These are stats from this past season. Neither of these guys are Bulls. Both play the same position. Player 1: 77 gp; 24.7 mpg; 10.1 ppg; .422 FG% (.341 3P%, .842 FT%, .515 TS%); 2.8 rpg; 3.6 apg; 0.7 spg; 0.1 bgp; 2.5 TO. Player 2: 77 gp; 19.7 mpg; 10.0 ppg; .427 FG% (.351 3P%, .827 FT%, .442 TS%); 2.1 rpg; 4.1 apg; 0.6 spg; 0.1 bpg; 1.9 TO.
Mad, mad respect if you were able to do this without Google? I posted these stats because I was surprised at how solid Lavine's numbers were by the time the season ended. I think Dennis Schroder is probably on the path to being an allstar at some point, and Lavine put up eerily similar numbers on better efficiency. When you consider the fact that Lavine was a rookie, played only one year in college, was a limited contributor in college due to personnel conflicts, and switched positions when he came into the NBA . . . he ended up having a rather extraordinary season. Lavine's season was the type that is consistent with the possibility of him becoming a superstar. We've had a lot of discussions around these parts about whether Doug McDermott is a bust. I think it's premature to think that he might be. But that's a different conversation than the one we should probably be having: did Garpax make the right choice of McDermott at 11? I'd rather have Lavine right now and it isn't particularly close.
As you know, Schroder was drafted in 2013, so he doesn't belong in the McDermott discussion. Personally, I can't fault the Bulls for choosing McDermott over LaVine. McDermott was an accomplished shooter (something the Bulls needed) at a position of need (wing) and about as NBA-ready as any rookie is these days. LaVine was considered pure raw talent...a high-ceiling project with some uncertainty over his projected position. For a contending team, I imagine that the choice wasn't a tough one. It wouldn't surprise me if LaVine was way down their draft board.
I haven't watched LaVine so I can't put his stats in context. He was on one of the worst teams in the league that was playing its young players because they had no other choice. That's the ideal environment for putting up decent stats despite not being a very valuable NBA player. I'm not saying this applies to LaVine, but I think it's something you have to be suspicious of when evaluating rookies. I think there's a decent chance that, in spite of decent statistical output, LaVine is pretty far away from being a good +/- guy, which is more important for contending teams.
Until McDermott gets some 20+ a game playing time for a prolonged stretch, its tough to call him a bust. Problem is, those would be development minutes and the Bulls are a "win now" team and there are better players ahead of him. If he continues to play like he did last season, McDermott is one of the poorer transactions of the GarPax era.
Last season, McDermott played mostly bad basketball. Yes, if most of the basketball he plays is bad basketball, he will have been a bad pick ala M.Teague. Despite not having a top-10 pick since DRose, Teague is the only true bust in that period. Remarkable really.
