How Good Would the Lakers Have Been With DeMar DeRozan or Buddy Hield?
This is not suspense story, so I will not make you wait to know the answer to the title question. The answer is "Not very good." It is amazing and amusing that so many people take seriously the notion that the Lakers' train wreck 2022 season would have turned out wonderfully if only the Lakers had acquired DeMar DeRozan or Buddy Hield instead of Russell Westbrook.
Forget for a moment that, due to salary cap rules/restrictions, the Lakers probably could have only signed DeRozan by sending Kyle Kuzma and Montrezl Harrell to the San Antonio Spurs, which is not the deal that the Spurs wanted (the DeRozan sign and trade that the Spurs did with the Chicago Bulls yielded two players with expiring contracts, plus three draft picks); also forget for a moment that it seems improbable that Gregg Popovich would be inclined to make any deal that might help a Western Conference rival, let alone a rival that has so much playoff history versus the Spurs.
Let's assume that the Lakers could have acquired DeRozan. The Eastern Conference playoff picture is very fluid, but right now DeRozan's Chicago Bulls are in sixth place with a 45-35 record: they have had a solid season, but they are probably heading toward a first round exit. DeRozan has had a good impact on the Bulls, but he is hardly a miracle worker, and he made just one playoff appearance in three seasons in San Antonio.
DeRozan is averaging a career-high 28.0 ppg this season while shooting .504 from the field, and he is averaging 5.2 rpg plus 5.0 apg, exceeding his career averages of 4.4 rpg and 3.9 apg. DeRozan is also averaging 20.3 FGA/g this season. Do you know something that has never happened in NBA history? No LeBron James teammate has ever averaged 20 FGA/g--not Kyrie Irving (he came close--once--during his final season alongside James), not Kevin Love, not Dwyane Wade, not Chris Bosh, not Anthony Davis, and not Russell Westbrook, who has averaged at least 20 FGA/g five times during his career. Westbrook averaged 19.0 FGA/g in 2020-21 with the Wizards, and then he averaged 15.8 FGA/g this season with the Lakers.
A lot of things might have happened had DeRozan joined the Lakers, but one thing that would not have happened is DeRozan attempting 20 shots a night, which means he also would not have averaged even close to 28.0 ppg. Without exception, every star who has played alongside James sublimated his game and his statistics to blend in with James. DeRozan is a high usage player, and that is another thing that would have gone by the wayside if he had joined the Lakers.
"Stat gurus" believe that all numbers translate from one situation to another. If a player shoots .600 from the field in 25-30 mpg because he has a superstar teammate who draws double teams, "stat gurus" believe that player can shoot .600 from the field in 40 mpg as the best player on the team. Call this the "Andrew Bynum theory," because that is the nonsensical notion "stat gurus" propagated when Bynum played alongside Kobe Bryant. By the way, has anyone seen Bynum since he left the Lakers? I hope that he is doing OK. One thing he is not doing, has not done, and never will do is shoot .600 from the field in 40 mpg as the best player on his team.
Similarly, "stat gurus" believe that if DeMar DeRozan can score 28.0 ppg on .504 field goal shooting for the Chicago Bulls then he can put up the same numbers for the L.A. Lakers. Unlike the more limited Bynum, it is possible that DeRozan could put up similar numbers on a different team than Chicago--but there is no way he is putting up those numbers while playing alongside LeBron James. When projecting how a player will perform, one has to take into account the overall context, and not just move numbers around on a spreadsheet.
Further, even if DeRozan had been able to score as prolifically and efficiently with the Lakers as he has with the Bulls, that would not have addressed the Lakers' biggest problem: the Lakers are one of the worst defensive teams in the league, primarily because of their lack of paint presence.
The reality, based on how LeBron James' previous All-Star teammates have fared, is that if DeRozan had joined the Lakers, he likely would have scored--at most--20 ppg while shooting between .460 and .480 from the field, and the Lakers' record would have been no better than it is now.
This analysis takes nothing away from the excellent season that DeRozan has had. The point is not to denigrate DeRozan, but rather to objectively analyze what would have happened had DeRozan joined the Lakers.
The notion that Buddy Hield could have saved these Lakers is even more outlandish than the notion that DeRozan could have saved these Lakers. At least DeRozan is a five time All-Star who has played in 58 playoff games.
Do you remember when Buddy Hield played in the All-Star Game and then had big playoff performances? Of course not--Hield is a six year veteran who has yet to make the All-Star team or play in a single playoff game. Hield has played for three NBA teams and has never been on a squad that posted a .500 record. His career field goal percentage is .430 (the much-maligned Westbrook has a .438 career field goal percentage, including .444 this season). Hield averages less than 2 FTA/g during his career. He is an OK, but not great, rebounder for a shooting guard (4.3 rpg for his career), and he is not a playmaker (2.5 apg for his career). Hield's best skill set attribute is three point shooting, and he has shot .366 from three point range this season. The Lakers' three point shooting percentage this season is .349.
This is not about bashing Buddy Hield. He has had a solid NBA career while playing for bad teams. Maybe he can be a contributor to a winning program, but that has not happened yet. Are we supposed to take seriously the notion that if the Lakers subtracted Westbrook's elite rebounding and playmaking and replaced one of the greatest players of all-time with a one dimensional player who shot .366 from three point range--which ranks 82nd in the league--then the Lakers would have been better?
Why do so many "stat gurus" and media members create narratives that are absurd? Why is there such a robust market for ideas that are demonstrably nonsensical?
Labels: Buddy Hield, DeMar DeRozan, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Russell Westbrook
posted by David Friedman @ 1:25 AM

