Well since we have objections to Ingram & Tatum(Boston players) what other team could

So since Luca and Siakam are both not SFs.. any other players that are playing at the same level and have similar talent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

This guy is exhausting. Not even reading more of the same nonsense over and over. Some people don’t take being wrong very well..

---

You’ve noticed that too? Before you know they will start calling you with that champAstros nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

You’ve noticed that too? Before you know they will start calling you with that champAstros nonsense.

---

Literally argued for 5 pages to then back track like nothing bad was said about Ingram and a bunch of other nonsense. Delusional..

Tatum with a decent game tonight. 17 points on 6-13 shooting. Played a good game defensively when he was on Durant at times. Tatum was the 4th highest scorer tonight in his team as Hayward set the pace with 30 points on 12-16 FG and 4-6 3pt. Good win against the Warriors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

Tatum with a decent game tonight. 17 points on 6-13 shooting. Played a good game defensively when he was on Durant at times. Tatum was the 4th highest scorer tonight in his team as Hayward set the pace with 30 points on 12-16 FG and 4-6 3pt. Good win against the Warriors.

---

Surprised to see Hayward playing at a solid standard for a game. He's been having a really rough season, and hadn't scored in double digits for 5 games before tonight. Glad to see it though, never want to see someone's career ruined by injury. Hopefully he has some gas in the tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

Literally argued for 5 pages to then back track like nothing bad was said about Ingram and a bunch of other nonsense. Delusional..

---

It is only 3 or 4 of them. If they would take a break this forum would be a better place. McNamara would even return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

It is only 3 or 4 of them. If they would take a break this forum would be a better place. McNamara would even return.

---

Thank you for giving me a good reason to NEVER stop posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

Tatum with a decent game tonight. 17 points on 6-13 shooting. Played a good game defensively when he was on Durant at times. Tatum was the 4th highest scorer tonight in his team as Hayward set the pace with 30 points on 12-16 FG and 4-6 3pt. Good win against the Warriors.

---

Boston was impressive tonight. Lights out basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Surprised to see Hayward playing at a solid standard for a game. He's been having a really rough season, and hadn't scored in double digits for 5 games before tonight. Glad to see it though, never want to see someone's career ruined by injury. Hopefully he has some gas in the tank.

---

I was kind of surprised it took him this long to play at that level. I know he had a serious injury and maybe it will take more time if even ever to return at the same level. I’ll be rooting for him. How would you feel if he was packaged with Tatum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Thank you for giving me a good reason to NEVER stop posting.

---

I was not talking about you. I’ve actually enjoyed your game day threads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

I was kind of surprised it took him this long to play at that level. I know he had a serious injury and maybe it will take more time if even ever to return at the same level. I’ll be rooting for him. How would you feel if he was packaged with Tatum?

---

Right now? I wouldn't feel great. His contract really is huge, and while he's showed flashes of his old self, I don't know that I've seen enough to think that he'll come back properly anytime soon. He would have to finish out the year extremely strongly and then play well in the playoffs too for me to open my mind to him more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Surprised to see Hayward playing at a solid standard for a game. He's been having a really rough season, and hadn't scored in double digits for 5 games before tonight. Glad to see it though, never want to see someone's career ruined by injury. Hopefully he has some gas in the tank.

---

I have no doubt that Hayward will be back to his old self next season

So again I ask, what's the point of naming "SF" under the age of 27 that are better than Ingram? Because of how thin the SF position is, even if Ingram was "the best", what does that mean? He's not even average based off league standards. "Has the argument for Ingram now been reduced to "he's the best of a bad group of players"? I just find the whole premise reductive to the point of being, well pointless.

How many players are even eligible based on this criteria of "must play 51% of their time specifically at the SF position while also being under 27"? Who are we even using to judge how many minutes a player spends at a specific position? Basketball Reference has kind of been debunked for the position minutes because it was found out they base it off of height to determine what position a player plays. So for example Giannis being as tall as he is, routinely is said to be getting PF minutes on BBR when he actually isn't playing PF.

If the argument is Ingram is the best player we can get for AD because there are only maybe two other "SF" that are better than him, well that is also a stupid premise. This isn't even me knocking Ingram. I wouldn't use the same premise to try and push Tatum. It's the idea that this grouping means ANYTHING that I'm knocking. It doesn't.

I want the best player, not the best of a weak group. Beal is maybe the 4-6 best guard under 27 in the league. Ingram might be the 3rd-4th best "SF" in the league based on ridgid criteria. Would ANYONE choose Ingram over Beal? No? So again I ask, what's the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP

He wouldn't get killed if his answer is simply, "that offer wasn't available to us at this time". It's not like he was the one who turned it down. Rational/Normal people understand that circumstances change. And also, I described that offer as worst case scenario! Sheesh.

---

Vlade got killed after the Cousins trade when we pulled a 1st rd pick back after Cousins' agent said he would go into free agency. And that was stuff that came out after the fact, this is much higher profile and much more public.

Ingram being the best SF under 27 isn’t nearly as ridiculous as the argument you have put against him. Like I said if this fit your narrative then it would absolutely make sense. I don’t know how that is so hard to understand. That he is the best SF prospect in the NBA not heading towards the end of their prime. We are trying to bring in young talent right? Even comparing to all position across the board he is near the top of production from a 20-21 y/o that has elite potential. Only argument against I gram so far that makes sense is some just don’t like him but there isn’t any argument for how he has played. Oh yea his team sucks! Let’s just continue to ignore he is 21 years old and putting up numbers that no SF in the NBA outside of Lebron and Durant has done at the same age. I guess age and how a player is actually producing shouldn’t matter.. that is unless it’s fits your argument. Done arguing a bunch of non sense with less then a handful of people who feel they need to pretend one player sucks to boost the other one. Perfectly fine to like both Ingram and Tatum. The Lakers hate creates such a strong bias for some that it isn’t fathomable to admit a player is good. By the way Giannis absolutely plays PF and if you watch him it becomes pretty clear. Just an example of when he plays us it is guarding AD for almost the entire game.

It's like you are completely unable to see my point and process it.

I even specifically said in my post that I was not knocking Ingram. That isn't what my question is about. I don't even hate Ingram as a prospect. I like Tatum better but I've been on record multiple times stating if Ingram is in the best package for AD come this summer, I'm fine with it. All I've ever wanted is to wait until summer and then field the offers and get the best possible one then.

My entire point is: WHY DOES IT MATTER? You still are unable to provide me with an answer to that. Why does it matter that Ingram is the best of a weak group of players?

What impact does that have on the Pelicans? What does it do to say Ingram is the best "SF" who is under the age of 27 and plays more than 51% of this time there (which shockingly BBR says he only spends 47% of his time there this year)?

SF is an extremely weak position across the NBA. Ingram being in the top 3 at that weak position means what? See to me, it's a pointless argument that has no merit because how many SFs in the entire league fit into that group to begin with? Saying Ingram is the top handful of a group of 30 players is pretty stupid. It means nothing.

I don't want the best SF under the age of 27 who plays 51+% of his minutes there for AD. I want the best players for AD! I don't care about position. A much better question would be: Who are the PLAYERS (irregardless of position) that are better than Ingram and under 27 that we can get for AD? Compare Ingram to the entire field of players in the NBA, not some arbitrary convoluted subsection.

So for the third time I ask, WHY DOES IT MATTER?

LoL how you can’t see the importance of Ingram being the best SF in the NBA under the age of 27 is a little ridiculous and I can’t help you there. You keep conveniently ignoring the point that goes along with it that no SF in the NBA outside of Lebron and Durant were this good at the same age. If this all means nothing then I guess arguing for any young player and comparing them to who actually plays their position means nothing. How does it not matter to compare a SF that has a very good chance of being part of our future and comparing him to the rest of the NBA at his position not matter? If it fit your argument I guarantee it wouldn’t be dismissed. Wouldn’t getting a potential all star SF be in our advantage if the position is weak? IMO it’s not a weak position but if you say so. You absolutely have “trashed” Ingram multiple times and stating “if he’s the best player I’m fine with it” doesn’t change that. I’ll just agree to disagree cause I’m done repeating myself over and over while typing on a phone.

Something being over looked which is pretty incredible is the impact Lonzo Ball has had in the Lakers. That team with him as gone from the 6th best defense in the NBA to one of the worst. They were also a 4th seed in the West and have now dropped into the lottery discussion. The team is -55 with Rondo starting and +57 with Lonzo. Really wish this kid didn’t have his dad attaches to him or else he would be a great fit next to Holiday creating a terrorizing defensive duo. He will have a lot of value in a trade to another team which is a big plus in the Lakers deal and could help in adding some like Bradley Beal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

LoL how you can’t see the importance of Ingram being the best SF in the NBA under the age of 27 is a little ridiculous and I can’t help you there. You keep conveniently ignoring the point that goes along with it that no SF in the NBA outside of Lebron and Durant were this good at the same age. If this all means nothing then I guess arguing for any young player and comparing them to who actually plays their position means nothing. How does it not matter to compare a SF that has a very good chance of being part of our future and comparing him to the rest of the NBA at his position not matter? If it fit your argument I guarantee it wouldn’t be dismissed. Wouldn’t getting a potential all star SF be in our advantage if the position is weak? IMO it’s not a weak position but if you say so. You absolutely have “trashed” Ingram multiple times and stating “if he’s the best player I’m fine with it” doesn’t change that. I’ll just agree to disagree cause I’m done repeating myself over and over while typing on a phone.

---

Again. the Importance of Ingram being the best SF in the NBA under age 27 (which he isn't but let's just move on from that) is negated by the fact that SF is the weakest position in the entire league and has been that way for awhile. Why would we not compare him to ALL PLAYERS in that age range?


Now, Let's tackle this insane comment you're making about Ingram is doing stuff that no other SF in the NBA outside of Lebron and Durant did at the same age. Ingram is averaging 18pts - 5 rebs - 3 assists at 21. Durant averaged 30pts - 7.6rebs - 2.8ast. Lebron averaged 31pts - 7rebs - 6 ast. THEY AREN'T IN THE SAME LEAGUE.

Actually, when you compare Ingram to Durant, Lebron, Paul George, and Kawhi at the age of 21 and you look at all advanced stats - Ingram is almost across the board worse than all of them. Lowest ORtg, Highest (that's a bad thing) DRtg (BY FAR), Lowest PER, Tied for lowest TS%, Lowest 3PAr, Lowest Rebounding% across the board, 2nd lowest ast%, lowest steal %, 2nd lowest blk%, 2nd HIGHEST tov%, the lowest OWS (BY FAR), the lowest DWS (BY FAR), lowest WS (BY FAR), lowest WS/48 (BY FAR), he's the only player out of the list that posted a negative across the board in OBPM, DBPM, BPM, and VORP. As in, no other player on the list posted lower than a +1.4 and Ingram's HIGHEST was a *MINUS*(-)0.7.

What are you actually basing it off of that he's doing stuff that only Lebron and Durant did at his age? Because he scores 18ppg while taking more shots than most other 21 year olds? I mean seriously. The only thing he is doing better than PG at this age or Kawhi is score more points, but when you look at all advanced stats he's not doing it with a better TS% or a better ORtg. There's NOTHING that indicates Ingram is doing anything special. At all. ZERO. NADA. And I even hate doing this to the guy because he does have potential, but when you start throwing his name around and comparing him to Durant and Lebron. . . like seriously, get a reality check.

So, him being the "best SF under 27 that plays 51% of his minutes there" really, honestly, truly, doesn't mean anything when you compare him to historically great SF (where he doesn't stack up) and when you compare him to guys his age at other positions across the league. Which leads me to say yet again, what's the point of doing it? It means nothing.

Ok compare him to all players in that age range. You can’t more then a handful of players not just his age but in the entire NBA that have been as productive in terms of numbers across the board as Ingram. Not gonna even read everything you said because you are arguing a bunch of nonsense. Literally this has been 7 pages of discussion against my argument that Ingram is a very good player with star potential yet everyone is now saying they don’t think Ingram sucks.. When that is literally what has been said the entire time. If it’s not then what is their even to argue? Nothing but nitpicking to try and be right on some argument in this discussion. Like saying Ingram is one of the best young SFs in the NBA and when comparing accross the position he is the future of the position.

Find me one SF in the NBA not named Durant or Lebron that played as well as he did at age 20-21.. still waiting on this.. even better find me more then a handful of players across the entire NBA who have put up numbers better at the same age. So keep arguing with yourself because nothing backs up the nonsense being stated like it’s facts. I guarantee if I was saying this about Tatum you would be all in on the idea being presented for Ingram. You are so bias it’s funny.

That's my bugaboo with Ingram. He isn't efficient. He shoots a lot of shoots and turns the ball over. Has extreme length but is a weak rebounder and very poor FT shooter. And like was pointed out, if you're a poor FT shooter and are primarily an ISO player, that's antithetical.

If Durant shot 67% teams would foul him all day. It'd neutralize his greatness. But to the contrary, Durant is an amazing FT shooter.

And Tatum is much closer to being likewise.

I see better traits in Tatum than I do with Ingram. Ingram is a good player. But I want Tatum because I think he'll be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

Ok compare him to all players in that age range. You can’t more then a handful of players not just his age but in the entire NBA that have been as productive in terms of numbers across the board as Ingram. Not gonna even read everything you said because you are arguing a bunch of nonsense. Literally this has been 7 pages of discussion against my argument that Ingram is a very good player with star potential yet everyone is now saying they don’t think Ingram sucks.. When that is literally what has been said the entire time. If it’s not then what is their even to argue? Nothing but nitpicking to try and be right on some argument in this discussion. Like saying Ingram is one of the best young SFs in the NBA and when comparing accross the position he is the future of the position.

Find me one SF in the NBA not named Durant or Lebron that played as well as he did at age 20-21.. still waiting on this.. even better find me more then a handful of players across the entire NBA who have put up numbers better at the same age. So keep arguing with yourself because nothing backs up the nonsense being stated like it’s facts.

---

My dude, the only one spouting nonsense is you. I just destroyed your entire argument for how good Ingram is playing at 21 with facts but you conveniently aren't going to read my post? SHOCKING that you'd ignore it since it completely blows up your entire argument. I didn't just find you one SF. I FOUND YOU TWO SF's (Paul George and Kawhi Leonard) who were both almost across the board better than Ingram at this age and in a lot of categories they didn't just slightly edge him, they completely destroyed him. At this point it's up to YOU to show facts that say Ingram is doing anything special at all. Because all the numbers I posted shows he simply doesn't stack up to any of those players even at age 21.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

My dude, the only one spouting nonsense is you. I just destroyed your entire argument for how good Ingram is playing at 21 with facts but you conveniently aren't going to read my post? SHOCKING that you'd ignore it since it completely blows up your entire argument. I didn't just find you one SF. I FOUND YOU TWO SF's (Paul George and Kawhi Leonard) who were both almost across the board better than Ingram at this age and in a lot of categories they didn't just slightly edge him, they completely destroyed him. At this point it's up to YOU to show facts that say Ingram is doing anything special at all. Because all the numbers I posted shows he simply doesn't stack up to any of those players even at age 21.

---

On one hand, I'm tempted to tell you not to bother because no matter how many times you show that his points are nonsense, he will keep coming back, shifting goalposts, ignoring responses, claiming you've said things you didn't, etc etc etc.

On the other, I'm tempted to tell you to keep going because it's funny to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

That's my bugaboo with Ingram. He isn't efficient. He shoots a lot of shoots and turns the ball over. Has extreme length but is a weak rebounder and very poor FT shooter. And like was pointed out, if you're a poor FT shooter and are primarily an ISO player, that's antithetical.

If Durant shot 67% teams would foul him all day. It'd neutralize his greatness. But to the contrary, Durant is an amazing FT shooter.

And Tatum is much closer to being likewise.

I see better traits in Tatum than I do with Ingram. Ingram is a good player. But I want Tatum because I think he'll be better.

---

How is he not efficient? Shooting 50% FG for a SF is very efficient and near elite. Sure he’s not a good FT shooter but I would say that makes him inefficient and I would bet a 21 year old kid with shooting touch will improve in this area as most players do. I would say his FT game is a very minimal issue unless he just never improves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

On one hand, I'm tempted to tell you not to bother because no matter how many times you show that his points are nonsense, he will keep coming back, shifting goalposts, ignoring responses, claiming you've said things you didn't, etc etc etc.

On the other, I'm tempted to tell you to keep going because it's funny to read.

---

What's funny is, he says he didn't read my post and then challenges me to find a single SF not named Lebron or Durant that played better at 21. . .while quoting a post from me where I showed not one but two sf's who were almost across the board better than Ingram at 21. It's completely hilarious to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

What's funny is, he says he didn't read my post and then challenges me to find a single SF not named Lebron or Durant that played better at 21. . .while quoting a post from me where I showed not one but two sf's who were almost across the board better than Ingram at 21. It's completely hilarious to me.

---

It reminds me of the other day where he claimed that I had never said anything about Ingram having potential, and then I quoted two of my own posts that he had replied to in which I say that Ingram has potential and may well improve, and even that I think those improvements are probable, and he still kept pushing the nonsense angle that he invented out of nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

My dude, the only one spouting nonsense is you. I just destroyed your entire argument for how good Ingram is playing at 21 with facts but you conveniently aren't going to read my post? SHOCKING that you'd ignore it since it completely blows up your entire argument. I didn't just find you one SF. I FOUND YOU TWO SF's (Paul George and Kawhi Leonard) who were both almost across the board better than Ingram at this age and in a lot of categories they didn't just slightly edge him, they completely destroyed him. At this point it's up to YOU to show facts that say Ingram is doing anything special at all. Because all the numbers I posted shows he simply doesn't stack up to any of those players even at age 21.

---

LoL what!? Leonard averaged 12 and 16 ppg at age 22 and 23!! Paul George was averaging 12 and 17 ppg at age 21 with a much lower FG% with less rpg and apg.. These are also 2 MVP candidates proving what I am saying even further!! That only players even comparable to Ingram are MVP candidates.. the only players that even have an argument as playing at a level near his have all turned themselves into MVP caliber players.. but no Ingram sucks now and will suck later!! both were also inserted into great situations on good to great teams not a lottery team full of young players. WTH are you talking about they destroy him? Maybe check the numbers again my dude cause you are flat out wrong! Such a poor argument y’all have presented..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

LoL what!? Leonard averaged 12 and 16 ppg at age 22 and 23!! Paul George was averaging 12 and 17 ppg at age 21 with a much lower FG% with less rpg and apg.. These are also 2 MVP candidates proving what I am saying even further!! That only players even comparable to Ingram are MVP candidates.. both were also inserted into great situations on good to great teams not a lottery team full of young players. WTH are you talking about they destroy him? Maybe check the numbers again my dude cause you are flat out wrong!

---

Go back and actually read my post you skipped over. You act like ppg is the only metric for measuring a player. . .Newsflash. It's not. Basketball has far more to it than just raw ppg. They didn't just beat Ingram. They completely crushed him in almost every major advanced stat. Which is my point, he just doesn't stack up to All Star players at the SF even when you compare them at 21.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Go back and actually read my post you skipped over. You act like ppg is the only metric for measuring a player. . .Newsflash. It's not. Basketball has far more to it than just raw ppg. They didn't just beat Ingram. They completely crushed him in almost every major advanced stat. Which is my point, he just doesn't stack up to All Star players at the SF even when you compare them at 21.

---

LoL of course you go presenting some stats that aren’t nearly as important to fit your argument.. that’s very typical from you.. If you could use the PPG and % I guarantee you that would be your first option. They destroy him though right? Try again.. PPG and FG% are pretty damn important metrics especially when one is averaging a full 5-6 ppg while shooting a better %.. Asvanced stats are a direct reflection on how good your team is as well.. but let’s ifnore that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

LoL what!? Leonard averaged 12 and 16 ppg at age 22 and 23!! Paul George was averaging 12 and 17 ppg at age 21 with a much lower FG% with less rpg and apg.. These are also 2 MVP candidates proving what I am saying even further!! That only players even comparable to Ingram are MVP candidates.. WTH are you talking about they destroy him? Maybe check the numbers again my dude cause you are flat out wrong!

---

He literally listed all the numbers he was talking about. Watch, I'll show you - highlighted stats are where they're better than Ingram:

Brandon Ingram, age 21: 18.3 pts, 5.1 rbds, 3.0 asts, 0.5stls, 0.6blks, 2.5 TOVs, 2.9 PFs, 49.7% fg, 33% 3pt, 67.5% FT, -8 Net RTG, -0.4 VORP, -2.8 BPM, 0.057 WS/48, 13.6 PER

Kawhi Leonard, age 21: 11.9pts, 6.0rbds, 1.6asts, 1.7stls, 0.6blks, 1.1 TOVs, 1.7 PFs, 49.4% fg, 37.4% 3pt, 82.5% FT, +15 Net RTG, +2.7 VORP, +3.9 BPM, 0.166 WS/48, 16.4 PER

Paul George, age 21: 12.1pts, 5.6rbds, 2.4asts, 1.6stls, 0.6blks, 1.8 TOVs, 2.9 PFs, 44% fg, 38.5% 3pt, 80.2% FT, +8 Net RTG, +2.9 VORP, +3.9 BPM, 0.148 WS/48, 16.5 PER

Just for ease of comparison there :) hope that helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

LoL of course you go presenting some stats that aren’t nearly as important to fit your argument.. that’s very typical from you.. If you could use the PPG and % I guarantee you that would be your first option. They destroy him though right? Try again.. PPG and FG% are pretty damn important metrics especially when one is averaging a full 5-6 ppg while shooting a better %.. Asvanced stats are a direct reflection on how good your team is as well.. but let’s ifnore that!

---

Serious question: do you think Points Per Game is the best, and most important, metric for measuring how good a player is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

LoL of course you go presenting some stats that aren’t nearly as important to fit your argument.. that’s very typical from you.. If you could use the PPG and % I guarantee you that would be your first option. They destroy him though right? Try again.. PPG and FG% are pretty damn important metrics especially when one is averaging a full 5-6 ppg while shooting a better %.. Asvanced stats are a direct reflection on how good your team is as well.. but let’s ifnore that!

---

Why are you purposely being obtuse instead of just admitting you were wrong? PPG and FG% are two stats. But I listed like a dozen stats where they were better than Ingram. Advanced stats aren't a direct reflection of how good your team is, Advanced stats were specifically developed because PPG and FG% aren't good indicators by themselves of how good a player actually is. And those two stats completely ignore an entire half of the game of basketball - defense - where Ingram gets crushed by both of the players I listed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Serious question: do you think Points Per Game is the best, and most important, metric for measuring how good a player is?

---

Never said it was. But to ignore those stats because they edge him out in a few other categories is ridiculous. The stats you are presenting all have a huge part to do with the teams they were on as well. They were both put in much better situations and there is no question about that. Just funny y’all ignore everything Ingram does better while taking the stats that don’t favor him as the deciding factor. Again these are 2 MVP caliber players he is right there in the discussion with is my entire point. To act like these guys were far better or better period is nothing but opinion and ridiculous to act otherwise. Y’all have just continued to show your biases on this subject and no matter what he does it will be argued somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Why are you purposely being obtuse instead of just admitting you were wrong? PPG and FG% are two stats. But I listed like a dozen stats where they were better than Ingram. Advanced stats aren't a direct reflection of how good your team is, Advanced stats were specifically developed because PPG and FG% aren't good indicators by themselves of how good a player actually is. And those two stats completely ignore an entire half of the game of basketball - defense - where Ingram gets crushed by both of the players I listed.

---

I could see an argument that MAYBE BPM is dependent on how good your team is, as well as potentially net rating.

But PER, On/off, VORP, WS/48, etc, are all specifically individual metrics. There's no argument for those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I could see an argument that MAYBE BPM is dependent on how good your team is, as well as potentially net rating.

But PER, On/off, VORP, WS/48, etc, are all specifically individual metrics. There's no argument for those.

---

I would believe that except the Lakers are markedly better with Ingram off the court than on it. So I think he is part of the reason (probably due to his defense) that their stats skewer that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

Never said it was. But to ignore those stats because they edge him out in a few other categories is ridiculous. The stats you are presenting all have a huge part to do with the teams they were on as well. They were both put in much better situations and there is no question about that. Just funny y’all ignore everything Ingram does better while taking the stats that don’t favor him as the deciding factor. Again these are 2 MVP caliber players he is right there in the discussion with is my entire point. To act like these guys were far better or better period is nothing but opinion and ridiculous to act otherwise. Y’all have just continued to show your biases on this subject and no matter what he does it will be argued somehow.

---

I know you never said it was. That's why I didn't claim you did. I asked.

Also, edge him out in a few other categories?! You mean absolutely annihilate him in almost every other category, right?

No, the starts are not dependent on teams. I can see an argument for that in regards to BPM, maybe, though I would debate it. But PER, WS/48, VORP, etc, are all specifically individual metrics. It doesn't matter how many games your team wins, or how dynamic your offense is. You can have a terrible team offense, and a great offensive rating individually, because they are specifically formulated for individuals.

I don't argue that they weren't in better situations. Yes, Kawhi and PG were in better situations. That doesn't change their individual performances within those teams.

What ''everything'' that Ingram does better? He literally does scoring, and assisting better, and edges them slightly in FG%. Literally every other metric he's worse at. No question.

They were not MVP calibre players then. Nobody is arguing they're better than him NOW, because of course they are. Nobody would deny that.

They were far better. Mythrol and I have produced the statistics to back this opinion up. Yes, it's an opinion, but it's an opinion with evidence supporting it. Your opinion is also an opinion, but it has no evidence. So you are, as far as anyone can be in regards to opinions, wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I could see an argument that MAYBE BPM is dependent on how good your team is, as well as potentially net rating.

But PER, On/off, VORP, WS/48, etc, are all specifically individual metrics. There's no argument for those.

---

These are individual metrics that can be hugely impacted by how good their team is. Like I said all y’all have done is dig for anything that agrees with your argument. What separates them is not by much in those areas and their is no way you can point to them being much better or even better. Again these are 2 players producing at an MVP level! So y’all are only proving my point further..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

I would believe that except the Lakers are markedly better with Ingram off the court than on it. So I think he is part of the reason (probably due to his defense) that their stats skewer that way.

---

Yeah, when you look at Ingrams on/off stats, it does turn up a negative. His team offensive rating is +0.7 better with him on court. Lakers oppositions see their offensive rating rise +1. Not much, but the end result is that Ingram being on court produces a -0.3 rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

These are individual metrics that can be hugely impacted by how good their team is. Like I said all y’all have done is dig for anything that agrees with your argument. What separates them is not by much in those areas and their is no way you can point to them being much better or even better. Again these are 2 players producing at an MVP level! So y’all are only proving my point further..

---

We're proving you right, by providing mountains of evidence that you're wrong.

It's all over folks, that's how you know the person you're dealing with legitimately does not care if what they're saying is true. This is creationist style debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

I would believe that except the Lakers are markedly better with Ingram off the court than on it. So I think he is part of the reason (probably due to his defense) that their stats skewer that way.

---

LoL yet you will say Lonzo is trash and ignore how much better the Lakers are with him on the court? Hey the Pelicans are playing better without AD in the court.. you literally are reaching for anything..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

These are individual metrics that can be hugely impacted by how good their team is. Like I said all y’all have done is dig for anything that agrees with your argument. What separates them is not by much in those areas and their is no way you can point to them being much better or even better. Again these are 2 players producing at an MVP level! So y’all are only proving my point further..

---

Do you admit that Kawhi and Leonard were better players overall than Ingram was at the age of 21?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

We're proving you right, by providing mountains of evidence that you're wrong.

It's all over folks, that's how you know the person you're dealing with legitimately does not care if what they're saying is true. This is creationist style debate.

---

Proving I’m right by presenting 2 players that played no better and are current MVP candidates.. yea you got me lol! Y’all sound so ridiculous it’s hilarious. Your biases are screaming through the screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

LoL yet you will say Lonzo is trash and ignore how much better the Lakers are with him on the court? Hey the Pelicans are playing better without AD in the court.. you literally are reaching for anything..

---

Lonzo hasn't even been healthy enough to stay on the court. He's soon to reach the dreaded injury prone argument if he keeps this up. Nor does he matter in a coversation revolving around Ingram and how he ranks compared to other SFs at 21.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

Proving I’m right by presenting 2 players that played no better and are current MVP candidates.. yea you got me lol! Y’all sound so ridiculous it’s hilarious. Your biases are screaming through the screen.

---

Presenting two players who played MUCH MUCH better, in almost every measurable way*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Lonzo hasn't even been healthy enough to stay on the court. He's soon to reach the dreaded injury prone argument if he keeps this up. Nor does he matter in a coversation revolving around Ingram and how he ranks compared to other SFs at 21.

---

Those goalposts are moving...

The whataboutery is beginning...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Do you admit that Kawhi and Leonard were better players overall than Ingram was at the age of 21?

---

No I watched both of these guys at that age and they absolutely weren’t better. If anything they were playing at a very similar level. Again these are 2 MVP candidates helping my case further how good Ingram has been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuardianAngel25

No I watched both of these guys at that age and they absolutely weren’t better. If anything they were playing at a very similar level. Again these are 2 MVP candidates helping my case further how good Ingram has been.

---

LOL. Ok then, there's nothing left to discuss. You ignore nearly every major statistical category simply to avoid admitting you were wrong. Good Day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Lonzo hasn't even been healthy enough to stay on the court. He's soon to reach the dreaded injury prone argument if he keeps this up. Nor does he matter in a coversation revolving around Ingram and how he ranks compared to other SFs at 21.

---

LoL good way of deflecting when Lonzo was on the court for 47 games how they played. Showing how ridiculous you are reaching for anything lol.

You ladies argue with yourselves.. peace!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

LOL. Ok then, there's nothing left to discuss. You ignore nearly every major statistical category simply to avoid admitting you were wrong. Good Day.

---

That's basically how all these discussions go.

He makes a claim, you disagree. He tells you to prove it, you provide mountains of evidence. He then dismisses the evidence, implies that you only disagree because he just watches more basketball than you, and leaves.