Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

Lonzo Ball
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=126774
Page 10 of 11

Author:  KDdidit [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

I can see why you’d want to swap rebounds and assists since Ball outrebounds PAW.

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

KDdidit wrote:
I can see why you’d want to swap rebounds and assists since Ball outrebounds PAW.

And the Paw Blocks more shots than Lonzo so what's your point? 4 assists per game for a point guard is much worse than 4 rebounds per game are for a small forward by the way.

Author:  Caller Bob [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?


Yeah but only 4 per game with the Bulls. And even 6 per isn't good for a "pass first" Point Guard. Hey remember when you thought DeAaron Fox was a bum and Ball was much better than Brunson? Well you'd crucify either if they ever put up such puny numbers.

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
I can see why you’d want to swap rebounds and assists since Ball outrebounds PAW.

And the Paw Blocks more shots than Lonzo so what's your point? 4 assists per game for a point guard is much worse than 4 rebounds per game are for a small forward by the way.

I've copied the previous post & added blocks to simplify the comparison. Ball averaged more points, rebounds, assists and steals. But as for blocks? They both average 0.9.

PAW (2023-2024) 34 games played, 10.4 pts/g, 40.3% 3-pt, 4.1 reb, 1.5 ast, 0.9 stl, 0.9 blk
Lonzo Ball (2021-2022) 35 games played, 13.0 ppg, 42.3% 3-pt, 5.4 reb, 5.1 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.9 blk

Author:  KDdidit [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
KDdidit wrote:
I can see why you’d want to swap rebounds and assists since Ball outrebounds PAW.

And the Paw Blocks more shots than Lonzo so what's your point? 4 assists per game for a point guard is much worse than 4 rebounds per game are for a small forward by the way.


Ball had .9 blocks a game in his last year. PAW has… .9 blocks a game this year. You are aware we all have access to these stats, right?

Author:  Caller Bob [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?


Yeah but only 4 per game with the Bulls. And even 6 per isn't good for a "pass first" Point Guard. Hey remember when you thought DeAaron Fox was a bum and Ball was much better than Brunson? Well you'd crucify either if they ever put up such puny numbers.


I'm not advocating for Ball(done with him as a Bull), I'm just saying, every stat you cite is wrong. Ball has averaged 5.1 assists as a Bull.

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?

And Ball averaged 5.1 assists, not 4. Either he doesn't or is choosing not to post the correct stats in the hope that nobody will actually check.

Edit: What CB said (note - that's twice now. worlds are colliding).

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?

And Ball averaged 5.1 assists, not 4. Either he doesn't or is choosing not to post the correct stats in the hope that nobody will actually check.

Edit: What CB said (note - that's twice now. worlds are colliding).


2 teams gave up on Lonzo and actually got better. And the PAW's rebound totals would also be 5 per game if the dunderhead coach played him 35-36 minutes per game like Lonzo played. And again those numbers are putrid for a dude reputed to be a "pass first" point guard.
Jalen Brunson provided better numbers as a bench player with the Dallas Mavericks.

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?

And Ball averaged 5.1 assists, not 4. Either he doesn't or is choosing not to post the correct stats in the hope that nobody will actually check.

Edit: What CB said (note - that's twice now. worlds are colliding).


2 teams gave up on Lonzo and actually got better. And the PAW's rebound totals would also be 5 per game if the dunderhead coach played him 35-36 minutes per game like Lonzo played. And again those numbers are putrid for a dude reputed to be a "pass first" point guard.
Jalen Brunson provided better numbers as a bench player with the Dallas Mavericks.

If you just made the statement that Ball wasn't a good signing, you'd have a strong argument. You chose to throw PAW into the mix and then used false or misleading stats to justify the comparison.

I'd also note that regardless of what happened to his 2 previous teams, the Bulls were better when Ball was playing for them.

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?

And Ball averaged 5.1 assists, not 4. Either he doesn't or is choosing not to post the correct stats in the hope that nobody will actually check.

Edit: What CB said (note - that's twice now. worlds are colliding).


2 teams gave up on Lonzo and actually got better. And the PAW's rebound totals would also be 5 per game if the dunderhead coach played him 35-36 minutes per game like Lonzo played. And again those numbers are putrid for a dude reputed to be a "pass first" point guard.
Jalen Brunson provided better numbers as a bench player with the Dallas Mavericks.

If you just made the statement that Ball wasn't a good signing, you'd have a strong argument. You chose to throw PAW into the mix and then used false or misleading stats to justify the comparison.


Let's Check Ball "By The Numbers" then for his career. And then the case will be made and the argument irrefutable.

Career Points Per Game. 11.9
Assists Per Game. 6.2
Rebounds Per Game About 5 but will check.
Shooting %overall 40%
3Pt 36%
Gamed Played. Only over 60 in a season once.
Salary 20 million per year.

Nikola Vucevic makes that and everyone here hates the guy. He has been a much better player throughout his career and since he has been with the Bulls than Lonzo will ever be.

Yeah Bob and Zippy you're right. You must don't that I too, have access to numbers.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pl ... llo01.html

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?

And Ball averaged 5.1 assists, not 4. Either he doesn't or is choosing not to post the correct stats in the hope that nobody will actually check.

Edit: What CB said (note - that's twice now. worlds are colliding).


2 teams gave up on Lonzo and actually got better. And the PAW's rebound totals would also be 5 per game if the dunderhead coach played him 35-36 minutes per game like Lonzo played. And again those numbers are putrid for a dude reputed to be a "pass first" point guard.
Jalen Brunson provided better numbers as a bench player with the Dallas Mavericks.

If you just made the statement that Ball wasn't a good signing, you'd have a strong argument. You chose to throw PAW into the mix and then used false or misleading stats to justify the comparison.


Let's Check Ball "By The Numbers" then for his career. And then the case will be made and the argument irrefutable.

Career Points Per Game. 11.9
Assists Per Game. 6.2
Rebounds Per Game About 5 but will check.
Shooting %overall 40%
3Pt 36%
Gamed Played. Only over 60 in a season once.
Salary 20 million per year.

Nikola Vucevic makes that and everyone here hates the guy. He has been a much better player throughout his career and since he has been with the Bulls than Lonzo will ever be.

Yeah Bob and Zippy you're right. You must don't that I too, have access to numbers.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pl ... llo01.html
Nice try. You clearly either didn't look at the numbers in your previous posts or purposely listed false or misleading information. Which is is it? Also, throwing his salary into the mix is a different discussion and again one in which I think you'd have broad agreement. Sort of like using the 4th overall pick in the draft on a guy with worse numbers.

Finally, it you want to use career numbers, then Ball has PAW in ppg, rebounds, assists and steals. PAW is better in shooting %. However, Ball's most recent season was better than PAWs in that area as well.

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Ball has averaged 6.2 assists for his career. You are aware we ALL have access to these stats, correct?

And Ball averaged 5.1 assists, not 4. Either he doesn't or is choosing not to post the correct stats in the hope that nobody will actually check.

Edit: What CB said (note - that's twice now. worlds are colliding).


2 teams gave up on Lonzo and actually got better. And the PAW's rebound totals would also be 5 per game if the dunderhead coach played him 35-36 minutes per game like Lonzo played. And again those numbers are putrid for a dude reputed to be a "pass first" point guard.
Jalen Brunson provided better numbers as a bench player with the Dallas Mavericks.

If you just made the statement that Ball wasn't a good signing, you'd have a strong argument. You chose to throw PAW into the mix and then used false or misleading stats to justify the comparison.


Let's Check Ball "By The Numbers" then for his career. And then the case will be made and the argument irrefutable.

Career Points Per Game. 11.9
Assists Per Game. 6.2
Rebounds Per Game About 5 but will check.
Shooting %overall 40%
3Pt 36%
Gamed Played. Only over 60 in a season once.
Salary 20 million per year.

Nikola Vucevic makes that and everyone here hates the guy. He has been a much better player throughout his career and since he has been with the Bulls than Lonzo will ever be.

Yeah Bob and Zippy you're right. You must don't that I too, have access to numbers.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pl ... llo01.html
Nice try. You clearly either didn't look at the numbers in your previous posts or purposely listed false or misleading information. Which is is it? Also, throwing his salary into the mix is a different discussion and again one in which I think you'd have broad agreement. Sort of like using the 4th overall pick in the draft on a guy with worse numbers.


I notice none of things I cited actually got corrected did it? Just Asking A Question
And Patrick Williams for his career shoots better from 3 than Lonzo does from 2. Ouch Babe!

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
And Ball averaged 5.1 assists, not 4. Either he doesn't or is choosing not to post the correct stats in the hope that nobody will actually check.

Edit: What CB said (note - that's twice now. worlds are colliding).


2 teams gave up on Lonzo and actually got better. And the PAW's rebound totals would also be 5 per game if the dunderhead coach played him 35-36 minutes per game like Lonzo played. And again those numbers are putrid for a dude reputed to be a "pass first" point guard.
Jalen Brunson provided better numbers as a bench player with the Dallas Mavericks.

If you just made the statement that Ball wasn't a good signing, you'd have a strong argument. You chose to throw PAW into the mix and then used false or misleading stats to justify the comparison.


Let's Check Ball "By The Numbers" then for his career. And then the case will be made and the argument irrefutable.

Career Points Per Game. 11.9
Assists Per Game. 6.2
Rebounds Per Game About 5 but will check.
Shooting %overall 40%
3Pt 36%
Gamed Played. Only over 60 in a season once.
Salary 20 million per year.

Nikola Vucevic makes that and everyone here hates the guy. He has been a much better player throughout his career and since he has been with the Bulls than Lonzo will ever be.

Yeah Bob and Zippy you're right. You must don't that I too, have access to numbers.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pl ... llo01.html
Nice try. You clearly either didn't look at the numbers in your previous posts or purposely listed false or misleading information. Which is is it? Also, throwing his salary into the mix is a different discussion and again one in which I think you'd have broad agreement. Sort of like using the 4th overall pick in the draft on a guy with worse numbers.


I notice none of things I cited actually got corrected did it? Just Asking A Question
And Patrick Williams for his career shoots better from 3 than Lonzo does from 2. Ouch Babe!

I added this to my previous post but will include here...if you want to use career numbers, then Ball has PAW in ppg, rebounds, assists and steals. PAW is better in shooting %. However, Ball's most recent season was better than PAWs in that area as well. Ouch Babe!

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
I added this to my previous post but will include here...if you want to use career numbers, then Ball has PAW in ppg, rebounds, assists and steals. PAW is better in shooting %. However, Ball's most recent season was better than PAWs in that area as well. Ouch Babe!


Lonzo Ball was brought in to be a franchise player and ended up as a serviceable role player at best. And the Paws scoring numbers are obviously trending upward and unlike gimpy Lonzo at least he does play. Lonzo has missed more games than he has ever participated in since becoming a pro basketball player.

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
I added this to my previous post but will include here...if you want to use career numbers, then Ball has PAW in ppg, rebounds, assists and steals. PAW is better in shooting %. However, Ball's most recent season was better than PAWs in that area as well. Ouch Babe!


Lonzo Ball was brought in to be a franchise player and ended up as a serviceable role player at best. And the Paws scoring numbers are obviously trending upward and unlike gimpy Lonzo at least he does play. Lonzo has missed more games than he has ever participated in since becoming a pro basketball player.

You are all over the map on this. Nobody is arguing that the Ball signing has worked out. However, pre-injury he was a better player on the Bulls than PAW has been at any point.

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
I added this to my previous post but will include here...if you want to use career numbers, then Ball has PAW in ppg, rebounds, assists and steals. PAW is better in shooting %. However, Ball's most recent season was better than PAWs in that area as well. Ouch Babe!


Lonzo Ball was brought in to be a franchise player and ended up as a serviceable role player at best. And the Paws scoring numbers are obviously trending upward and unlike gimpy Lonzo at least he does play. Lonzo has missed more games than he has ever participated in since becoming a pro basketball player.

You are all over the map on this. Nobody is arguing that the Ball signing has worked out. However, pre-injury he was a better player on the Bulls than PAW has been at any point.


Nah. For his career the Paw is the better shooter and Defender. And that's even while playing for the dunderhead coach who thought it was a great idea to have him compete with the likes of Javonte Green for a starting spot.

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
I added this to my previous post but will include here...if you want to use career numbers, then Ball has PAW in ppg, rebounds, assists and steals. PAW is better in shooting %. However, Ball's most recent season was better than PAWs in that area as well. Ouch Babe!


Lonzo Ball was brought in to be a franchise player and ended up as a serviceable role player at best. And the Paws scoring numbers are obviously trending upward and unlike gimpy Lonzo at least he does play. Lonzo has missed more games than he has ever participated in since becoming a pro basketball player.

You are all over the map on this. Nobody is arguing that the Ball signing has worked out. However, pre-injury he was a better player on the Bulls than PAW has been at any point.


Nah. For his career the Paw is the better shooter and Defender. And that's even while playing for the dunderhead coach who thought it was a great idea to have him compete with the likes of Javonte Green for a starting spot.

You are now choosing to focus on career stats rather than their most recent seasons. Ball improved his shooting and surpassed PAW in that category (to go along with every other key stat) during his Bulls tenure. He was also at least as good if not better of a defender (that was his rep coming in and he did avg 2x as many steals).

I think we've taken this about as far as we can though. Nice to talk about the Bulls again for a bit. I agree with you on trading Lavine & hope they keep heading in the right direction in 2024 so they are at least watchable.

Author:  veganfan21 [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

I like that one game where Paw dropped 5 points and grabbed 2 boards. Oh wait those are basically his career averages.

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
I added this to my previous post but will include here...if you want to use career numbers, then Ball has PAW in ppg, rebounds, assists and steals. PAW is better in shooting %. However, Ball's most recent season was better than PAWs in that area as well. Ouch Babe!


Lonzo Ball was brought in to be a franchise player and ended up as a serviceable role player at best. And the Paws scoring numbers are obviously trending upward and unlike gimpy Lonzo at least he does play. Lonzo has missed more games than he has ever participated in since becoming a pro basketball player.

You are all over the map on this. Nobody is arguing that the Ball signing has worked out. However, pre-injury he was a better player on the Bulls than PAW has been at any point.


Nah. For his career the Paw is the better shooter and Defender. And that's even while playing for the dunderhead coach who thought it was a great idea to have him compete with the likes of Javonte Green for a starting spot.

You are now choosing to focus on career stats rather than their most recent seasons. Ball improved his shooting and surpassed PAW in that category (to go along with every other key stat) during his Bulls tenure. He was also at least as good if not better of a defender (that was his rep coming in and he did avg 2x as many steals).

I think we've taken this about as far as we can though. Nice to talk about the Bulls again for a bit. I agree with you on trading Lavine & hope they keep heading in the right direction in 2024 so they are at least watchable.


The season Lonzo got hurt he only played in 35 games. If you want to go over Patrick Williams next 35 games (starting 10 back) we can. I'm fairly certain that he will average more points, blocks, and shoot a higher percentage than Lonzo ever has. That's what his career numbers suggest. And as far as "improvement" goes The Paw has been improving. As his latest numbers clearly demonstrate.

Author:  Nardi [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

PAW has been pretty good as long as the time Coby has been terrific. PAW was terrific 2 games ago against the Pacers. Might have been the best game of his career, activity-wise.

Author:  Nardi [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Lonzo is a pretender. Can shoot threes but bricks layups. How is that possible? Him and Ben Simmons should meld and be all star Lonzo Simmons.

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Nardi wrote:
Lonzo is a pretender. Can shoot threes but bricks layups. How is that possible? Him and Ben Simmons should meld and be all star Lonzo Simmons.

Even without the injury it was a bad signing. Could have spread the money out (As I suggested) and acquired 2-3 players instead of him. One of them being Dennis Shroeder. Who makes far less but gives you better production

Author:  Caller Bob [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

What a stupid ass argument you have made here.

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Caller Bob wrote:
What a stupid ass argument you have made here.


Caller Bob taking the Cresty Their Bestie approach of making a point without actually making a point. 20 mil per year was a vast overpay for a guy who should have made between 7-10 mil per. Jalen Brunson (,who you stupidly claimed to be a "looter in a riot", makes 25-26 per and is an All Star. Vuc makes 20 and is a two time All Star. Derozan (multiple time All Star) 27 mil per. You could have obtained much better value even without the injury. And it's also stupid to believe that a dude that has never suited up in a playoff game is somehow "the key to winning".
.

Author:  Caller Bob [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Both Ball and The Flaw are bums and not in the future of this organization. Next!

Author:  Nardi [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
What a stupid ass argument you have made here.


Caller Bob taking the Cresty Their Bestie approach of making a point without actually making a point. 20 mil per year was a vast overpay for a guy who should have made between 7-10 mil per. Jalen Brunson (,who you stupidly claimed to be a "looter in a riot", makes 25-26 per and is an All Star. Vuc makes 20 and is a two time All Star. Derozan (multiple time All Star) 27 mil per. You could have obtained much better value even without the injury. And it's also stupid to believe that a dude that has never suited up in a playoff game is somehow "the key to winning".
.

He was the key to winning. And he failed. Even with all these spread offenses you STILL need a lead guard. Even with the magical Jokic, you still need a Jamal Murray

Author:  The Doctor Of Style [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

Nardi wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
What a stupid ass argument you have made here.


Caller Bob taking the Cresty Their Bestie approach of making a point without actually making a point. 20 mil per year was a vast overpay for a guy who should have made between 7-10 mil per. Jalen Brunson (,who you stupidly claimed to be a "looter in a riot", makes 25-26 per and is an All Star. Vuc makes 20 and is a two time All Star. Derozan (multiple time All Star) 27 mil per. You could have obtained much better value even without the injury. And it's also stupid to believe that a dude that has never suited up in a playoff game is somehow "the key to winning".
.

He was the key to winning. And he failed. Even with all these spread offenses you STILL need a lead guard. Even with the magical Jokic, you still need a Jamal Murray


Small Sample Size. He has been on 2 other teams and those teams failed miserably. Both got better once he got traded..And again 20 mil for a dude with his production and history of injury was far too much. Dennis Schroeder signed for 5 in the same year and his numbers as a starter are better than Lonzos. His 5 mil along with 2 other guys and you'd have a better team right now.

Author:  Nardi [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Nardi wrote:
The Doctor Of Style wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
What a stupid ass argument you have made here.


Caller Bob taking the Cresty Their Bestie approach of making a point without actually making a point. 20 mil per year was a vast overpay for a guy who should have made between 7-10 mil per. Jalen Brunson (,who you stupidly claimed to be a "looter in a riot", makes 25-26 per and is an All Star. Vuc makes 20 and is a two time All Star. Derozan (multiple time All Star) 27 mil per. You could have obtained much better value even without the injury. And it's also stupid to believe that a dude that has never suited up in a playoff game is somehow "the key to winning".
.

He was the key to winning. And he failed. Even with all these spread offenses you STILL need a lead guard. Even with the magical Jokic, you still need a Jamal Murray


Small Sample Size. He has been on 2 other teams and those teams failed miserably. Both got better once he got traded..And again 20 mil for a dude with his production and history of injury was far too much. Dennis Schroeder signed for 5 in the same year and his numbers as a starter are better than Lonzos. His 5 mil along with 2 other guys and you'd have a better team right now.

I hear you, but it wasn't like I was glued to the TV watching Lonzo Ball in LA or NO. I had no idea he was atrocious shooting inside of 23 ft.

Author:  312player [ Tue Jan 02, 2024 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lonzo Ball

It was common knowledge Ball sucked at shooting since college.

Page 10 of 11 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/