If Jules is the best player on the team and the guy that is seen by you as our leader/best player, then you have to look at his development into that role. Hence bringing up previous years where that development was missing. 1st year under Luke had Jules at near the bottom in defense and "leading" a poor defensive team. Luke wanted no part of that in his 2nd year as coach and helped develop Jules into emphasizing defense and becoming the team's enforcer. Jules deserves credit for putting in the work, but Luke deserves credit for bringing it out of him and helping him realize that defensive quality and embracing that responsibility. The previous years have led to the development this year. That's why I brought it up. And I refuse to believe that Jules starting the year and getting minutes he didn't deserve yet would lead to more wins. Jules as a starter with heavy minutes still has left us winless against true quality teams. We started the year playing quality teams (3rd hardest strength of schedule), so we more than likely would come up short there as well. Which is why I refuse to believe that we would have been a 7th or 8th seed right now had we started the season with Jules as a starter.
Yes, I credit Luke for some of that development, just not to the extent that you are suggesting. Maybe 20%.
You can’t quantify how much Luke affected Randle’s development. Just take it as it is. It had to be put in Randles head that playing out of control and missing defensive rotations was going to get him benched. Ju’s potential has always been there, but he’s played an alpha role for most of his life, hence his propensity to play his bully style. If you’ve seen tape of Randle in HS, you can understand where he gets it from. He was unstoppable. At Kentucky, he started playing guys his size, still absolutely strong, but now fundamentals were starting to outplay him and his stock dropped and allowed him to fall to us at 7. Forward to the NBA and he’s attempted to continue his bully ball style, with mild success. Luke wanted Ju to be more than just that bully. He wanted him to be a hounding defender, he wanted him to make plays, he wanted him to play under control, all the things Julius wasn’t accustomed to his first years here. I think Luke deserves credit for helping Ju realize his potential more than anything, when most of his past coaches just allowed him to do what he wanted.
Sure, I agree with what you and @vasashi17 are saying. Luke deserves some credit for Randle's development. As does Magic and the rest of the coaching staff. He also deserves some blame for limiting Randle's minutes too much to begin the season (8 minutes? really?) costing us some winnable games.
Funny thing about that 8 minute game...we won. But I get what you're saying @tada . I just respectfully disagree with it. Still, you and your guy Jules have made me a Fandle. I was leaning towards dumping him in a Deng deal, but I was clearly out of my mind. I would love to hang onto him and think it would be in LaBron and George's best interest to sacrifice some of their bag to have him as a teammate.
Maybe it was lesson for him to observe the game from the bench to see how he could affect the game outside of offense? Maybe some things were said that deserved a bench? We don’t know, but either way, his development this year compared to years prior is leaps and bounds to others, and the benching was a factor in it, even if it cost of us games. Our team is young, and they all need to learn from losses and what they did wrong. Go back to the tape, and look for ways to improve.
First of all he didn't begin the season as a starter so it is "flat out false" (harsh, but it's what you used) to assume Randle would not have also have developed in defense and otherwise helped get wins given the starting gig because based on the facts, that is exactly what happened when he was finally given the gig this season. Saying it wouldn't have happened before because team chemistry + bench play stats = ceiling as a starter is what is theory. We know exactly what happened when he became a starter. It may have taken a little while earlier, possible, but you completely leave out of your post the fact that he is trying to earn maybe the most important contract of his life this summer and here he is coming off the bench, do you really think this doesn't figure into his mental state, if not other teammates that play with the guy and therefore overall team chemistry? The chemistry issues were being talked about in media back in December. The other points you make about we don't beat good teams and only would have beat the Knicks then, first of all I gave win/loss stats for both Nov and Dec, I mean the season from the start. Second of all, when this team flipped the switch shortly after he became starter, you could not go through the upcoming games and go "yeah, there's a loss, good team" they can beat good teams so that argument is null. We just went 2-2 against 4 good teams. 2 on the road. Note you posted a tweet about Aaron Mintz being happy with Luke after Randle got the starting slot. Of course he was happy then. Look at the date, 1-8-18. It was his 6th game as starter and we really flipped the switch as a team the day before that vs Atlanta. Not being a fanboy, I think he still can become better and he's not even a max guy yet imo or allstar but he is knocking on those doors. I just think him being a starter earlier would have helped us, we traded away the guy that was starting and we lost that development time with the starting unit and we lost games, period. So, sorry, respect the opinion but I don't buy the argument.
Randle should have started since the beginning of the year. Those starting lineups with Nance were terrible to watch - they would go down nearly double digits every game in the first quarter. Awful. And that unit could not close games either. We were always best with Randle in there down the stretch. Randle is more talented and there was nothing to justify Nance starting. Larry was always a bench type player. And there's nothing wrong with that . . . unless he's starting when he shouldn't be. It's hard to tell though who was calling those shots. It seemed to me to be a FO move. It was just a bad idea. We definitely would have won more games with better rotations earlier this season. Randle's stats and play as a starter debunk any possible rationale that the FO or Luke could have for those early garbage rotations and severe minute limitations. They were wrong. We were right. And Randle has proven that point since he's been a starter. Look at his numbers, look at our record, look at how we have played. Nothing against Nance but Randle is a guy we need now and for our future.
First off, strength of schedule absolutely matters, because since Jules became a starter (ie played 30+ mins) we're still losing to legit playoff teams and since we faced more of those teams early in the season, we racked up a ton of Ls. We're winning more with Jules as a starter now cause we're facing more teams that are tanking and fringe playoff teams who are either low seeds or trying to get in. Since you brought up equations: 3rd toughest strength of schedule = more competitive teams = early season losses strength of schedule eased up in 2018 = less competitive teams = midseason wins The last "quality" team we beat at full strength is OKC on Feb. 4th. Yet you say we went 2-2 against 4 good teams?....are you talking about the 2 wins against SA (no LA or Kawhi) and the Heat (fringe 8th seed that just lost to Sac tonight)? Or are you talking about the Cavs (3 of their starters were out in Love, TT and Osman along with Hood) who have been awful since the allstar break? You can't be talking about Denver (currently out of the playoffs and have been a fringe 8th seed all year at best), could you? Jules is still 6th on the team in defensive rating, while Nance is 2nd. During the tough portion of the calendar in the beginning of the season, Jules faced opposing 2nd units cause he was coming off the bench. When he became a starter, the schedule got lighter and he was primarily facing up against tanking squads. So maybe that explains why Luke benched the guy, especially if defense was the emphasis in training camp and the major theme for the season. And while we're on Nance, we developed a guy and traded him for a 1st round pick (one we didn't have in 2018 before the trade), brought back a contingency plan in IT and made the primary plan plausible by dumping salary. Without that starting gig for Nance and his exposure being one of our defensive aces statistically, that deal may have not come to fruition. Whats more important, making the playoffs this season and most likely getting embarrassed while we're there...or setting up a potential super team with at 2max slot competing for a lot more than a berth in the playoffs as an 8 seed? Lastly, its obvious you read the date in the Mintz tweet, I'm sure you also saw that magical word of "develop". He mentioned DLo in that tweet as well, who we ended up trading at the beginning of the year. The date of 1/8/18 is only significant cause on 1/7/18, the story of LaVar Ball criticizing Luke was released for public consumption. You hypothesize that Mintz only came out with kind words cause Jules got the starting spot, just like you're hypothesizing we would have won more games had Jules started (ie got more minutes). The empirical data however projects that this theory of yours is just "flat out false".
I said we could have won enough extra games to be in the playoffs that's only 7 games right now. 7 games over the over 2 months Jules was not starting. But you say we could only have possibly won vs the Knicks. We disagree. You clearly think Nance is the better player by talking about the aspect of the game he is known for and Jules is just getting better at. They are different players and Jules will command more salary than Nance period. I can't be talking about Denver as good team? A fringe 8th seed most of the season in the Western Conference IS a good team in the NBA I don't care how you quantify "good" Note I didn't say great or contender, You are grasping at straws here. Nance easily could have earned the same trade value off the bench and playing in key situations as he has done. You make it seem like the deal would not have happened if he had not started and I disagree, his value as a "handyman" type defensive and hustle guy was known by GMs. GMs keep themselves informed of guys like him. Arron's boy DLo got traded to the biggest NBA market in the world and as their star player then and currently. He has no reason to be disgruntled about DLo. I already said why he need not be concerned about Jules by 1-8-18. And that date does matter. Jules was firmly back as a starter for 10 days or so and we just got a win after a long lull. We turned a corner then. Yes I saw the word development, and your condescending term "magical" inferring stupidity. Classy again. You could, when having a discussion with someone, try leaving out the sarcasm and condescending remarks as I have because honestly you come across as bitter about talking about a simple subject that someone just thinks a bit differently than you about. Then again, you can do what you want. And "player development" by playing Jules with the starting group is my entire point so your question is ironic to say the least.
First of all, sorry for sounding like a prick. I'm going to be honest with you, I've seen the Jules minutes argument alot and I have addressed it many times ad nasuem. This may be the first time you seen me argue the point, but trust me I've done it before and I rather not s*** on Jules anymore....but when folks blame Luke for it, I just think its wrong, IMHO. I hope that explains why I'm bitter about the topic. Its nothing against you, just the topic. The date 1-8-18 only holds weight cause on 1-7-18, the story of Lavar criticizing Luke came out to the the mass public. You could be onto something, but IMHO I think its a stretch. I don't think Mintz really had to bring up DLo, but he did when it was a Lakers/Luke/Jules matter, so that is why I think the date is irrelevant in terms of the time during which he became a starter. Jules became a starter on 12-29-17...why wait more than a week to make a public validation for Luke? Also, in pertaining to the Knicks, I think you might be confused in what I'm trying to say. When you look at all the Laker games, we have 9 games where we lost by 2 possessions or less (ie 6 points or less). So when you look at these games, if the results change, then obviously we're in the playoffs right now, which is why I highlighted these close games, cause technically they were winnable. However fans are saying that if Jules got more minutes, we would win more. Looking at these 9 games in particular, 6 games had it where Jules played more than his career avg of 28 minutes per game....in 5 of these losses, Jules played 30+ minutes per game. He was a starter in 2 of those games. However on close inspection, we lost to playoff teams in those close games (Portland 3x, GS 2x, Houston, Philly, cLips). The only non-playoff team we lost to was New York. So if you look at this small sample and then the greater sample of the season as a whole...the Lakers seem to beat up on tanking/losing teams, however we can't seem to win at a high enough frequency against playoff/winning teams. That holds true whether Randle starts, plays more minutes, gets benched and plays less minutes. So IMHO, the amount of minutes Jules plays does not correlate to team success. In terms of ranking a team...I would say teams that are primarily 1-6 seeded for the majority of the season are good teams. Which is why I don't consider Denver a good team, cause they peek in and out of the playoffs and usually hover anywhere from a 7-10 seed. So taking that into consideration, the last time we won against a quality opponent and they were at full strength (ie all their key players were healthy and played in the game) was Feb. 4 against OKC. In terms of Nance, you argued that we lost in the development of Jules because Nance begin the season as the starter. Yet Nance averaged less minutes than Jules and he was a better statistical defender than Jules, which justified his starting status, because Luke heavily emphasized the defensive end at the start of the season. Also, that starting exposure got the attention of the Cavs and that possibly led to the trade of Nance where we got a 1st rounder out of it, when hardly any trades at the time involved any 1st rounders, unless a star was involved. Ironically, IT was the biggest name in that trade and we still got the pick. That obviously led to the 2max plan also being realized and hypothetically lets say Jules did start the season, then maybe Nance doesn't get any shine and that deal doesn't get done. Development to me is a guy working on his flaws. Randle wasn't very good defensively before the start of this season. Clearly in training camp, Luke saw something in Nance that Jules wasn't bringing on defense. He didn't want to feed old habits, so he had him come off the bench and earn his spot. If he had a bad defensive possession, he got yanked. Remember that Jules is the longest tenured Laker now and he shared that distinction with Clarkson before the trade. Both those dudes came up off the bench cause Luke was trying to shake their bad habits on defense. Not only is that coaching, but that is player development. Kobe is literally doing a new show on how players need to watch film and pick out where to improve. Sitting on the bench watching how the defense is run and cheering your teammates is huge in player development. Earn your spot when your number gets called. Jules embraces being the team's enforcer cause Luke brought that out of him. Last year at this time, Jules was 3rd to last in defensive ranking on the team...now he's 6th best. That's player development. Anyways, again, I'm sorry that I came off classless and condescending, but I'm kind of over this topic. Yet when I see someone else bring it back up, I'm sure it will once again pull me back in...
