Lakerholics

A Lakers Fan Community

Posts

Should Lakers Go Big or Small Against the Nuggets?

By 1 Comment

Overall, the Laker offense was about as efficient in both situations. We saw the team get more scoring from rolling and putbacks, with AD having more space to attack. LA went to isolation about as much in either scenario, but were more efficient in big lineups. Post ups were seen less in small lineups, but were more effective when used. Perhaps again to better spacing.

Now let’s take a look at how Denver played on offense when LA went big or small:

What stands out most here is how much less Denver got out in transition when LA played small. We also see big drops in efficiency for a number of areas, as well as a huge rise in putback efficiency.

Overall, Denver’s offense performed far worse when LA played without McGee or Howard on the court. This ended up being reflected in the raw results this season with LA playing big vs small:

I’d start game 1 with LA’s normal mix of big and small for the first half, then look in the second half at whether or not I want to give McGee or Howard a second stint. I can see this being more of a Howard series than a McGee one due to post defense.

Once we get an idea for how Denver will attack and defend LA in both big and small situations, now that we’re in the playoffs and they’ll be more purposeful around each of those, we’ll have a better idea for how this’ll go. If Morris and LeBron struggle to handle Jokic down low but Howard is blanketing him, playing big becomes more appealing. Now, if Morris/LeBron can guard Jokic down low, that opens the floodgates to me for lots of small ball.

But I’d give game 1 a healthy dose of small ball. In theory, each way has its pros and cons. It’ll depend on the tendencies of the teams pushing potential edges and attacking potential vulnerabilities to determine how that balances out from a score standpoint.

Los Angeles Lakers: The Salary Filler-Plus-Kyle Kuzma Route

By Leave a Comment

The Los Angeles Lakers are in a boat adjacent to the Clippers. They can’t flip a future first-rounder before 2026, and their youngish-player pool consists of Alex Caruso, Kyle Kuzma and Talen Horton-Tucker.

Getting standout contributions from Caruso and Kuzma helps, and Horton-Tucker doesn’t turn 20 until November. They’re not carrying the Lakers into the Bradley Beal or Jrue Holiday discourse, but they could provide pathways to stars in the tier above scared-face salaries.

Matching incoming pay grades will be an issue if enough player options aren’t exercised. Avery Bradley ($5 million), Kentavious Caldwell-Pope ($8.3 million), JaVale McGee ($4.2 million) and Rajon Rondo ($2.7 million) can all hit the open market. The Lakers need between two and three of them to return if they also wish to retain Danny Green.

And even that doesn’t put them in an enviable spot. Shipping out Bradley, KCP, McGee, Rondo and Kuzma would allow the Lakers to take on more than $30 million in salary, but who is that getting them? They can include other players to drum up their money-matching limit, but few teams are going to pounce on four-, five- or six-for-one proposals. Roster limits are a thing.

Treating Green as salary filler may be unavoidable in the end. That’s more than acceptable if the Lakers are getting back a star, assuming he’s the right one. Maybe that’s Chris Paul. It’s almost assuredly not Al Horford or Tobias Harris. Could it be Kevin Love? It is definitely not Blake Griffin or Russell Westbrook.