Report Card - Luke Walton
It was, in short, a struggle.
On the heels of signing a generous - many thought overly so - six-year, $30-million deal after a solid 2006-07 campaign, Luke Walton came into camp this season with the increased expectations that came with the new contract and couldn't deliver, unable to find a groove on the floor as his role with the team changed and he battled health problems. And though by some of the comments on this site you'd think he was solely responsible for everything from each regular season and playoff loss to global warming to the weak dollar (all while clubbing baby seals in his spare time), there's no question Walton wasn't the player L.A. needed him to be for the majority of the season.
There were some mitigating circumstances, as I alluded to above. The first was an ever-changing role on the team, leading to ever-fluctuating minutes. Sometimes he was a starter, sometimes he came off the bench. Some nights he'd play 30 minutes, others 12. That can be a tough adjustment for any player, and Walton was clearly no exception. The second was injuries. Walton dealt with ankle problems at the start of the year that dogged him throughout, and also had some hip issues. Never the most athletic of players, Walton struggled to get lift inside, making him a much easier cover and leading to an inordinate amount of his shots blocked close to the basket.
More than that, though, Walton's biggest problem was confidence. The season before, Walton came out gunning, developing his long-range game and forcing defenses to respect his outside shot. His three-point percentage was a career-high 39% and was particularly good in the opening weeks of the season. This gave him room to operate, opening passing lanes he was able to exploit. This year, however, the shots didn't fall with quite as much frequency, and Walton often became hesitant to pull the trigger. The results from distance only exacerbated the problem. The 33.3% from downtown in December made his February (20%) and March (16.7%) averages seem robust by comparison. Worse, his passing skills, the big foundation of his floor game, were off. Walton too often tried too hard to be too perfect. He wasn't, and his assist-to-turnover ratio suffered as a result. In November, for example, it fell to an abysmal 2.6-1.7. Mistakes hurt his confidence, which led to more mistakes, and impacted his playing time. You see where this is going.
It wasn't all bad. Over the season's final weeks, Walton's play improved. His A/TO ratio began trending in the right direction, as did the overall consistency of his play. His shot even came back toward the end of March and into April, and Walton found a measure of redemption with a strong first-round series against the Nuggets.
In the end, when you look at Walton's final numbers, they're not awful. Yes, they're lower than what he produced the year before, but that's to be expected given that he went from a starter to a sub. 7.2/3.9/3.0, shooting 45% from the field. But the stats don't really tell the story. Walton is a guy whose impact is often felt on the margins. A good pass here to facilitate the offense, a quick outlet to start the break, etc. The overall quality of his play just wasn't there, and as a result there was little consistency to his contributions. Ironically, his oft-maligned defense was often the most consistent part of Walton's game. As he said in his exit interview, it was a very positive year for the team, but on an individual level it wasn't good. Take the year as a whole, and Walton simply didn't play well.
Grade (Remember, I use C as average, based on my expectations for the particular player): D+
BK
Charles,
>> Rick Fox = Tiger, Luke Walton = Asian Hello Kitty
LMAO
Exactly
Posted by: Eric M. | June 27, 2008 at 03:51 PM
For you who think Luke will get better over the summer you can forget about it. Luke should be in his prime as a NBA player and he shows no signs of being a NBA player!
Posted by: chuck23 | June 27, 2008 at 07:40 PM
Chuck23,
After a stressful evening with Luke's game, have you noticed he's the coolest guy in the locker room who answer all questions about the Lakers. He's the unappointed spokesman of Kobe, the F/O considered that as one of his talents to shield the franchise from answering challenging qustions, they give these scribes to Luke. You never know this guy could become the future GM of the Lakers perhaps, a couple of years from now. If Bush became President, then, Luke Walton could become General Manager too.
With all the unsavory comments of Laker fans on Luke Walton, does Jerry Buss read the fans feedback through the Lakers Blog? Putting it in another way, perhaps, we the fans need his feedback, as a longtimed basketball owner who invested multi million on players, what is his personal opinion about Luke Walton?
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | June 27, 2008 at 08:34 PM
As silly as it sounds...Luke needs to trust in the Force.
In other words, believe in yourself. But above all, believe. Shoot that open jumper. Don't pass it! Believe. Let go, Luke! Trust in the Force!
Posted by: OT | June 27, 2008 at 09:20 PM
Get rid of Luke already, like yesterday!
Posted by: gdchild | June 27, 2008 at 09:38 PM
OH, NO!
NOW THEY'RE SAYING KOBE IS JEALOUS OF POOR, POOR LUKE!
WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO HIM?
SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!
Posted by: Luigi999 | June 27, 2008 at 09:53 PM
Looks like BK succumbed to, or was ascared of the wrath of the blog.
Though I had many Puke moments throughout the season, a C- was in order at the very least. Luke had many positive moments and will still be an integral part of the Lakers in the future. PJ will just have to pick Luke's spots better. Against certain teams, Luke will look great, against others he will look pathetic. That's the way it is in the NBA, it's about match-ups.
Posted by: Do You See What I See | June 27, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Well said.
Lukes value is mathups like bulky SF the likes of Harpring in Utah etc. Against more athletic and speedier players the mismatch is against us. Totally agree. BVut it is PJ who puts Luike in this no win situation and plays him as ath man regardless of the matchup. Threin lays the problem.
Posted by: JustaLakerFan | June 27, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Luke Walton's Lakers career is an illustration of the Fat Friends Principle. If you hang out with a bunch of fat friends, you look a lot cooler by comparison. You can even fool a lot of people into thinking you're *actually* cool.
Luke's Fat Friends were the Lakers teams of the previous three years. They stunk so bad (aside from Kobe) that Luke looked like he really had it going on. You were even happy when he got in the game.
But this year, he started hanging around with some hotties (Bynum, Fish, Gasol, Ariza, Kobe of course) and we could see him for what he really is: an inept wallflower who doesn't impress.
He's always the slowest player on the court, the least hops-havin' guy, with the slowest release "jump" shot in the league.
Announcers keep calling him a "heady" player, saying he has a "high basketball IQ."
Translation: He's not much to look at, but he's got a great personality.
Posted by: Duke | June 28, 2008 at 12:49 AM
As many good moves as he made on Lakers personnel, Mitch K also made big mistakes. 1) Luke's contract 2) Vlad's contract. 3) B Cook's Contract, 4) Giving away C butler. Getting Gasol was only luck.
Posted by: nicksi | June 28, 2008 at 01:22 AM
Sure, I can understand a D+ here on the basis that you had LOW expectations for him.
Posted by: Thanh Lim | June 28, 2008 at 01:27 AM
Frankly I think Luke just played outside of himself too often this past year. A case in point was the game against the Suns (when they still had Marion). He tried to take Marion one on one in the "not so low post". I think he had two shots in a row blocked and had several "turnover via missed shot that resulted in the other team scoring" plays. I like Luke and what he brings to the table. But I will tell you this much, his offense is not better than Marion's (or many other's) defense. For him to force the issue throughout the season was just foolhardy. Where was the supposed high basketball IQ?
D+ was generous to say the least.
Posted by: C.S. | June 28, 2008 at 07:25 AM
JustaLakerFan,
"Luke had many positive moments"
Not as many as negative. Can't shoot...Can't jump...Can't finish...and as you agree, can only guard SLOW players.
You people defending Luke act like his ocassional GOOD pass makes all the difference. They are supposed to be able to make a good pass...they are pros.
Posted by: Eric M. | June 28, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Wow, you are being unbelievably generous. Not the most athletic of players? Please. Luke is perhaps the least athletic player in the NBA who is under 6'10". To pay this guy $30 million over 6 years was something Kupchak should have been fired for, especially after signing another unathletic small forward to a virtually identical contract the previous offseason.
The Lakers now have $10 million a year tied up for years on two guys who will get hardly any minutes next year and beyond.
If Luke can't elevate and get to the basket (because he isn't athletic) doesn't that just make him like Sasha? Why, then, hasn't he developed an even passable jump shot? I keep hearing and reading about all the things this guy does well, and I am at a loss. He can't shoot, jump, defend, or dribble (without looking at the ball). Exactly what does he do well?
Posted by: Leo | June 28, 2008 at 09:31 AM
You have to remember that if the Lakers don't sign the Luke last offseason, the only thing they could have done was sign someone for veteran's minimum. Had they would not have been as good as team. His contract is not keeping them from signing free agents, because they are already over the cap anyway. The person to blame, if you are determined to blame someone, is Vlad Rad. Had he shown more his first season with the team, instead of getting lost in the offense and ending up in Park City, the Lakers would have been less likely to offer Luke the contract they did.
Posted by: exhelodrvr | June 28, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Phil Jackson must also take a good portion of blame for Luke's demise. He has rewarded Luke with star player minutes that Luke has not earned, not to mention playing him in games were Luke sucked before the game started.
Example a) During practice, the coach should be the first one to know if player skill level will benifit the team. I willing to bet that Luke looked as bad in practice as he did in games. What does Phil do he put's this scrub in the game any way the rest is too painful rehash.
I also hold AK/BK part responsible! They help feed this Luke is a solid contributer hog wash to us and Luke!
As a matter of fact it almost appeared as if Luke had paid the Kbro's off! I may be getting carried away I apologize Kbro's very touchy subject.
Back to the blame for this mess! Mitch or Phil? Both!
Posted by: chuck23 | June 28, 2008 at 11:34 AM
ExHelo,
Good point about VladRad.
Posted by: Eric M. | June 28, 2008 at 12:09 PM
OH, NO!
NOW THEY'RE SAYING POOR LUKE IS CARRYING THE LAKERS ON HIS BACK AND IS UNDERPAID!
WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO HIM?
SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!
Posted by: Luigi999 | June 28, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Man, D+ is way to generous. I would give him somewhere around an F or F- . Might as well change his name to "Fluke"
Posted by: Laker fan since the 70's | June 29, 2008 at 09:53 PM
Luke Walton is lucky that he's in the nba thanks to his fathers last name.Bill Walton puts down the Lakers except his son who could not compoete with the clippers or the sparks (who can dunk,Luke Walton can only dunk a donut)He is a lame brain no execuse of a plyer with no pride.Lakers get rid of him.
Posted by: orlando | June 30, 2008 at 01:25 PM