>>In his last 12 games he's shooting 42% from the field. Not
>>great, not terrible, but that includes 40% from three (over
>80
>>attempts). Is that good enough for you?
>
>no. this is not good enough for me to say his shooting
>troubles are gone.

>>Besides that though... if BI is exempt from criticism for
>poor
>>shooting his rookie season is Lonzo exempt too or nah? Why
>or
>>why not?
>
>BI was not exempt from criticism for poor shooting. in fact,
>he was fried by the vast majority of media and laker FANS,
>some of whom STILL don't believe in his ability.
>
>your questions have been answered. they were tough.
>


Thanks for answering my questions. The reason I brought up BI's rookie season is because Lonzo's roughly on that same trajectory:

- rough shooting early in rookie season despite bringing other intangibles to the table
- second half of season showed tremendous growth in shoring up early weaknesses

If criticism was warranted for the first half of the rookie season, then praise is warranted for the second half. True or nah?



So... considering the possibility that Lonzo will show improved growth in his shot (which he has in the second half thus far, averaging over 40% on three's in 6.6 attempts per game)... and also considering the fact that he's already been MUCH better than expected in the other two knocks against him coming into the draft (defense and running the halfcourt)...

Do the Lakers still trade him? (nevermind the fact that his skillset is PERFECTLY complementary to Ingram's)

I'm all for a mature debate here. Facts, stats and actual basketball analysis are welcome.