See, this is the problem when you only look at the surface [box score] numbers, and not what's actually taking place on the floor.
Julius spammed easy scoring opportunities off defensive breakdowns and in transition, which hindered the fluidity and functionality of the Pels offense. Any player with size/athleticism can score those sort of points. He did that because he knows he can't score against a set half-court defense. Meanwhile, Zach had to carry the #1 option load, up against the best perimeter defenders, and against set-defenses, on the regular, and he was creating for himself all over the floor - something which Julius is incapable of doing.
Nobody that's actually paying attention would ever suggest that Julius even comes close to LaVine; one is a 2nd/3rd option-type talent and the other is a role player.
Why are you speaking as if Julius was leading the team, and also wasn't surrounded by far superior players? I mean, really, what's the point of throwing this generic shyt at the wall in hopes that it sticks when you know damn well that Julius was far from a centerpiece that had the Pels winning 10 more games?
Julius would've been glued to the bench if Mirotic didn't go down injured.
Well, for starters, one man can only do so much (look at LeBron and the Lakers last season), and the Bulls dealt with a number of injuries, player-turnover, and a general lack of talent, where only the elite players would've elevated the team above where they performed last season. To use it as a reference point as if you swapped LaVine for Julius and he would've
elevated them is some dishonest bullshyt.
These are the #s of the Bulls players that played 60+ games last season:
LaVine: 23 ppg
Felicio: 6 ppg
Harrison: 6 ppg
Lopez: 9 ppg
Arcidiacono: 6 ppg
Put LaVine on the Pels instead of Julius last season, and they would've had a far greater chance of making the playoffs.