Fat and strong material | Five issues for the Lakers' first three games of the new season: execution > Ham's rotation selection

Twenty years, based on an average life expectancy of about 80 years, is equivalent to about 1/4 of life.

It is enough for mobile phones to enter the 5G era from the 1G era; Transportation has entered the era of high-speed rail from the era of trains; Society has gradually entered the era of artificial intelligence from the information age.

Twenty years is enough to change everything – even our ID cards are replaced every ten years, and it's hard to find items from 20 years ago around you these days.

That's why we were so surprised when we turned on the TV and saw that LeBron James was still on the court as he was twenty years ago.

"Generation", that's the name of LeBron's Generation boots. And he did live up to the word, he not only represents that generation, but still continues the glory of that generation today.

Today is the 20th anniversary of James' NBA debut — on this day 20 years ago, LeBron scored 25 points, 6 rebounds and 9 assists; Now, 20 years later, he has 27 points, 15 rebounds and 8 assists against the same opponent – and it's amazing to be in that form at this age.

At the end of regulation time, LeBron scored a key layup to equalize, but unfortunately, the Lakers still couldn't have the last laugh in overtime, making this memorable night a little regretful - considering that LeBron didn't win the Kings on his debut, it's a bit of a tribute...

Today's loss is as insignificant in LeBron's long and illustrious career as the one in his debut, but for the Lakers, they have to take every game seriously.

Including the loss to the Sacramento Kings, the Lakers started the season with a three-game record of one win and two losses against two mid-table playoff teams and a championship-seeded team, and all three were forced to crunch time, which clearly did not match their expected level of competition.

In the previous article, we analyzed the team's game plan, which is the general direction.

So let's go to the game specifically and talk about what [execution] problems the team has.

Taking this game as an example, the problems can be divided into the following points according to the priority:

1. Young players do not adapt to the change of roles and play as expected: representative figures Reeves and Hachimura.

2. The team's overall projection performance is not as expected: all role players except Prince and Wood are representatives.

3. Vanderbilt's absence led to a lack of defensive strikers in the starting lineup.

4. The lineup is slightly weak in terms of impacting the basket (mainly due to problem 1).

5. Rotation selection issues.

Next, we will analyze these problems in turn and come up with a solution.

Young players are not comfortable with the change of roles

Keeping Austin Reaves on the road is an important part of the Lakers' "long-term plan" this season, but at the moment, judging from the first three games of the season, Reaves seems to have hit a bit of a "wall".

In the first two years of his career, Reaves has always been a representative of the [secondary attacker] positioning, low production and high efficiency, but this season the Lakers hope that Reaves will change more from [secondary attacker] to "main attacker" and complete similar Tony Parker or Ginobili-style progress, as evidenced by the data:

This season, Reeves' usage rate has increased to 19.4% from 15.4% last season;

Ball averages increased from 41.9 to 55.5 touches per game;

Time of poss, up from sixth in the team last season, to second in the team.

In the new season, Reaves' improvement in ball possession is very obvious in terms of perception and data, but what the Lakers expect is different - the improvement of ball possession has not promoted Reaves' progress, but has caused his efficiency to plummet.

Last season, Reaves' true shooting percentage was 68.7 percent of the league's leading scoring guards, but this season, his true shooting percentage plummeted to 41.7 percent.

In his first three games, Reaves averaged just 9.7 points and 2.3 assists per game, along with 2.0 turnovers — and he went from a prospect (playoff) to a mediocre role player — which is one of the biggest reasons why the Lakers are not as good as expected at the moment.

Obviously, it is the role shift that is causing this degradation.

So now the question arises – should Reeves abandon this shift?

In the long term, the answer is no.

At the competition level:

Davis, James, and Russell, their ability to contribute to the game has basically been fixed, and with only these three as the core group, the Lakers have no advantage in the championship group at all - or to put it bluntly, if they still rely on these three people, the Lakers will still not be able to beat the Nuggets in the playoffs this year.

If the Lakers want to beat the Nuggets, or even the top team in contention for a championship, Reaves' growth will be crucial.

From the level of team building planning:

LeBron's career is coming to an end, and Russell has a player option next year — the Lakers currently have only Reaves and Schifino on long-term contracts.

If Reaves has no way to evolve into a [master controller], then the Lakers' ball-handler selection in the future will be even more unoptimistic.

(Look at the current price of point guards on the market, three-ball, Haliburton 260 million for 5 years, VanVleet 130 million for 3 years, the price of getting a ball handler through external reinforcements is huge.) ）

So whether it's in the long term or the short term, Reeves must complete the transformation from [secondary attacker] to [main control].

In fact, the Lakers should also maintain some patience - it is normal for the secondary attacker to shift to the main attacker, and it is normal for the player to be uncomfortable in the process.

Last season, the Warriors' Jordan Poole had a similar situation, with a flurry of ups and downs in the first two months and a flurry of mistakes in key moments, but gradually regained his form as the season progressed, averaging 26.8 points per game in December. (Although the playoffs have plummeted again)

In my opinion, Reaves has the ball intelligence to be the main point point point - that's where he excels over Poole, he's a better team and a better defensive player. Maybe the fatigue of the playoffs + Olympics has made him a little tired - in Reeves' rookie season, we have seen his performance affected by his fitness decline, and hopefully as the season progresses, he can gradually "recharge" himself.

So far, I still think Reaves' performance has declined, with the adaptation and fitness factors outweighing the technical factors – and I still believe he has what it takes to be the main controller.

And even in the worst-case scenario, the Lakers have an advantage over the Warriors last season — Reaves doesn't have that hunger for the ball, and he's ready to return to the role player position to play; Even, from some brutal points of view – he has a contract with more deal value. (Of course, that's the last thing I want to see)

Let's talk about Hachimura.

Hachimura's form is worse than Reeves', but his problem is simpler than Reeves' - in fact, Hachimura's change in positioning is not "necessary".

After three games so far, Hachimura is averaging eight points per game, shooting 42.1 percent from the field and 33.3 percent from three-point range — and today's late outburst made his stats look a little better in a small sample.

Hachimura's problems lie in two main points:

1. The change of the way of shooting.

Perhaps it was last season's playoffs that Hachimura began to try to make the transition from a "mid-range scorer" to a "rim-attacking scorer" — something he was about the focus of his summer training with James.

But it turned out that James' style of play was not as easy to learn — Hachimura's shooting frequency rose from 39 percent to 52 percent, but his shooting percentage was a miserable 44.4 percent.

You still have to practice.

2. Rotation status is threatened.

Part of this stems from the first point – Hachimura is essentially an offensive player, and has been in an awkward position on the defensive end, and Hachimura's current playing time is seriously threatened by Wood due to poor offensive efficiency.

As Davis' frontcourt partner, Wood has certainly shown some strengths at the moment – his rim protection is far better than Hachimura's, his offensive end is more lethal on the inside, and his three-point attempts are more accurate than Hachimura's.

If Hachimura wants to avoid being eaten by Wood, he first needs to regain his offensive efficiency - 50% of his three-point shooting is not bad in the last two games, and if he can't score under the basket, why not shoot more mid-range? (And I don't know why, the common catch misplacement and punishment misalignment in Hachimura in these preseason games can't be seen)

Summary of the problem:

At present, Davis, James, Prince, Wood, Russell, Reaves, Vincent, Hachimura, this is probably the order of the Lakers' first three games of "player performance > expectations".

From this perspective, the Lakers' current predicament is clear - their most offseason 3-4 players, Wood who is currently playing on the court without a base salary, and Prince, who is a mini-middle class - and to be the expected team, the Lakers need Reaves to be the third best player on the team, and Hachimura and Vincent need to be in the top five.

Let's talk about the second point.

The team's overall projection was not as expected

"They added three points in the offseason"

In this game against the Kings, the Lakers made 15 of 45 three-pointers, shooting only 33.3%.

In the first three games of the season, the Lakers shot 29% from three-point range, ranking 29th in the league.

It's disappointing — the Lakers are not doing as well as they did last season when they targeted reinforcements in the offseason.

Vincent hasn't hit a single three-pointer so far; Russell shot 24% from three-point range; Reaves shot 25 percent from three-point range; James shot 29 percent from three-point range; Hachimura shot 33% from three-point range — If it weren't for Prince's 45% shooting average, the Lakers' three-point shooting percentage would have been "recordal" again.

Of course, this is only a very small sample size, and based on the past resume, the Lakers' three-point shooting percentage is inevitable — especially since in fact that a large percentage of those shots are empty.

Take a look at these shots from the Lakers in key moments in this game:

In the last three minutes of the fourth quarter, the Lakers missed three big open three-pointers in a row with only four points off - these chances couldn't have been better, and the shots were all players with "pitcher" attributes - there was no other way but to "shoot the ball in".

In the final two minutes of overtime, the Lakers once again missed three big open three-pointers in a row — and missing those shots was a crime.

In this case, it's completely self-defeating to win - unless, as last season, the default "we just can't shoot" and then James and Davis force the inside - well, it seems that the Lakers really did this in the last two games to the final crucial round... But considering the "long-term plan", they should still try to throw in these empty spots, rather than relying too much on Zhan Mei.

Don't pretend to be too advanced – "shooting the ball" is really the best way to make it easier for the Lakers to win.

Next question.

The starting lineup lacked defensive strikers.

Well, in the past, I thought that Prince was just not suitable for the [projection backcourt star] and [projection forward superstar], and judging from this game, the [breakthrough backcourt star] he was also not able to defend - Prince's defensive level was really fixed to only defend [secondary ball carrier].

In the past three games, Prince, as the Lakers' No. 1 defender, has basically only played a "look positive" effect - Fox 37 points, Durant 39 points, Murray 21 points (8 of 13), Prince can be said to have prevented anyone.

Take a look at how Fox devoured him alive in this game:

Fox doesn't even need cover, and a single acceleration can shake off Prince and cause a foul.

And with the help of the cover of Popules is more relaxed, a blocking Prince man is gone, and he can't even put pressure from behind - so Fox can face Davis and do whatever he wants.

Let's take a look at how Vincent defended Fox:

While he couldn't stay in front of Fox, he wouldn't be pulled out too much and would be able to chase back and interfere with Fox from behind.

And Prince was almost hit by Fox:

Easily overwhelmed by Fox.

At the critical moment, Fox singled out Prince one-on-one to score.

I think it's very obvious at the moment - if the Lakers don't make adjustments, every game for the Lakers in the future may be a series of "take you to the league guards" and "take you to the league forwards".

And the best way to adjust, of course, is Vanderbilt's return - as long as Prince avoids the opposing attacking arrows, his defense is still very good.

And if Vanderbilt can't return quickly, the Lakers could also improve their defense by moving Vincent to the starting lineup — but this option is also hugely difficult, and it may require one of Reaves and Russell to start, but at this point in time it is not appropriate to take either one.

(It would also be inappropriate to take Prince off the starting line and play a back three, as Prince is currently in hot form, and on the other hand, this lineup selection will be the target of public criticism if he loses.)

Get ready, until Vanderbilt returns, it's likely that the Lakers will have some more time to maintain a poor defense.

Next question.

The lineup is a little lackluster when it comes to attacking the basket

Yes, this question mainly stems from question one. To explain:

In the offseason, the Lakers let Dennis Schroder sign Vincent - this is a [breakthrough for shooting] operation, Schroder averaged 9.4 times per game in 23 seasons, Vincent only 5.2 times - the data does not fully show the difference, this season Schroder averaged more than 13.4 per game after getting more balls, and his foul rate after breaking through is much higher than Vincent.

I'm sure the Lakers know the difference. And the reason why they still chose to sign Vincent is because they look at the shooting and error defense ability of the Chinese Sente, and on the other hand, they believe that Reeves can improve - these words, starting with the free market analysis article, we have talked about it in many issues.

But now the fact is that Reeves (including Hachimura) failed to fill the void left by Schroder.

Let's go to the data:

Reaves is currently averaging 10.0 points per game, four more than last season's 6.3 — but more points have not been converted into more points, with a 67.8 percent scoring rate and 4.3 points per game last season, compared to 43.3 percent this season and 5.0 points per game.

That's not enough to fill Schröder's vacancy.

As we mentioned above, Hachimura also increased the frequency of attacking the frame, but the effect of attacking the frame was equally outrageous.

Combined with the Lakers' "long-term plan" we talked about in our previous article - to make James and Davis less frequent and play more easily inside - the Lakers suddenly went from last season's "strong team" to a team with little ability to attack the frame.

Take this game against the Kings as an example - the Lakers only took 26.5% of their shots under the basket, which can only outpace the league's 36% of teams, compared to last season's regular season, when they shot 37.5% from the basket, the second in the league.

If you often think that the Lakers, apart from Davis and James, are just shooting from the outside and hitting iron — I can tell you that it's not a delusion.

As for how to solve this problem - frankly, it is difficult, because the Lakers don't have a lot of room to tap from the roster. And letting Zhan Mei go all out in the regular season must not be what the Lakers want.

It will be interesting to see if Reaves, Hachimura, and other role players will improve in terms of rim frequency and effectiveness after the Lakers' outside shooting picks up — because theoretically, when you shoot more accurately, the opposing side will take more close-outs, including tighter on the single defense, which can also create more breakaway opportunities.

One last question.

Rotation selection questions

Some may think that this issue is the number one issue for the Lakers right now, but I still think it should be on the back burner — the Lakers aren't at the point of "must-win" right now, and they don't have a clearly "perfect" roster right now.

We talked about "long-term planning" and "short-term planning" in our previous article - the coach has to think about not just the game, it's easy to take Reaves, Hachimura or Wood on or off, but the coach also has to think about the long-term development of the players.

For example, the problem of Hachimura and Wood.

In this game, for example, Wood's offensive performance in the first half was good, but in the second half, Ham chose to use Hachimura for defensive reasons - in fact, Hachimura did not live up to Ham's trust, scoring eight points in a row to help the Lakers overtake the score - you can't say that Hamm's decision was wrong.

And then, after the Kings changed to the starting lineup, Ham chose to replace Hachimura in order to prevent Hachimura's slow pace from being targeted by the Kings - Prince was the Lakers' best player in the first three quarters, Russell scored nine points in a row in the fourth quarter, and Vincent defended Fox at least four times in the fourth quarter (especially the last few single defenses were the key to the Lakers' equalization) - you can't say that Ham was wrong.

It's easiest to work backwards from the cause, but it's not necessarily true. In my opinion, the rotation option was not the main reason for the Lakers' loss — at least, after the above four.

At the moment, the Lakers' rotation problem is that the strengths and weaknesses of the players are obvious - when it comes to choosing a lineup, there are almost always gains and losses - to attack you have to sacrifice defense, and to defend you have to sacrifice offense.

Judging by the willingness to take Reeves in the second half and in overtime, I'm okay with Hamm's rotation options.

As for how the Lakers can "completely" solve the rotation problem — which I think comes down to the players, not the coaches — when Vincent can shoot the ball in and Reaves can find his rhythm in the game, it will all work out.

That's it for today's analysis. We'll see you next time.