The first game of the LeBron James era of Lakers’ basketball is officially in the books.
Entering the Moda Center losers of 15 straight against the Portland Trailblazers, the Lakers fell to Rip City once again, losing 119-128 in their season opener. Although closely contested throughout, the team simply could not get over the hump in part to their dismal perimeter shooting.
While just a singular game, there were interesting takeaways and questions that arose that are worth tracking as the season continues.
ADVANCED BOX SCORE RECAP:
Game MVP: Nik Stauskas: 24 points | 2 rebounds | 2 assists | 5-8 3PT | 90.9 TS% | +11.9 AuPM | +7.5 Points Added | 6.1 Box Creation
3 OBSERVATIONS:
Setting the Pace
Any indications that LeBron James would slow down the Lakers’ running game was nonexistent against Portland.
The Lakers averaged only 11.5 seconds per possession on offense against the Blazers, according to Darryl Blackport. That mark was good for the fifth fastest offensive pace for a game since 1996. The Purple and Gold not only got out and ran, but did so frequently.
Accounting for 29.5 percent (19.5 percent last season) of their offense, the team relied heavily on transition throughout the game. Arguably more promising than the frequency of the Lakers’ bolstered play in transition was their efficiency.
Against Portland, the Lakers scored 1.16 Points Per Possession (PPP) in transition according to Synergy, notably better than last season’s 1.05 posting. To help put the number into proper context, last season’s league leader, the Houston Rockets, scored 1.12 PPP in transition.
Owning the Paint
The Lakers made up for their 7/30 3-point shooting performance through their aforementioned transition also with a barrage of points in the paint.
Last season, the Lakers were second in the league with a 39.7 percent shot frequency in attempts within four feet, according to Cleaning the Glass. In their opener, the team attempted 52 percent of their shots at the rim, converting 70.8 percent of their looks.
This conversion percentage is even more impressive considering it came against the team who was first in the league in opponent field goal percentage last season.
Brandon Ingram’s Utilization
It may have been subtle, but Brandon Ingram was utilized slightly differently in the Lakers’ opener.
Ingram’s two best play types from last season according to his PPP, were: transition (1.17) and spotting up (1.08). Yet, both were far behind in terms of his frequency compared to his most commonly used play type: pick and roll ball handler (29.5% frequency / 0.78 PPP).
Clearly Ingram was more efficient utilized as a finisher compared to an initiator when given the opportunity. With LeBron James now in tow, the Lakers may finally begin properly optimizing his talents.
In the opener, his most commonly used play type was in transition (38.9%). Tied for his least used? Pick and roll ball handler (5.6%).
Also worth noting was Ingram’s three corner 3-point attempts. Last season, Ingram was in the 83rd percentile in corner three percentage among wings in the NBA. Yet, was only in the 4th percentile in terms of corner frequency. Despite missing his only three attempts, the volume/non-hesistation were very encouraging, given he attempted only 30 all of last season.
2 QUESTIONS:
How bad is the Lakers’ defense going to be this season?
The Lakers allowed the Portland Trailblazers to score 128 points with a true-shooting percentage of 56.8% in a game where Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum went a combined 15/38 (39%) from the field.
Not a particularly encouraging start.
The team looked every bit of a new collection of players trying to figure out how to play alongside each other. Although not completely fixable once meshing occurs, it is an important asterisk in an opener.
Individually, the Lakers’ defense was bookended with two players: Ingram and Kyle Kuzma. Ingram’s defense was spectacular, allowing only 0.42 PPP. Kuzma, on the other hand, continues to struggle and find his footing, giving up 1.36 PPP against the Blazers.
The team will need a lot to go right, and a lot of individual growth to duplicate their impressive defense from last season.
What area of weakness does the team need to address first?
With a front court spearheaded by JaVale McGee and little else, the Lakers are not expected to be profoundly efficient on the glass. Yet, compiled of solid — above average guard and wing rebounders, the team needs to be better in finishing defensive possessions by securing a board.
The Blazers had a 83.3% defensive rebounding percentage compared to the Lakers’ 73.1%, according to Jacob Goldstein. Yet the biggest discrepancy was on the offensive glass, where the home team continuously took advantage of the Lakers’ soft interior, reeling in a 26.9% offensive rebounding rate.
The Lakers’ current roster was built to go small for large portions of the game, making this one of the most glaring issues going forward. It ultimately will have to be a rebounding by committee in order to alleviate this disadvantage.
1 PREDICTION:
The Lakers’ shooting will improve, even if just slightly from the perimeter. The offense, despite it’s congestion and indecision, generated several quality looks but simply failed to convert.
The trio of James, Kuzma, and Ingram specifically shot a combined 1/15 from three against Portland, one has to assume this normalizes and retraces back to the mean. Yet based on the specific players taking the threes and the openness on those shots, the Lakers would have only been expected to score 5.8 points more from deep in the game. This number is far lower than expected, but highlights the shooting talent and quality of looks generated by the team in the first game. Regardless, better shooting is ahead, as the offense takes steps forward and we see positive mean reversion.
The Lakers did a lot of things well, and conversely did a lot poorly. Yet, with any new team comes expected growing pains during the initial stretch of the season, and the Lakers will likely be no exception.
*Statistics courtesy of: Synergy, Cleaning the Glass, and helped compiled by Ben Holz. Shot Chart via: David Bradham.
