Ex-Coach Luke Walton Discussion

Mediocre players with little natural athletic skills become the best coaches. They didn't have the natural athletic abilities of some players, so they had to think the game in order to excel.

If you think back to his playing days, he was always slow and unathletic, but had an excellent mind for passing and defensive angles, and all the little things a player needs to do and see to play at that level. As a player, when Luke made mistakes, it was usually because of physical limitations, not bonehead plays or not knowing what to do. Then he got to see how some of the greatest minds in basketball managed games, and practices in Tex Winter and Phil.

This franchise kind of built Luke into the coach you see today, so it's only right that we get to taste the fruits of our labor.

 

^When he was healthy, Jackson had no qualms playing Walton at the elbow or on the post to initiate his Triangle. O'Neal quipped Walton was the only one on that 2004 squad who could get him the ball. He also learned under Lute Olson...another good coach.

 

Dude can coach. We aren't really a better roster than last season yet guys don't look lost, he's not throwing baffling, maddening lineups out there, he's a smart dude and putting guys in positions to succeed. We still don't have the talent to go far, but he seems like a coach that's going to get the most out of what he has, not unlike Phil Jackson who he initially learned under. So far we're at .500 and have beaten Houston, Atlanta, and GS, and been competitive in 2 of our
3 losses. It's very early, but I'll take that as a step in the right direction, we're winning as a team effort and that's fun to watch. Did not expect to see Young and Lou contribute this much and play this well, so he again must be using guys correctly, they're not lost out there. Kinda baffling that B0ron could be the worst coach ever with his success as a player, and Luke can be a very good coach early on with little experience.

 

If the Lakers make the playoffs? Then he gets the award for sure. I mean, I don't see it, but... if it happens it should not be close.

 

Prior to the season, I was considering posting this blog on Luke Walton, but I decided against it. I'll post it now, but it's sort of incomplete.

What Differences Does a Walton Make?
Travis Rodgers

It is notoriously difficult to predict a new coach’s impact on a team. What appears to be the best evidence out there is of two sorts: qualitative (in particular, do players want to play for a coach?) and quantitative (in particular, do teams win a higher percentage of their games with the coach?). The data seem to suggest that Walton will be very successful on the qualitative scale, and he will likely be relatively successful on the quantitative measure. Long story short: Walton is probably a good hire for the Lakers, but it seems unlikely that 2016-17 will be a season to raise another banner for the Purple and Gold. Walton has made three coaching stops prior to coming to the Lakers as Head Coach. He was Assistant Coach at Memphis for (part of) the 2011 season. He was Player Development Coach for the D-fenders in 2013-14. He was, most famously, Assistant at Golden State.


Stop 1: Memphis
The Memphis team was 49-20 in the two seasons prior to Luke’s arrival, going 24-10 and 25-10. They went 26-9 in the season Walton was on staff. They went 2-1 in tournament games without Walton and 0-1 "with" Walton. Among those who had praise for Walton were then Tiger Tarik Black, who said he was “Excited,” that Walton had joined the staff. “Once he saw me, he said, ‘You have NBA potential, use it,’” Black said (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/walton-714251-pastner-coach.html). Then Head Coach and once teammate of Walton’s at Arizona, Josh Pastner said, “Luke was a poor athlete, he was always banged up. He'd play like he was an old man in a 60-and-over league. But he could pass the ball, he was so cerebral. He could do things in the high post and you could play off of him, and even defensively, he was always good positioning himself. He was able to last as long as he did because of his intelligence, not his physical skill."

Stop 2: D-League
The D-Fenders were 59-40 in the two seasons leading up to Luke (38-11, 21-29), with a 5-2 record in the playoffs. They were 31-19 with him and went 0-2 in the playoffs.

Stop 3: Golden State
While it’s not a particularly popular opinion, the Warriors were on their way to becoming a very good team under Mark Jackson. After a 23-43 season, with a 14th and 27th place finish in ORtg and DRtg, respectively, the Warriors went 98-67 in the regular season and 9-11 in the playoffs, winning two playoff series. More importantly, they climbed from 27th to 11th and 12th in ORtg and from 27th to 14th to 4th defensively. And along came Steve Kerr.

The Warriors went 67-15 in the regular season and 16-5 in the playoffs, finishing 2nd in ORtg and 1st in DRtg. In 2015-16, they went 73-9, 15-9 in playoffs, and finished 1st in ORtg and 5th in DRtg. Luke is “credited” (not officially, mind you, a fact that even Kerr found ridiculous) with a 39-4 record in Golden State, while Kerr coached the team to a 34-5 record last season. Kerr's record at the helm of Golden State is almost absurd: 111-20 in the regular season, 31-14 in the playoffs, with seven series wins. Luke Walton's 39-4 record is, however, every bit as ridiculous.

Data 1: Regular Season Games / No Luke
Memphis: 49-20 (.710)
D-Fenders: 59-49 (.541)
Golden State: 111-20 (.847)
Cumulative: 219-89 (.704)

Data 2: Regular Season Games / With Luke
Memphis: 26-9 (.743) +.033
D-Fenders: 31-19 (.620) +.079
Golden State: 39-4 (.907) +.060
Cumulative: 96-32 (.750) +.046

Thoughts
Again, bearing in mind how difficult it is to gauge the impact of a coach (for more on this, see the Freakonomics story: http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/...hat-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/ or this one: http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/ ), Luke has either chosen well in coming to programs that were about to improve or he had a positive impact on the teams. On one hand, the impact might seem insignificant: If the Lakers were to improve their win% by .033, that would mean an addition of 2.7 wins; even the largest increase, during his D-Fenders stint, would mean an increase of 6.5 wins. The safer value, in the middle, at .046 would mean an increase of 3.8 wins. None of those numbers are going to impress Lakers fans, as 20-24 wins isn’t going to get the team anywhere near the playoffs. On the other hand, there’s something to be said for inheriting already good programs and making them even better. Improving up a 17-win season is much easier than improving upon a 67-win season. Looking at things in another way (honestly, not obviously fully valid methodologically), if Walton's teams were improving by nearly a full standard deviation (and they were), that would put the Lakers' projected wins in the 26-35 range for this season. The higher value there would be a huge lift psychologically for the squad and the fans.

 

The only negative to Luke and the team doing well: Jimmy Boy will be allowed to stay.