Disagree. He keeps the ball moving and tries harder than starter Radmanovic. He had a bad game tonight, was in foul trouble all game, but he's been solid for us since he has started. Do you guys even watch these games? Starter Radmanovic gives us one or two quality games, but as soon as the fucker senses his job is safe for the time being, he lets up. He'll then dog it for multiple games, until he gets benched. Then he'll give you the effort for a couple more games, lulls you into thinking he should get big minutes, and the same fucking thing happens again.
Did you watch the game? Kobe really played great basketball, he at some point was red hot. Plenty of his missed shots were made, when the clock was running out and so they were bad looks. You can put zero blame on Kobe with that loss.
Uh, I think you're the only Laker fan who feels that Radman shouldn't be starting. He was having an awesome year, shooting nearly 50% from three and playing decent D. He was doing everything Phil wanted...and Phil benched him. Again, Luke should be getting no minutes. We're 4-2 with him in the starting lineup.
I was kinda thinkin the same thing the other night when I saw Kobe's interview after the knicks game. He was acting like the team had no problems and that they were "right there" for a title.........Maybe Kobe does need to go back to being somewhat of a jerk so his teammates can respond.........I still think Kobe dogging Bynum inspired the young grasshopper to bring it last year........... I agree.............
You know who agrees with me? Phil Jackson. Sorry, but I'd rather have him on my side than you scrubs. Listen, the numbers don't tell everything. There's nothing I can do to convince you that Radman should not have been starting if you seem to think he was playing decent defense. There's just no arguing that, that's how out of left field it is. If you'd actually seen the games and knew how to analyze more than just a stat box, you'd agree with me too. He makes stupid decisions, the ball stop in his hands, and his defense is atrocious. And yeah, that 4-2 record says everything we need to know about Luke's effectiveness, dude. Never mind that both losses occurred on the road, never mind that both went down to the wire, never even mind that Luke only played 11 minutes in the second loss. None of that matters, man. 4-2. 4 and motherfucking two says everything. Please. I'm gonna get back to better things, this is like arguing with children. Peace.
^^^calm down man, lol....I've never seen anyone get this hype arguing over the justification of Luke Walton being a starter, lmao.............group hug time, lol.....
Can you please clearly justify why Walton should be starting? He's horrible defensively (worse than Vlad Rad this year), has absolutely no shot, and has very low bball IQ despite what some people might think. Ask any Laker fan on this board (Shape, Brian, Huevon, etc...) and I think they'd tell you that Walton starting over Radmanovic is a joke.
He's not worse than Radmanovic defensively. Where do you get this stuff from? Radman routinely gets beat off the dribble, routinely causes dumb fouls, routinely fails to close out on his man on wide open jumpers, and frankly, he doesn't play as hard as Luke. He's more gifted physically, but that doesn't matter when the guy gives you a couple good games and takes a vacation for the next ten. As far as Luke's bball IQ, no one claimed he was some kind of a scholar, but compared to Radmanovic he's a savant. Lastly, and I can't emphasize this enough, Luke is a great passer, and almost always makes the right decisions. The reason he was put into the line-up, in fact, was so he could feed quick passes to our big men, who Radmanovic tended to either ignore completely or couldn't pass fast enough to. He does have his faults (many times he gets clobbered by more athletic players, but that's why we have Trevor; and yes, no shot to speak of) but I think on balance he has more to offer than Radmanovic. As far as your friends not agreeing with me, is that supposed to matter? Of course they would agree with you. I'm not here to make friends though, so sorry, that doesn't hold any sway with me.
Or how about they both suck? One just more than the other; and they both have major flaws. Luke's true shooting percentage is ten percent below average, his PER is among the league's worst at 9.2. The only thing he can do is pass decently. The PER Luke has given up is higher than Vlad's too. Offensively Vlad most likely fits this team better by stretching the court and creating space in the triangle.
Uh, yeah. No one claimed either was the second coming of MJ. One does suck more than the other, and that person happens to be Radmanovic. Yeah, I agreed that he wasn't a shooter, but many of the things he does on the court are not reflected in the box score, and hence, in his PER averages. Stuff like getting after the ball, making the pass that leads to an easy assist for ANOTHER player, stuff that Stu Lantz always talks about. Considering you live in Miami and rarely catch live Laker games, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. On paper it's easy to see why Vlad would fit the team better, but the numbers aren't always conclusive. Sorry to break that to you.
Uh what? I've seen almost every Laker game, I have access to all of them. I keep some of the threads here active in case you didn't notice. I tend not to believe in anecdotal accounts and intangibles, I would assume it is very hard to differentiate between bad and very bad offensive production (Vlad and Luke respectively). Luke blows at defense too.
What you "tend to believe" and what actually is can often differ. No offense, but you also believe that a fatherless dude died for humanity's sins. Not sure your judgment is the beacon of reasonableness here.
Hah right! What a ridiculous response. You have no knowledge of my beliefs. I've read your posts all day and you are teetering on the edge with some of these personal attacks. Calm down, it is classless to go on this tangent.
What response wouldn't have been ridiculous? If you think the numbers are the be all, end all, what more can I say?
There are a lot of responses that would not have been ridiculous, grow up a little. To me at the very least it is a wash. Your amount of conviction wasn't justified though, for such an anemic offensive player with defensive issues as well.
Like what? Do you really believe the numbers are always conclusive? As far as my convictions go, I didn't think they were comparable to the "Luke Walton should be cut, we need a massive overhaul!" crowd that seeps through after every loss, but hey, what do I know.
Depends what kind of stat we're speaking of. For example volume statistics can be misleading so I like looking at pace and per-minuted adjusted production when comparing the offense of two starters. Point is, you could have easily made a defense for Luke that I have no issue with, such as some of your previous posts. Right now we need some defensive prowess and people are trying to hold us to a standard closer to Boston. That's why some are being harsh on this team; that is the cause of some of the criticisms.
Fair, but what role do the intangibles and unreported stats play in your estimation? I'm know of the causes of the commotion, but there's something to be said for the mass hysteria, no? I just think it's a little overblown.
