February 17th - New Orleans Pelicans VS Portland Trailblazers - 12-15

[Pelicanidae]

I think the consensus among the ppl that would trade him is if it makes the team better. Which, after a decade of this same stuff, I don’t see why more aren’t willing to do whatever it takes.

Which, for some reason, people are treating as ridiculous.

You're telling me right now that if Washington's entire FO had a brain aneurysm and they came to you and said ''look, we've figured out a way to get the 2021 #1 pick, you can have that and Beal, all we want is Ingram'' you wouldn't do it?

Like, don't get me wrong, that trade would never happen and I don't want anyone to think that it would, but apparently even that would be ''totally ridiculous'' of us to do because ''even entertaining the idea'' is unacceptable to some. Even if it's clearly the right trade to make.

[Pelicanidae]

I feel like one of the hallmarks of bad teams is getting too attached to players who are good but not great and then refusing to even consider using them to improve.

Toronto deserves all the praise in the world from an organisational standpoint from knowing when to cut loose on DeRozan and upgrade. Clippers made the right move, from an organisational standpoint, in shipping Blake when they did. Both good players, neither of them were ''the guy'' to move to the next level, those teams knew it and they made the right choice despite the sentiment.

Us, on the other hand? Well, we've got Ingram. Who knows whether he's going to be 'the guy', two or three seasons from now, but right now he's not and we're being told it's ''ridiculous'' to ''even entertain the idea'' of trading him? Bad team brain-worms.

[sterlr]

You've totally misdiagnosed what happened on that play because you have blind spots when it comes to Ingram...

Clearly you can see a pick between Zion and Ingram before Ingram passed it to Zo. That pick between the two didn't generate anything, which then led to Ingram passing it. Secondly it wasn't enough time for Ingram to get the ball to Zion after the offensive board. Take the blinders off dude... I know Ingram has been playing bad but at least attempt to be objective..

Why didn't SVG just have Zion handle the ball with BI pick-n-roll? This is just as much on coaching. The whole game Zion handled the ball but in the last seconds not? Doesn't make any sense.

[luckyman]

If the only trade idea you can broach is an obvious trade that will never happen, then I don't know how much more ridiculous and stupid the idea is to begin with. Neverminded the fact that you don't trade players like BI. Players of his caliber and age are exactly what teams like the Pelicans go searching high and low for. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. It's headache inducing.

Hey maybe we can trade BI for Lebron. He's getting old and I heard he likes gumbo. Hey AD's fiancee is from new orleans. Let's trade BI for AD and make the dual reunion happen.

[6warddude]

If the only trade idea you can broach is an obvious trade that will never happen, then I don't know how much more ridiculous and stupid the idea is to begin with. Neverminded the fact that you don't trade players like BI. Players of his caliber and age are exactly what teams like the Pelicans go searching high and low for. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. It's headache inducing.

Hey maybe we can trade BI for Lebron. He's getting old and I heard he likes gumbo. Hey AD's fianc?e who he had a daughter with is from new orleans. Let's trade BI for AD and make the dual reunion happen.

lol i was going to say something on the obvious trade that will never happen but decided to leave it be....when pelicandae get on the soapbox, i just sit back and enjoy the posts lol....

[6warddude]

so hernangomez dont get any love from the board?...dude had a double double last night 11/17......

good things happen when willy,,hart and zion are on the floor together.....and if JJ is hitting his shots then that lineup is more fire for us.....hernangomez make zion life easy in that second unit....we need to extend him to be our backup next season for cheap...

[Pelicanidae]

If the only trade idea you can broach is an obvious trade that will never happen, then I don't know how much more ridiculous and stupid the idea is to begin with. Neverminded the fact that you don't trade players like BI. Players of his caliber and age are exactly what teams like the Pelicans go searching high and low for. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. It's headache inducing.

Hey maybe we can trade BI for Lebron. He's getting old and I heard he likes gumbo. Hey AD's fiancee is from new orleans. Let's trade BI for AD and make the dual reunion happen.

Hey, have you ever heard of a thing called ''reductio ad absurdum''? It's this neat rhetorical strategy where you show that a point of view is ridiculous by taking it to its extreme and revealing how it inherently creates stupidity.

That's what I was doing. If you take the position that trading Ingram is something that we can't even ''entertain'', then that's basically saying he's untouchable; if you take that to its extreme, as I did, by creating a trade in which not trading Ingram would be stupid, you reveal that the underlying idea of him being untouchable is flawed because it inherently requires you to make stupid choices, as in that hypothetical.

Just a little explanation there for you, since it appears you were having trouble.

Like, what are some more ''reasonable'' trades that aren't ridiculous that I'd do? I'd move Ingram for Tatum, for example, pretty quickly, just as the quickest possible example. Would Boston do it? Probably not, but it's not inherently stupid in the way that the hypothetical trade was, and it's a position you could probably work with; adding picks or extraneous players to tailor it up to suitability.

Of course, you might argue that the price that would cost in things like picks would make it too high, but then we're having a discussion. We're entertaining the idea of possibly trading him: something I was told would be ''totally ridiculous''.

[luckyman]

Hey, have you ever heard of a thing called ''reductio ad absurdum''? It's this neat rhetorical strategy where you show that a point of view is ridiculous by taking it to its extreme and revealing how it inherently creates stupidity.

That's what I was doing. If you take the position that trading Ingram is something that we can't even ''entertain'', then that's basically saying he's untouchable; if you take that to its extreme, as I did, by creating a trade in which not trading Ingram would be stupid, you reveal that the underlying idea of him being untouchable is flawed because it inherently requires you to make stupid choices, as in that hypothetical.

Just a little explanation there for you, since it appears you were having trouble.

Like, what are some more ''reasonable'' trades that aren't ridiculous that I'd do? I'd move Ingram for Tatum, for example, pretty quickly, just as the quickest possible example. Would Boston do it? Probably not, but it's not inherently stupid in the way that the hypothetical trade was, and it's a position you could probably work with; adding picks or extraneous players to tailor it up to suitability.

Of course, you might argue that the price that would cost in things like picks would make it too high, but then we're having a discussion. We're entertaining the idea of possibly trading him: something I was told would be ''totally ridiculous''.

So you keep adding more ridiculous ideas to the original one. You'd trade Ingram for Tatum, a player that's been playing and shooting entire levels WORSE than Ingram over the past few weeks. A player that recently posted a 3/14 stat line with 6 points. A player that has multiple threads on the Celtics fan board complaining about his play, including an entire one saying how Tatum needs to stop trying to play hero ball.

You want to trade Ingram for that? Hey Ingram is even shooting PuLl uP ThReEs at a higher clip than Tatum last I saw. And I highly doubt any perceived defensive advantage would amount to much, since defense is a team sport. Ask Jrue Holiday.

Im serious now. I'm done. I am having trouble with your convoluted explanations with latin terms. I'm truly done.

[Pelicanidae]

So you keep adding more ridiculous ideas to the original one. You'd trade Ingram for Tatum, a player that's been playing and shooting entire levels WORSE than Ingram over the past few weeks. A player that recently posted a 3/14 stat line with 6 points. A player that has multiple threads on the Celtics fan board complaining about his play, including an entire one saying how Tatum needs to stop trying to play hero ball.

You want to trade Ingram for that? Hey Ingram is even shooting PuLl uP ThReEs at a higher clip than Tatum last I saw. And I highly doubt any perceived defensive advantage would amount to much, since defense is a team sport. Ask Jrue Holiday.

Im serious now. I'm done. I am having trouble with your convoluted explanations with latin terms. I'm truly done.

If you're done, be done.

Bit of advice, this website has a mute/ignore feature. If you're truly so ''done'' that it's ''headache inducing'' then just feel free to mute me.

[luckyman]

If you're done, be done.

Bit of advice, this website has a mute/ignore feature. If you're truly so ''done'' that it's ''headache inducing'' then just feel free to mute me.

I'm creating a bot that whenever you make a post containing the word "Ingram", my pc destroys it. That works.

[Pelicanidae]

I'm creating a bot that whenever you make a post containing the word "Ingram", my pc destroys it. That works.

Let me know how that goes. If it could be modified to destroy any post where someone claims that a player is untouchable as well, let me know; I'd be interested in buying.

[donato]

So to prove your point about "ridiculous" and player bias loyalty you make ridiculous trade scenarios "that would never happen" by your own admission?

Nobody said they wouldn't do a trade for Beal and the #1 which you clearly implied. That's not how you make a reasonable argument.

[Pelicanidae]

So to prove your point about "ridiculous" and player bias loyalty you make ridiculous trade scenarios "that would never happen" by your own admission?

Nobody said they wouldn't do a trade for Beal and the #1 which you clearly implied. That's not how you make a reasonable argument.

I've already explained above that it's an example of a pretty standard piece of logical reasoning. If you have a problem with it then you're welcome to have a problem with it, but let's not pretend it's not a fairly commonly example of 'reason' by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Take look if you're unsure, I promise I'm not making it up. It is literally Socrates and Aristotle.

[As I See It]

Willy is a keeper, and I hope we don?t Woods this one up.

I was thinking the same thing.

[As I See It]

The play failed.. That's coaching.. It's not on Ingram or Zion.. Even though the play was designed for them.

It couldn't possibly be execution of the play by the players, could it?

[As I See It]

Ingram also thinks he's the best player on the team

When it's clearly Jax

This!!!

[Pelicanidae]

Redick's shooting so far this year

Over our first 20 games (he played 17): 30.3% on 9.4 attempts per 36
Over our last 8 games (he's played them all): 57.1% on 8.5 attempts per 36

If Redick can be legitimately back as a shooter, that spells good things for the offense and it also potentially revives his trade market a bit.

[PELICANSFAN]

Ok cool. My bad. Now point to me how and when BI was supposed to get the ball to Zion? Zion was used as a screener, yet no one set a screen for him to get open. They switched and Zion didnt post his man up.

What BI magic would have gotten Zion the ball there?

Agree, which is why I think SVG is lying when he said it was supposed to be a 2 man game with BI and Zion. The obvious call would have been to make it a 2 man game with Zion and JJ. Get the ball to Zion and let him decide whether to drive or kick to JJ. It was the obvious call.

[donato]

I've already explained above that it's an example of a pretty standard piece of logical reasoning. If you have a problem with it then you're welcome to have a problem with it, but let's not pretend it's not a fairly commonly example of 'reason' by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Take look if you're unsure, I promise I'm not making it up. It is literally Socrates and Aristotle.

You're not using it how you think you're using it.

[Pelicanidae]

You're not using it how you think you're using it.

Cool, thanks for the heads up.

[Pelicanidae]

Agree, which is why I think SVG is lying when he said it was supposed to be a 2 man game with BI and Zion. The obvious call would have been to make it a 2 man game with Zion and JJ. Get the ball to Zion and let him decide whether to drive or kick to JJ. It was the obvious call.

I agree. It just looks like Zion wasn't supposed to be involved at all.

Zion and JJ 2 man game, with JJ as the screener, has been relentlessly efficient for a couple of games now. It was scoring like 2.2 points per shot in the Memphis game, and it hadn't dropped off too much last game either. It looked like the obvious option; there was no defending it.

[As I See It]

What do these numbers have in common?

118
129
120
126
118
129
143
123
126

I'll help you. This is the number of points we have given up in the last nine losses. It results in an average of 125.8 points allowed per loss.

If you want to talk about one or two offensive plays per game that a particular player fails to make, fine. I'll continue to point to the obvious....the abhorrent defense this team plays which needs to be fixed before it will ever claw it's way out of the next year's lottery.

Last night, every one of the starters (BI, Zion, Adams, Bledsoe, and Lonzo) had a negative +/-. Further, every one of the reserves had a positive +/-. Now even considering the 'Lillard Factor', I saw some very pedestrian players eat our starters' lunch last night. That's just a fact!!

But, HEY!!! All's not loss; there was a JAXSON sighting to behold.

[pelafanatic]

Last night, every one of the starters (BI, Zion, Adams, Bledsoe, and Lonzo) had a negative +/-. Further, every one of the reserves had a positive +/-. Now even considering the 'Lillard Factor', I saw some very pedestrian players eat our starters' lunch last night. That's just a fact!!

Nice use of +/-, basketball's most accurate stat.

No player outside of Dame or Gary Trent scored more than 13 points.

Portland has won 6 straight and 8 of 9. Stotts basically played an 8 man rotation on the road in the 2nd leg of a B2B. They're at a different stage in their development, and you can see it in both players and coaches are fighting for their jobs. Anyone that is losing their minds over this loss either has nothing better to do or wants to see this team crash and burn.

This is one of those games where you pretty much executed the game plan perfectly (even though you lost your center early), and a good team beat you. That's just the way it is sometimes. Not every loss is the end of the world.

[As I See It]

Nice use of +/-, basketball's most accurate stat.

No player outside of Dame or Gary Trent scored more than 13 points.

Portland has won 6 straight and 8 of 9. Stotts basically played an 8 man rotation on the road in the 2nd leg of a B2B. They're at a different stage in their development, and you can see it in both players and coaches are fighting for their jobs. Anyone that is losing their minds over this loss either has nothing better to do or wants to see this team crash and burn.

This is one of those games where you pretty much executed the game plan perfectly (even though you lost your center early), and a good team beat you. That's just the way it is sometimes. Not every loss is the end of the world.

Not saying it is the end of the world by any means. Six players in double figures; one with 43, and 125.8 (avg) given up in last nine losses? But, if you think we played good defense last night (or ever); we have nothing to discuss.

Have a good day!!

[As I See It]

Redick's shooting so far this year

Over our first 20 games (he played 17): 30.3% on 9.4 attempts per 36
Over our last 8 games (he's played them all): 57.1% on 8.5 attempts per 36

If Redick can be legitimately back as a shooter, that spells good things for the offense and it also potentially revives his trade market a bit.

But is offense really the problem?