it is. and it's the less variant of the two, right? the other is will barton. my guess is that if you take others, they look similar. it just feels weird that he scored 30 one night and 6 the next. this is what people who average 12ppg do.
@abeer3, I found this chart on basketball reference while looking for stats on Kuz. I found it interesting that based on Kuzma’s performance for the last 3 seasons, that these are the players names that they came up with. Overall a meh list. Not sure I agree with the whole Similarity Score but still….. Edit, sorry I tired to get the chart not to run all together but couldn’t figure out how. Similarity Scores Most similar performance arc through 3 seasons (Explanation) Thur 3 years Win shares (Best to Worst) Player Sim 1 2 3 Michael Kidd-Gilchrist 97.1 3.8 3.1 2.1 Lawrence Funderburke 96.6 3.7 3.1 2.1 Derrek d***ey 96.0 3.8 3.1 2.3 Tim Thomas 95.4 3.8 3.4 2.2 Stromile Swift 95.2 3.7 3.3 1.9 Nick Anderson 95.0 3.6 3.1 1.8 Reggie Evans 94.8 3.8 3.0 1.7 Eddie Griffin 94.4 3.9 3.2 2.4 Dāvis Bertāns 94.2 4.0 3.1 2.3 Reggie Johnson 94.0 3.9 3.0 2.4 Kyle Kuzma 3.8. 3.1. 2.0 Similarity Scores The similarity scores were derived using a method similar (no pun intended) to the one used by Doug Drinen over at Pro-Football-Reference.com. It is important to note that this method does not attempt to find players who were similar in style of play. Rather, it attempts to find players whose careers were similar in terms of quality and shape. By shape, I mean things like: How many years did he play? How good were his best years compared to his worst years? Did he have a few great years and then several mediocre years, or did he have many good-but-not-great years? Another important item to note is that players are only compared to other players who played a comparable position. In other words, guards are compared to guards and guard-forwards; forwards are compared to forwards and forward-centers; and centers are compared to centers and center-forwards. This is not always perfect, but it works well enough absent more precise positional designations. Players with at least three years played and a career value greater than zero (see #2 below) will have two similarity tables on their player pages. The first displays the most similar players through a given year (i.e., through year n). Only the first n years of a player's career are used when computing these scores. The second displays the most similar players based on entire careers. In this case, all years are used for all players. Here is an example using Dirk Nowitzki and Larry Bird through 13 years: Get the Win Shares values for the first 13 years of each player's career and order them from greatest to least. DN 17.7 16.3 16.1 15.6 14.6 13.4 12.9 12.3 11.5 11.1 10.9 8.1 0.8 LB 15.8 15.7 15.2 15.0 14.0 13.6 12.5 11.2 10.8 9.5 6.6 5.5 0.5 Compute a career value for each player by multiplying his best season by 1, his second-best season by 0.95, his third-best season by 0.9, etc. DN = 122.110 LB = 112.255 If either player has a career value less than zero then we stop here. Otherwise… Calculate the absolute difference in the Win Shares values. DN 17.7 16.3 16.1 15.6 14.6 13.4 12.9 12.3 11.5 11.1 10.9 8.1 0.8 LB 15.8 15.7 15.2 15.0 14.0 13.6 12.5 11.2 10.8 9.5 6.6 5.5 0.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.7 1.6 4.3 2.6 0.3 Calculate the penalty by multiplying the first penalty by 1, the second penalty by 0.95, the third penalty by 0.9, etc. P = 10.155 Compute the similarity score as follows: 100 * (1 - (2 * 10.155 / (122.110 + 112.255))) = 91.3 Through 13 years, the similarity between Nowitzki and Bird is 91.3 (with 100 being a perfect match). In this case, the career similarity score between Nowitzki and Bird is also 91.3, as both players have played 13 years through 2011-12. After Nowitzki's 14th season, another Win Shares value will be added to Nowitzki's row and a zero will be be added to Bird's row. The similarity scores will then be computed using the same method as outlined above. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kuzmaky01.html
it's a tough measure because it seems to cover full careers, right? and the list is a mixed bag (nick anderson was really good for a time, as was tim thomas; i don't even remember reggie johnson (seems fake)). anyway, we're arguing separate things at separate times. 1. is kuz "inconsistent"? and what does "inconsistent" mean? 2. is kuz good? and what does that mean? i can argue each separately, but it's hard to do it, right? that's why role/compensation matter, though. he's paid about a quarter over league average, but for less than full years on the contract (this matters a lot, actually). so, even if he's technically a below-average player (he's not), he's still a plus-value. my point above was that "inconsistency" is inherent in non-stars. and kuz is a non-star....and that's why people want to trade him, i think. i just think if you have AD and lebron, you don't need any more stars. so if you shuffle things, it better to be shore up weaknesses or increase firepower in a real way. not just: "this is stale" kuz is not and will not be a star or third star or whatever. but i think his game has evolved, and he played a significant role on a title team. that's valuable to me, and i don't think any move that lands him elsewhere makes me happy. we've spent time developing him, and he's improved over time even if counting stats look weird. if management wants said "third star", he'll have to go. i think that's actually the center of the disagreement, though. when you have two bona fide maxes, you have options.
No the numbers above are just for 3 individual years not career numbers. I agree it’s a hard subject to argue because anybody can pick a different set of circumstances and work the stats around those perimeters. For me one of the big differences when comparing players on different teams, is what they are asked to do. What is their role on that team? I believe Kuzma’s role was to play defense, rebound and score. He definitely played better defense this year but can still improve, he improved rebounding by 1.5 rebounds from last year. Where I think he fell short was scoring. If he was surrounded by shooters I’d be fine with 8 to 12 points but our team was begging for baskets for large portions of the year. Of course he’s not going to take shots away from AD or Bron but he started 32 games this year and scored the same amount of points he did last year only starting 9. Now I don’t want him jacking up shots that have no prayer of going in but I think he needs to be more aggressive. I’m torn on whether we need a 3rd star. I was bought into the whole 3rd star by Committee thing and a different guy would step up every game but that didn’t seem to happen, so that’s where the whole consistency thing comes into play. The Lakers finished 21st in 3 point shooting last year. That can not happen again next year. We are going to have to lighten LeBron’s load next year to have him rested for the playoffs. That’s only going to happen if we are able to score while he sits. We can’t have 5 minute periods where we don’t make a single basket. We can do that a myriad of ways, get some shooters, get a better PG, our own guys come back next season with better form etc. If Rob decides to go get a 3rd star, it’s going to cost us some combination of KCP, Kuz, or S/T Dennis, AC or THT. I’m not totally against keeping Kuzma but for 13 million, he needs to pickup his scoring.
not sure how this is useful. my point is that middling scorers are inconsistent scorers. cookie is saying (i think) that she wants a high scorer. i disagree and think we won a title using the philosophy that concerns her (third star is a different guy each night). it can work either way, but we know for sure--based on actual results--that it can work with our current personnel. that's part of why i think it's funny that the press latched on to the "re-tool failed" storyline. i think we didn't dramatically alter things. if anything, bringing schroder on could be construed as a failed attempt at third-star-ing it.
Kuzma improved his all around game over the past two regular seasons. However he totally disappeared the last two playoffs. I think we should upgrade (if possible).
I think Kuz needs to go to a team that starts him and lets him score on a consistent basis. All our kids have blossomed when they leave because they have all gone to teams that needed them to score and played them a ton with a shoot first mandate. The ONLY guy who has gone to a contender and actually shined has been Clarkson. Good on him. Ingram had a chance to be the main guy for a year or two before becoming the co 1a/1b with Zion. He has done well, but they have really not been a contender, though they are on the brink. I think we will trade Kuz and eventually he will end up on a team and average 20/10, then looking back, we will say the timing was wrong. Like we have and continue to do for all the rest of those kids. Our problem with all these kids is that they were not ready to win when we needed them to be. It is one thing when you have one kid that you can slowly work into a seasoned rotation but when you have a few, it is impossible. The other thing is, none of our youth was drafted with the concept of being a great fit for Lebron and AD. Same with Kuz, not exactly the best type of fit but he has tried very hard and done a lot of good. His inconsistency has plagued him, just as it has KCP. In a lot of ways you could say that it is worse that KCP has been inconsistent because he is a more seasoned vet. The truth is, anyone we get, even ones who have shined on other teams, may have a hard time meshing with Lebron and AD. We have to consider that as a possibility. I would only trade our best role players for a really good third option. If we cannot find one, stay put.
I agree with most of it. Kuz is the NBA player with the most challenges. Each year we are making him adapt to a new reality. He was one of the go-to guys, then started playing 3 and even 2, taking on smaller and quicker guys, then coming of the bench as a 6th man, then being a stretch 5, then being a 3pt specialist and this year being a 3&D with a focus on rebounds when we didn't have Drummond, and finally being something I'm not sure what was his last version. It's tough for anyone and he has been grinding and trying to deliver without being outspoken or complaining. Then, we need to think about the team. We can't be experimenting guys. We can give some leash to THT but the rest needs to deliver exactly what we need, and Kuz is not that type of guy. He doesn't have a consistent nor I think he will ever have. He's the type of guy who can score 30 in a game and 2 in the next one. He is good/average in pretty much all areas of the game but great in none. So he needs to have a role where he can fail, have those blank games so that he can find his place on the NBA and have some continuation. He had games this year with 0pts or something like that, where he had like 3 shots or close to that. That's terrible for him, it's not his game. We can't fit him to the player we want him to be. I think we need to move him for the sake of his career and the team. We can't dump him and if it doesn't help us get a guy that is a lock in the 8-men rotation and either is a shot creator/playmaker or a 3&D, then we keep and roll him. But if we do that, he needs to have the ability to shoot and be a spark from the bench.
I actually think he can become a consistent player but he needs a team that consistently plays him. We use him like a swiss army knife. It is almost unfair for us to to this to him. It has not been good for his career. He would likely be better off on a team that will just play him and give him a consistent opportunity. If he went and played for someone and got that opportunity and eventually succeeded at that, I have little doubt that top teams would compete for his services down the road. But we are in a win now situation and he does not have the chops, nor is he going to develop them while he is with us. There are very few young players who can go to a team that is in a "win now" situation and perform at a high level. As good as Booker is now, he was the man for years on a team that sucked. He got to develop, a guy like that would never have gotten to develop on our team. He probably would have been traded two or three years ago.
I'll take Dort, SGA, or the 4th pick. But there's no way OKC agrees to any of those. Kings deal would be for Hield or Barnes, I'd have to imagine. They're sitting at 9. I'd like to try to get a pick flip out of them, too.
kuz for barnes is something i've already floated a few times. i'd like a pick as compensation for taking on extra money, but the bigger problem is that we don't have matching salary unless we chose to give up more (kcp or an opted-in harrell, for example). at which point you're giving up 2 members of the 8-man rotation of a contender for one non-third star. calculus is same for hield, imo, who is also not a third star. it would absolutely require the #9 pick. okc is definitely someone to watch because they have attractive cheap options and can eat the bulk of kuz's salary if the lakers need to save some cash for other moves. dort and bazley are guys i'd take straight up for kuz. honestly, kenrich williams is someone i'd consider, too, but i'd want a pick with him. could create a TE in a move with them, too, which might be useful later in the season.
Why Dort and Bazley? I haven’t followed them but a quick look at their stats and they don’t shoot as well as Kuz. I’d rather just keep Kuz unless we can somehow package him for a massive upgrade.
both are based on potential. bazley, in particular, has a ton of upside, imo. maybe anything from them requires picks to get done, though.
I could see Hield or Barnes. Anything with okc might be a bit tricky since I believe they are prizing all their young guys.
