| . |
 |
I didn't assume that. I said that every single one of his assists coming in the second was ''a good sign that he was focusing more on playmaking''. Not that he was not playmaking at all prior to that: as you noted, and as I said myself, I can't make definitive statements about the first half cause I didn't see it. Thanks thoOriginally Posted by Nichols
Basketball.
If Okafor plays like this all season we’ll be good. That’s pace tonight was crazy fast and I loved it.
.
Last edited by bloodypelican; 11-01-2019 at 05:33 AM.
You did assume it.. "Ingram had 0 assists at the half, finished with 5, so that's a good sign that he was focusing more on playmaking in the second half."
Unless we have a different understanding of what the word more means. What you communicated was that he was focused more in the second half on distributing, which isn't the case.
Last edited by Nichols; 10-31-2019 at 11:24 PM.
What?
Ask everyone else in here if Ingram played any different in the second half. Box score doesn't tell the whole story.
Was* wasn't..
I think you get what I'm saying.. I think sometimes you give backhanded compliments, instead of just giving the guy credit. He wasn't more focused on anything in the second half is what I'm saying.
Never said it did.
In fact, in my very first post in this thread upon coming into the game, I posted a couple of points that the box score implied and then specifically asked if people could tell me if those things were true or not, because of the fact that box scores aren't all-seeing.
Soooooo... yeah :P
Bottom line.. You said.. "Ingram had 0 assists at the half, finished with 5, so that's a good sign that he was focusing more on playmaking in the second half."
It simply isn't true.. you shouldn't pretend like you don't know what you just said.. It just wasn't accurate and highlights this thing you do with Ingram where you give backhanded compliments on occasion.
I'm not tripping it's no biggy but stop pretending boss.. You're just flat out wrong, and that's okay. lol.
I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again because it's a really weird thing.
Why is it that I can post a fairly long comment which is largely complimentary to everyone mentioned it aside from one sentence, or in this case, the implication you feel a sentence has within it, and all of that gets ignored in favour of someone trying to start an argument over that one sentence/implication?
It's really strange, and it happens to me a lot. I'll post something like ''Ingram had a great game tonight, love to see him focus on playmaking instead of just looking for his own shot, that's exactly the kind of decision making I want from him'', and someone will go ''UH. Instead? Of just looking for his own shot? Is that supposed to IMPLY that he usually IS just looking for his own shot? Do you hate Ingram, is that what you're saying here?''
Don't try to deflect and act like a victim.. Focus.. Here's what you said again..
"Ingram had 0 assists at the half, finished with 5, so that's a good sign that he was focusing more on playmaking in the second half."
It was flat out wrong.. and I'm simply bringing it to your attention.. You won't find anyone who actually watched the game that will tell you Ingram played any different. But you assume he did based on the box score. Which is why I said you found a way to give a backhanded compliment. On this occasion.
Do you know what the phrase ''a good sign'' means?
So you want to still pretend like you didn't say "he was focusing more on playmaking in the second half"? C'mon man lol..
You can't just say you was wrong? It's not a big deal boss lol.. It's really not.
I think we would probably both agree that if you have two players and one has 0 assists in a game and the other has 15, that's a ''good sign'' that the second guy was focused more on playmaking than the other. Now, that may not be the case, maybe the first guy was trying really hard to playmake but his teammates couldn't hit a shot, and maybe the second guy was just racking up Rondo assists without creating anything. That's totally possible. But I think we would both agree that in that case, the huge assists disparity is a ''good sign'' of a difference in focus.
Brandon Ingram had 0 assists in the first half. Now it's perfectly possible that he was looking to playmaking on every play, but either guys weren't making shots, or he was late on the passes, or he was getting triple teamed and couldn't find shots, or whatever. I'm not denying that: I haven't watched the first half of this game yet, so I am not going to make proclamations on it.
He had 5 assists in the second half. Now, again, it's absolutely possible that nothing in his game changed, and that guys simply started making the shots off his passes or something. I do not deny that. But the stark difference in assists is a ''good sign'' that his mentality shifted. MAYBE IT DIDN'T. I am perfectly happy to admit that, because I cannot say for sure, because (for what must be closing in on the tenth time) I didn't see the first half and I totally concede that.
The problem here is that you've taken the second half of a sentence ''he was focusing more on playmaking in the second half'' and completely disconnected it from the first half of that very same sentence, which uses the phrase ''a good sign'', a set-phrase that pretty much already concedes the possibility of it not being guaranteed. It's actually pretty disingenuous of you, tbh, a very bad faith take.
But that's all I've got to say on this. I'm not going to respond on the topic again: I've made it very clear that I am not making any definitive statements about the first half, and that my comment was only meant as a brief and tentative observation, not a complete proclamation of a truth to which I have already admitted multiple times that I have zero access.
For the record I quoted the entire sentence in its entirety on more than one occasion. I only broke it up after you broke it up. Good to see though that you're acknowledging that your assessment may be wrong. Which I assure you is.
The PELS do really well on offense. We could be the best offense in the league or at least top 5.
They will be much harder to beat if they can be AVERAGE at rebounding the ball and getting to the FT line.
We need better defense, rebounding, getting more FTA, and we need to maintain a high EFF.
*****
The very good news is ALL of those categories will likely improve significantly when Favors and Zion are back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just a question. Is there a no trade clause in Redick's contract?
So I think I'm going to have to choose between enjoying this team or posting to this forum because God people are so defensive about Ingram that it makes it unbearable here.
People never defended AD this much and he was a MVP finalist and multi time All Star. We don't all see the game the same way. It's OK to see players in different lights. It's not anyone's job to play police for a player and jump on anyone who has anything to say about them. You disagree with a take? Great. That's cool. Voice your disagreement and move on. It happens in every single game thread and has made this place an absolute nightmare to read.
I largely ignored the forum tonight to just enjoy the game. I came to read all the happy takes about the adjustments the coaching staff made, from pulling Lonzo early so he can get more run with the 2nd unit, to not applying as much defensive pressure so they could focus more on help defense, gaps, and fighting for rebounds. The coach staff made some good adjustments here and stuff we were all basically calling for. They did it in 4 games too.
I thought maybe we'd talk about how Jah and Frank both really showed out tonight against stiff competition and how once we are completely healthy we are going to have a really solid bench rotation.
No, instead let's bicker about perceived slights against Ingram. I just don't see how people are so unwilling to accept that Ingram has been our best player so far and yet still hasn't been perfect. That should actually make everyone HAPPY because if Ingram puts it all together and keeps up this play, forget MIP, in a couple of years he could be in top 10 or 15 player talk.
Everyone should be excited about the future potential and accept some growth is still needed instead of all this constant annoying bickering.
No.
Why are you so eager to trade JJ? He’s going to be really valuable in helping our young guys develop. I’d rather keep him around but if we can get something significant in return I guess I’d be ok with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At this point, you assume too much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote