know...went to college and earned degrees in stuff like Statistics or Mathematics.

As for why they're 7-4 when Luke's min < 20 and 11-0 then Luke's min > 20....I suspect the reason has little to do with anything Luke actually did, and is based on pretty everything somebody else (like Kobe, Pau, Lamar, Drew or Fish) did.

kray28 wrote:As for why they're 7-4 when Luke's min < 20 and 11-0 then Luke's min > 20....I suspect the reason has little to do with anything Luke actually did, and is based on pretty everything somebody else (like Kobe, Pau, Lamar, Drew or Fish) did.

So you're saying Kobe/Pau/Lamar/Drew/Fish do more, when Luke does less? Not a bad theory, but I just wanna make sure I have it right.

^^^Man for someone who is so adamant about posting that fact/stat up knm you forgot its 12-0 now, he played 20+mins against OKC, so I dont how this team would've have managed w/o Lukes 1-6 ....so dam you Phil for now paying attention to this stat.