The "Zach LaVine: loser" hypothesis is proving out

DeMar, you're cool

Discussion surrounding the Bulls and the Kings - tonight’s opponent - started chopping up in the comments of the last post.

That one detailed how the Bulls are not playing particularly well (or when they are, it’s not in a reliable-for-the-season way) but have three victories. And there has been much discussion on here about the 15-5 stretch to end last season: how that is to be perceived, and much much more importantly how the front office perceived it.

That stretch, and this 3-game start, isn’t different entirely due to schedule strength or whatever defensive voodoo Billy Donovan has summoned to get opponents to miss wide open threes. It’s also different because Zach LaVine is gone.

LaVine is perhaps the most prolific ‘loser’ in the NBA, a fantastic scorer whose teams always stink. While the 2024-25 season started with him playing well and the team winning games, the Bulls were even better after he left.

And after being traded to Sacramento, LaVine’s TrueShooting% went up a tick from 63.4% to 64.2%, but their postAllStarBreak record was 12-15 with the 12th ranked offense (Bulls 14th) and 22nd ranked defense (Bulls 10th). This season, through 4 games, LaVine is at a career-high 65.7% true shooting for 29 points per game…but the Kings have the 26th best offense in the league and are 1-3.

Now, the Bulls beating the Kings tonight will be more due to schedule - Sacramento played last night in Oklahoma City - but it’s all slightly immeasurable but makes sense that LaVine’s individual exploits do not translate to team success. In LaVine’s absence last year Coby White and Josh Giddey really ramped up their usage and their production improved as well. And the team performed really well in clutch situations. This year that clutch performance and overall production has sustained even with Coby White out and the rest of the ‘9-10 very good average players’ contributing.

I won’t commit to this being a causal relationship, but maybe there is something to vibes > shotmaking. LaVine can score from all three levels, but is a ball-stopper and truly clutch kryptonite.

And LaVine’s contributions to team defense are abysmal, no matter how many times he’d dogwalk the local media into repeating that he was good on the ball.

Of course it’s not fair to blame one player for his teams’ success in their career. To be clear: both of these franchises are perennial losers. Sacramento has a decent crop of talent, and if they swapped conferences (and coaches), the perception of each would be much closer than they are now with the Bulls are merely the 26th most hopeless team in the league and the Kings as perhaps the 1st or 2nd biggest laughingstock.

Looking back at my evaluation of the LaVine trade, I don’t think so much the Bulls did great¹ as the Kings did terribly. Especially with their point guard issues, they’d have been much better served taking Tre Jones with Zach Collins (and simply keeping Kevin Huerter for an overpaid final season).

How is it that two role player throw-ins would contribute more to team success than a lights-out shooting Zach LaVine? That is the conundrum that every team that has LaVine learns eventually, and credit to the Bulls for making it some other team’s issue.

Another big difference between the two franchises: the decisionmakers in Sacramento were fired.

1. they did OK. A bit biased negatively because we all knew AKME getting their pick back just meant they’d try to make that pick less valuable. But ultimately drafting Essengue and re-signing Tre Jones are separate from the trade, this LaVine deal was a salary dump where they just took what they could get. Keep in mind that is a better result than how it was looking earlier last season when they couldn’t move LaVine without attaching a pick.