The Instigator
Nd2400
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
TPPDJT
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is Lonzo Ball a bust ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Nd2400
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2018 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 113255
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

Nd2400

Con

The frist round is acceptance only....

Leave a comment if you interested!!!!
TPPDJT

Pro

I accept. I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Nd2400

Con


Thank you for your interest on this debate topic.





So, you want called Lonzo Ball a bust in his first year at age 20. Seem very early to me to called any one a bust at 20 in there first year.



Let's compare some stat's. The first person i will bring up is Jason Kidd.( By the way Jason Kidd is a Hall-of-Famer) He didn't have a good shot either when he first came into the league. He shot .38% from the field. Lonzo shot .36% from the field. Kidd shot .27% from the 3 point line. Lonzo shot .30% from the 3 point line. Let's compare the rest of the stat's.




Jason Kidd.



Rebounds 5.4, Assists 7.7, steals 1.9, blocks 0.3, points per game is 11.7, 33.8 minutes and turnovers per game 3.2.




Lonzo Ball.



Rebounds 6.9, Assists 7.2, steals 1.7, blocks 0.8, points per game 10.2, minutes 34.2 and turnovers per game 2.6.




They seem very comparable don't you think? Oh yeah and jason kidd was one year older than Lonzo. Kidd was 21 and Lonzo is 20 years old in there rookies years.





Lonzo played only 63% of the season in his rookie season. If he would had play more during season the points and shooting percentage could had been higher. He was finally starting to shot the ball better during the second half of the season.





"Lonzo Ball becomes youngest ever to get triple-double"(3) he has 2 triple-doubles this year and he has 13 double-doubles.





"Of all of the players who play 25+ mpg, here are the #1 guys at each position, by Defensive RPM:



PG: Lonzo Ball


SG: Andre Roberson


SF: Robert Covington


PF: Anthony Davis


C: Rudy Gobert"(4)




Ball only in his rookie season, shows he has incredible potential. In the years to come. It not just scoring that has an impact on the games it also defense. Defense is a lot harder to learn than shooting the ball for a good percentage.





I'm looking forward to your respond...





Sources



1. https://www.basketball-reference.com...kiddja01.html


2. https://www.basketball-reference.com...balllo01.html


3. http://www.espn.com...nba/story/_/id/21382038/lonzo-ball-los-angeles-lakers-youngest-nba-history-get-triple-double


4. https://clutchpoints.com...-lonzo-ball-top-rated-defensive-point-guard-by-one-metric/

TPPDJT

Pro

To start, I will use your definition of a bust:
A 'bust' in the sport world mean over hype, not a good player, a player who didn't live to the great expectations.

Part I. Hype/Stats

Lonzo was drafted second overall in the 2017 NBA draft. Almost immediately after, his dad Lavar said
"Lonzo Ball is gonna take the Lakers to the playoffs his first year. Come see me when he does. I'll have another hat on that say 'I told you so.'" The Lakers ended up as the 11th seed with a record below .500 (35-47.) Lavar also claimed that Lonzo was already better than NBA superstar Stephen Curry. Since this was Lonzo's first year, we will compare his statistics to Stephen Curry.

In 2009, Stephen Curry averaged 17.5 points, 5.9 assists, 4.5 rebounds, 1.9 steals, 0.2 blocks, and 3.0 turnovers.

Looking at his shooting numbers, Curry shot 46% from the field, 43% from 3 point range, 88% from the free throw line, and had an eFG% of 53%.

In comparison, Lonzo Ball averaged 10.2 points, 7.2 assists, 6.9 rebounds, 1.7 steals, 0.8 blocks, and 2.6 turnovers. At first glance, it would seem that while Lonzo didn't score as much as Curry, but was a better passer, rebounder, and defender all while not committing as many turnovers as Steph. This is where Lonzo's shooting comes in.

Lonzo shot 36% from the field, 30% from 3 point range, an absolutely abysmal 45% from the free throw line, and had an eFG% of 36%. Dwight Howard, a notoriously bad free throw shooter, shot 57% from the line through the season.

It would seem prudent to now look at Lonzo's advanced stats.

Lonzo Ball had a 12.5 PER (player efficiency rating.) The average rating in the NBA is 15. Thus, Lonzo was 2.5% lower than the NBA average in terms of efficiency.

Lonzo's win shares per 48 minutes (estimate of the number of wins a player contributed in 48 minutes) was .053. The NBA average is exactly 1. Thus, if Lonzo were to play 48 minutes (an entire game) he would be responsible for just over half a win.

Lonzo shot over half of his shots (52%) from the 3 point line, indicating that he struggles to score in general. Looking more heavily into his 3 point shooting, he shot 23% from the corner (easiest place to shoot 3s) and was assisted on 77% of his made 3s, indicating that he is more of a spot up 3 point shooter than one like Curry who can create his own 3s.

His 1.4 free throw attempts was also unusual for a starting point guard, indicating that he is scared to drive the rim and potentially get fouled.

Finally, Lonzo's TS% (true shooting percentage) was 44%, which is is rather lackluster.

There is no doubt that Lonzo is a very good defender, but it does help when he is 6'6 and average NBA point guards are 6'3. There is no doubt that he is fairly athletic and a wonderful passer.


Returning to hype, Lavar predicted the Lakers to win over 50 games with Lonzo at the helm, but as aforementioned that was not close to being accurate.

The vast majority of NBA GMs predicted that Lonzo would win Rookie of the Year. Now, that seems like an impossible award for Lonzo to procure with the emergence of Donovan Mitchell and Ben Simmons, who both outclassed Lonzo this year (albeit on better teams.)


In conclusion, Lonzo is an absolutely horrendous shooter who relies heavily on 3s to score. His playmaking and defense is solid, but every other aspect of his game is lacking. His rebounds are a bit overrated because he is 6'6, and he doesn't come up with a lot of blocks on shorter point guards.

Lonzo Ball definitely has the potential to become something special, but his in his rookie year he fell way short of the lofty expectations put upon him by his dad, Lakers fans, and even NBA GMs.

Sources:
https://www.otgbasketball.com...

https://lonzowire.usatoday.com...

http://www.nba.com...

https://www.basketball-reference.com...

https://www.basketball-reference.com...

https://www.basketball-reference.com...

https://www.sbnation.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Nd2400

Con


Thank your for your detail respond. Glad i actually have a good competitor.

Okay it kind of unfair to mention Lonzo dad Lavar. You saying Lonzo is overrated, for something he didn't even say. A parent will always over hype their children, rather it justify or not. Lonzo never said he going to bring the Lakers to the playoffs his dad did. Lonzo also didn't say he was better than Curry, that was his dad that said these things. So it unfair to bring this stuff up when in fact Lonzo didn't even said these things. The problem is lonzo dad Lavar. He doesn't understand its a team sports. It is unfortunate that Lavar have a loud mouth, but it not Lonzo fault.

You brought up Donovan Mitchell, who having the better year. And yes he is and some other rookies are having a better year than Lonzo too. But in this year rookie class. This could be one of the best classes ever. Comparable to the 1996 class.

Plus if you look at the end result Lonzo rank 8th among his rookies class. Ranking 8th out of at least 90. Is that Pretty good? (5) https://m.ranker.com...


Plus look who was pick ahead of Lonzo. Markelle Fultz at number one. And he didn't even play that much this season because of injury. You could called that a bust.
You then went on to say, you though Lonzo was good at defense, passing, and good everywhere else except shooting. But is that the whole point of this debate is trying to prove Lonzo was a bust. If he good, and have potential then he not a bust at all.

Lonzo only flaw was shooting. And that could be worked on. Just like with Jason Kidd, he was a horrible shooting, but over time he became great. Sure the Lakers didn't make the playoffs. But they were never expected to be in the playoffs. The lakers did get 8 more wins than the previously year. When from 27 to 35 wins.

"The Westgate Las Vegas Superbook posted the latest post-draft odds for teams making the NBA playoffs in 2017-18. With odds to make the postseason at plus-500 and minus-700." (6) The Lakers were predicted to win 32 and a half according to VegasInside.com (7)http://www.vegasinsider.com...
Basketball is a team sport. You can't just win with one person. Look at 2003 -04 season with the Cleveland Cavaliers they had the same record as the Lakers at 35-47 with LeBron James in his rookie year.(8) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

So comparing lonzo to other rookies in the playoffs isn't fair too, because they on a better team.

Another good comparison is Russel WestBrook. Look at his rookie year stat's.
Minutes 32.5, field goal percentage 39%, three points percentage 27%, Rebounds 4.9, assist 5.3, steals 1.3, blocks 0.2, trunover per game 3.3, points per game 15.3. (9)https://www.basketball-reference.com...
Again the only thing Westbrook was better at is points and shooting but barely with the shooting. Everything else go to Lonzo. So was WestBrook a bust? I don't think so. By the way what was OKC Thunder record that year? Oh yeah it was 23-59 during 2008-09 season.(10)https://www.basketball-reference.com...

So again calling lonzo a bust doesn't make sense. The Lakers did what they were supposed to do and that is getting better year by year. Lonzo need some improvements, but really that goes to the whole NBA basketball players. Everyone need something to work on during the off season. Again if you have .potential like what Lonzo has than he no bust. A bust us really for a pkayer that has no value at all, or no chance at getting better. But lonzo have a great chance to get better moving forward.


Looking forward to your response...

TPPDJT

Pro

I would first point out that your source for Lonzo being the 8th best rookie in his class comes from a site in which users vote on ranks. There is no way Jordan Bell is better than John Collins or Josh Jackson. Perhaps Lonzo is one of the best in his class, but that source isn't suitable I think.

I agree that Lavar has lofty expectations from his son. However, that does not distract from the fact that Lonzo was almost certainly the most hyped rookie of the 2017 class, much more so than Markelle Fultz or Jayson Tatum. Lonzo may have even surpassed stats expectations (especially rebounding) but his inefficiency and awful shooting ground the hype train to a halt. Had his dad not made his outlandish predictions, perhaps I would not be debating this topic. The fact remains that Lavar, as an extension of Lonzo, predicted that Lonzo would win ROY, lead the Lakers to 50 wins, and that Lonzo was better than Curry. All of these predictions, along with most Lakers fans predictions, are likely wrong.

It is not fair to compare Lonzo to Fultz because Fultz had a very awkward injury that couldn't be predicted, even in Summer League. It would be more to compare him to Jayson Tatum, the #3 pick, who completely outclassed Lonzo this year.

It is true the Lakers won more games. However, adding Lonzo Ball, Kyle Kuzma, Josh Hart, and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (among others) should have resulted in at least a .500 record. However, it did not. However, the west was extremely competitive and for this young Lakers team the playoffs was a shortsided goal.

Lonzo has many more flaws than just his historically awful shooting, including his efficiency (mentioned earlier) and his shot selection (also mentioned earlier.) Lonzo can't drive to the rim to save his life and is extremely inconsistent. While most of these issues are cureable, judging by his rookie year alone it is hard to justify him over Jason Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, Ben Simmons, and even Dennis Smith Jr.

Russell Westbrook was an odd case because he had spent most of his time at UCLA coming off the bench for Jordan Farmar (who the Lakers happened to draft ironically.) Westbrook to this day remains a suspect shooter, and I would not call him a bust because he did not have lofty expectations put upon him. He was also on a rebuilding team, similar to the Lakers this year.

If it were not for the expectations for Lonzo put upon him by his dad and others, I would not be arguing that he was a bust. However, the point still remains that he was expected to be much better than he was. Thus, he is a bust because he could not complete any of the major expectations placed upon him.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.latimes.com...;(Lonzo embracing expectations put upon him)

https://lakeshowlife.com...

https://www.sbnation.com...

https://theundefeated.com...

http://bleacherreport.com...

https://seatgeek.com...

https://nesn.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Nd2400

Con

Thanks you for this debate. I glad you accepted this debate and give a good reason behind your case. Now i will rest my case.

You have three things you mainly focusing on. So, i will break them down and more.

It sound like you still stuck on what Lonzo dad said. And give a big reason why lonzo isn't what he supposed to be Because of it. Like i said it not fair for Lonzo, to have these expectations just because of his dad. Any parent would hype or over hype there children. If they don't, then they probably being bad parents. Yes Lavar, over sold his son name. But he wasn't just giving confident too his son, but he was also selling there brand by marketing BBB. So, he had to be loud a little bit to sell there brand. Like i said lonzo didn't say anything nor put these high expectations on him self. It was his dad, to sell and wishing his son the best. Like any parent would or should.
Lavar did say the Lakers would win 50. But that was too unreasonable. Even Vegas say so. This is why they had them winning at 32 games and a half. I did cite and put that in my round 3. Smart lakers fans also knew winning 50 is unrealistic. The west is just way too tough for the youngest or the second youngest team in the NBA.

You said " the Lakers should have resulted in at least a .500 record", is complete wrong. Like i said Vegas and every other NBA expert didn't think so. But the Lakers could had won 3 to 4 more games if keys players didn't miss time during the last month of the season. Missing in actions was Lonzo, and Brandon Ingram, among others.

You also went on to say his shooting was just so bad. Again there were a lot of stars who came into this league and couldn't shoot. One of them i mention Jason kidd, Russell Westbrook and more. I will also bring up Ricky Rubio and Rajon Rondo. Both couldn't shoot when they came in the league. Couldn't even shoot if there life was on the line.
Rubio rookie stat's 35% from the field and only score 10.6 per game. (1)
Rondo rookie stat's 41% from the field and 20% from the 3. Only score 6.4 ppg. (2) But both have positive impact on there teams and could rebound, play defense and other things to help there team win. So are they bust? I think not. By the way Ricky Rubio drafted 5th in the 1st round. (3)
Westbrook also drafted 4th in the 1st round. (4)
Oh yeah, by the way Ben Simmons can't shoot either. His 3 point percentage is 0.0% his makes is close to the basket. I will give him credit on his vision on the court, rebounding and defense. But he is 6'10. (6) plus he not really a rookie because he was drafted last year.

"The Lakers are excited about Ball's passing, rebounding, defense and ability to push the pace." Magic Johnson say this "And you think about how he makes his teammates better, Lonzo was the master at that." (5)
If Magic Johnson and Rob Pelinka ( general manager) had to re-draft they would pick lonzo again at 2nd. Why because that what they were looking for. A true point guard. Not a Shooting guard nor a small forward or a power forward. Lonzo is the guy they want and the guy they need in the coming future.

I also mention this year rookie draft is one of the best ever. It super rare to have so many talented rookie. You mention my source on the ranking is not a good one. But i did get that from the NBA website. And for Lonzo to get 4 and a half million is evidence on why he not a bust. If he was a bust he wouldn't get so high on the ranking list. I will agree there are better rookies but not many. Jason Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, Dennus Smith, Kuzma are better and even Ben Simmons, but Ben really shouldn't be counted as a rookie because what i said before. So with this high class only 5 are actually better than Lonzo. So, he is clearly not a bust. Not when he has so much up side. Plus you also mention his
efficiency, but it was way down because he was on a bad team. If he was on a beyyer team not playing with so many other rookies his efficiency would had been better. So it unfair to bring that stat up and compared it to other rookie who was on better teams.

You said earlier "Lonzo Ball definitely has the potential to become something special" this doesn't sound like a bust to me. You also can't put the fans expectations in this, because most of them have wishful thinking. Not actual knowledge of the game. A lot of fans are delusional, so being in others or fans isn't evidence. If you could bring in GMs saying lonzo is a bust. Then you might have something. But you wont hear them saying this. Because they can. See something great in him. So, there for he not a bust.

Sources

1.https://www.basketball-reference.com...
2. https://www.basketball-reference.com...
3.https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
4.https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
5.http://www.espn.com...
6. https://www.basketball-reference.com...
TPPDJT

Pro

I will conclude this debate by saying that it should be clear to all that Lonzo Ball was a bust for his first year playing.

The expectations put upon him that he himself embraced never came to fruition. Lonzo did not lead the Lakers to the playoffs, he will not win Rookie of the Year, and he clearly isn"t better than Stephen Curry.

Aside from this, Lonzo shot horrifically and relied on his exceptional passing and rebounding to carry himself. His point total speaks to this. Over half of his shots came from behind the arc and he barely attached the rim.

In conclusion, Lonzo Ball is a player with great potential. However, his first season clearly indicated that he was a bust.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nd2400 1 year ago
Nd2400
Thanks you Warren and leaning for voting...

As for more development, didn't really had room, since it was only a 5k rounds. But sure i know there were things i needed more of.

Anyways thanks again to both....
Posted by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
The other two key parts of the definition of "bust" provided by Pro were hardly argued. Pro never directly made the argument that Lonzo was not good. Pro also never refuted Con's assertion that though Lonzo may not have lived up to the (alleged) expectations of LaVar, most GMs and analysts had much more realistic expectations, which were met, or Lonzo at least didn't fall too far short.

I feel that Con's argument comparing Lonzo to Kidd was good, but needed more development. You should have included another player or two like that, and referred back to it repeatedly, emphasizing that it's clear that calling someone a bust in their first year is premature. You did some of this, but really reinforcing it would have helped.

One argument Pro makes that is interesting is that Lonzo isn't as good as the stats make it seem because he's a very big PG. I understand the point Pro is trying to make: that a PG as big as Lonzo should be doing better than Lonzo is because he has such a large size advantage over other PGs. Though it's interesting, I don't buy it. He's using his natural size to his advantage. Regardless of whether or not he should be *better* he's doing very well in those categories for a rookie PG.

In the end, I feel Pro did not uphold his/her BoP. Con proved that most experts did not overhype him, and their opinions matter more than that of LaVar and casual fans, Pro never argued the second part of his definition, and Con provided stats and analysis that Lonzo didn't fail to live up to expectations for the same reason he wasn't overhyped: experts' expectations weren't that high.
Posted by Leaning 1 year ago
Leaning
"A player who is drafted in the first or second round and is expected to be a key contributor but never contributes meaningfully during his rookie contract is surely a bust. That organization got nothing back for its large investment.
This goes for players who are injury-riddled during that time frame, too."
http://bleacherreport.com...
Admittedly football, but neither side (I felt) made it easy for me to define bust as.

Pro stated "If it were not for the expectations for Lonzo put upon him by his dad and others, I would not be arguing that he was a bust. " I'm taking this to mean that Lonzo did contribute to his team and with his play. So while Lonzo may be a bust for a hyped up crowd, Lonzo is not for a player.

Con was able to point out that Lonzo made up for his deficiency in some places with strengths in others.

Pro arguing for Lonzo being a bust does not work I feel, because of the hazy definition of bust and how to apply that definition. As well as his focus that Lonzo is a bust because of the hype.
Posted by Leaning 1 year ago
Leaning
I don't understand sports!
Posted by TPPDJT 1 year ago
TPPDJT
Thanks for the debate man! Very happy to do it with you!
Posted by Nd2400 1 year ago
Nd2400
We'll i have to thank you for finishing... So, thank you for a good debate... But i still disagree with lonzo being a bust. He too young and talented to be called a bust so soon...
Posted by TPPDJT 1 year ago
TPPDJT
Yeah I"m gonna get it done after my workout today.
Posted by Nd2400 1 year ago
Nd2400
Hope you know you have little more than 11 hrs left...
Posted by TPPDJT 1 year ago
TPPDJT
Don"t worry I got you.
Posted by Nd2400 1 year ago
Nd2400
Just a friendly reminder you have just over 16 hrs left....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
Nd2400TPPDJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Though Pro is correct in saying that LaVar would have had you believe Lonzo is the second coming of Christ, and that he was the most hyped rookie in this class, I agree with Con that most experts and analysts did not agree with LaVar's media firestorm. Just because there was a ton of attention focused on Lonzo does not mean that everyone thought he'd be as successful as LaVar said. Continued in comments.
Vote Placed by Leaning 1 year ago
Leaning
Nd2400TPPDJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason for Voting in comments.