D'Angelo Russell Discussion: Adopting A Professional Attitude

I think DAR would be even more efficient, by the way. Better shooting and better ast/to numbers.

 

Exactly. He's six years younger than Gino was in his first good season. Not sure about third behind Kobe and T-Mac, but Gino is one of my faves of all time.

 

It is pretty misleading.

But there's stats like that all over the place. I don't take it overly seriously one way or the other. Anyone watching the two play in their respective years could see the difference. It also doesn't take into account the defensive end of the floor among a bunch of things. Manu that year shot a better percentage in every facet of the game, averaged more steals, more blocks, and less turnovers. Manu had an offensive rating of 117 and a defensive rating of 98, D'Angelo is at 102 and 113 respectively. Manu had a better VORP, almost a career high in Win Shares at 11 (D'Angelo is at 1.3), had a +7 box plus/minus (D'Angelo is at -0.5), and a lower usage percentage than D'Angelo has this season.

The eye test though is where they differed the most to me. D'Angelo has spent much of the year flying very high and then crashing and burning to the ground. It's never been about his talent, it's all between his ears. If he can mature and figure it out, he'll be a good player in this league.

 

The "misleading" aspect is thinking that a player on a 22-win team with worse advanced metrics than a player on a 59-win championship team means that the second player is significantly better simply in light of those advanced metrics.

Does anyone believe any of these?
a. Russell wouldn't earn minutes on SAS. He's better than Green, and he could immediately take many of his minutes. He could also take minutes for the now decrepit Ginobili.
b. Russell wouldn't shoot better on SAS. It's not by accident that everyone on San Antonion can a) hit threes and b) shoot career best numbers. They create space and give great looks.
c. Russell wouldn't play more efficiently on O. Russell might not average more assists per game on SAS, because they share the ball, but he'd no way turn it over as much as he does here. Better players, better system, and players play with supreme confidence.
d. Rusell wouldn't defend better. With a team of defensive slackers, it's easy to be a slacker. On a team that defends, you can't get away with that - you'd never see the court for Pop.

If Russell were on San Antonio, he'd be probably their third or fourth best player, and he'd look much better than he does on LAL. Laugh away, be offended, but know that you're selling short your own player - again.

 

That wasn't Ginobili's best season though. Just looking at points, assists, and rebounds doesn't show the full value of a player. Ginobili was a very good player in his prime, and I think his prime extended for a comparatively long time.

 

I was talking about Russell on this year's team, for what it's worth. Remember that Pop was able to make use of Stephen Jackson, one of the least mature players ever to step on the court. I wouldn't put it past him. I also think that more is made of DAR's immaturity because he's in a terrible situation. Rolling on a team with Parker, Duncan, and Pop is a situation that so many of us here on LB have said - repeatedly - would maximize many players' talents. "Put him on the Spurs, he'd be a great sixth man." It's almost a refrain.

 

I agree with you that Russell is not as good in several ways as Ginobli was in his prime. Ginobli was smart, consistent, always team oriented, hard nosed, and committed to D. None of those are labels that fit Russell yet.

But, I think it's a bit of hyperbole to claim he is not half the player Ginobli was. I'm safe to say Russell is at least 51% of prime Ginobli.

Keep in mind Ginobli always had advantages that Russell does not have. He had Pop. He had prime Timmy D to suck huge attention from him. He had prime Tony Parker to share the load. That year he had Barry, Bowen and Horry at spot up 3 point shooters to spread the floor for his drives. If you gave Russell those same advantages he would produce at least as much as Ginobli did on offense. Of course, he would still pretty much suck on D, so there's that.

 

No. He'd be much better on SAS.

 

I agree mostly with this take. I don't think Russell has done anything to prove to anybody that he could handle what Popovich gives out. Would he be more disciplined? It's sort of a chicken and egg thing. Maybe Pop figures him out and gets him to be more productive. Maybe Pop can't figure him out and D'Angelo doesn't last long in San Antonio. Personally, I think D'Angelo would be a little more productive, but you also have to factor in the greater impetus on team play and how that'd factor into his personal stats. I think comparing D'Angelo now to Ginobili in his prime is just setting up D'Angelo for failure. That's why I didn't take that post too seriously. It's always good to see those sorts of things, but it only takes seconds to poke holes in it and then you're stuck arguing a point that you really shouldn't and the conversation goes sideways. I just look at that post and I say "oh cool" and then go about my business.

Russell's trajectory to me looks like maybe Conley or Lowry who bounces around for a bit before settling down and figuring out how to be effective on a consistent basis. His attitude (the consistent "I'm young refrain") really points that way as well. Not that there's a problem with that. Lowry and Conley are both very good players.

 

I agree, but I know some people don't. It's a mentality that I just don't like. You can always point at something as a reason for failure, but hard work and focus shouldn't be among them. I don't like hearing that about any of our kids. The idea that just because you're young you don't have to focus is simply wrong to me. Every one of our kids should focus more than ever knowing their jobs are on the line.

 

Kobe and MJ had great coaches. Great coaches maximize players, too. If LeBron had a great coach, he'd have been even better - combining the skill with the athleticism earlier in his career. MJ had arguably the best. I don't know that Pop is better than PJ was. They're both better than Scott and Walton. But Walton is a pup.

 

RE: The initial graphic post on Russell & Ginobili's stats

I don't think anyone here thinks or is suggesting Russell is as good as or better than in-his-prime Ginobili. Unless I'm mistaken, that wasn't the point of posting that graphic. It's more of a statistical analysis of raw numbers meant to make a point. For as maligned as Russell can be by Laker fans & basketball analysts in general, he's still on a good-to-potentially-great trajectory in his 20-year old season.

For a number of reasons, both fair & unfair, Russell is more rigidly scrutinized than Ingram. But when you take a step back and look at the raw data and realize how young he & his career are, there are more reasons to be optimistic about his future than not. This is a YUUUUUUUUGE Summer for him. Will be fascinating to see how the new front office views his value & future here.