| . |
 |
I'm personally not looking to be adversarial. It's just a discussion on the data.Originally Posted by Nichols
Do you think that the other statistics given, concerning the advanced stats like VORP and PER, are important factors to consider? And if so, doesn't it seem somewhat telling that Ingram underperforms in all of those statistics? If not, why should we consider points per game as a more valuable metric than, say, WS/48?
Basketball.
You hit me with a reply saying simply "smh" after in my previous post I literally say I hope Ingram ends up as good as some of you guys think he already is.
Then I reply to your 3 letter post saying I agree with you it is a smh situation and you accuse me of pestering you with replies? If you don't want replies..... Don't reply.
If you want to give your opinion that's cool, we can disagree all we want about opinions because that's literally all they are. But once people start introducing statistics (especially when they only present a limited number of them aka cherry pick) to push their opinions then you can expect to be challenged on this. Maybe as a Lakers fan you aren't used to people looking deeper than just PTs, Rebs, Stls, etc, I don't know, but many people here dig a lot deeper into the numbers.
I encourage you to continue to post and enjoy your time here. We typically challenge each other in discussions here, especially between the regulars, that doesn't mean we are making each other adversaries. I think most of us can separate discussions from the people making them.
I was referring to the other individual, he's pressing a bit too much. No need to act like a jerk over a disagreement on a players value. It's okay to not see eye to eye and simply move on.
The problem with those kind of statistics is they don't account for how a player is utilized. Ingram was played in multiple positions throughout the course of every season he's played, in addition to playing in an offensive system that was in no way tailored to optimize his abilities. Oladipo for example flourished under different circumstances, after leaving OKC. For many it was clear that the talent was there.
Role, personnel, coaching, offensive schemes all influence analytic metrics. PPG and FG% gives me an indication of what a player is capable of producing. If an individual is perceived to be under performing then it needs to be rectified with the coaching staff.
Last edited by Nichols; 06-28-2019 at 09:41 PM.
If you wan't to pretend like you weren't being antagonistic that is fine.. I indicated that I was done, and said to enjoy your weekend. You replied with something snarky.. I showed restraint by simply replying with smh.. and then you responded again.
My point wasn't that I didn't reply with something snarky, it was that at the end of my post I was still trying to find common ground by saying I hope he becomes what you think he is to show I don't hate the kid and wish him well.
I typically will continue to reply when I'm replied to. This isn't uncommon behavior on a forum. I'm not sure why you're perplexed by that. As I've stated, if you don't want a reply, don't reply to me.
My point is your snark and condescension are childish and unnecessary. This behavior is antagonistic, and what I would characterize as pestering. I'm sure you can distinguish between replying in a civil tone, and being a jerk. It's the being a jerk I take issue with. But if that's your style so be it. I'll just limit my interactions.
See we actually AGREE here. No one is disputing that Ingram has the talent to be good or even have an Oladipo type career turn. I would say 99% of people posting here hopes that is exactly what happens with Ingram.
I would say most believe that a change of scenery is exactly what Ingram needed and now that he has it, there is a solid chance his performance improves... Maybe even to very high levels.
The issue seems to be with some individuals saying Ingram is ALREADY producing at an extremely high level, claims like "He's the best SF in the league under 25" or "Find me a 21 year old with less holes in his game" or comparing him and saying he is on the same level already as some of the greatest SFs of all time.
I can't see how someone can claim how great Ingram already is, then in the same breath blame his weak performance on his situation. Either he has had a weak performance so far or he hasn't.
I never proclaimed Ingram to be a future all-star or future HOF.. My posts communicated that Ingram is a prospect with loads of potential, who is already a solid all around player. You're projecting criticisms that may be valid for the individuals you referenced and building a counter narrative to my posts.
I'm not really sure I agree with your evaluation on PPG. FG% is a more compelling argument, I'm happy to concede that, and Ingram is a pretty efficient guy from the floor overall. TS% is essentially just FG% on steroids though, accounting for threes and free throws, and Ingram sits around league average there. Not bad at all, but not fantastic.
The reason I disagree with your view on PPG is pretty simple: lots of players have inflated box score stats on terrible teams and it tends to be fool's gold. Place them in an environment with better teammates, a better system, better coaching, and sometimes they adjust and see their advanced stats increase, but equally sometimes they seem to almost implode statistically. That, or in some cases, they drag down teams around them. DeMarcus Cousins is a great example of that. People were very excited about him when he returned to play for the Warriors, because his box score stats were impressive: 16/8/4 in basically 25 minutes a game. But when you examined the advanced stats, it actually becomes clear that when Cousins was on the floor their offense cratered and they got brutalised in the minutes where he was their center piece.
Now, I don't imagine that will happen with Ingram. He doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as Boogie in terms of ego, and by all accounts he disliked playing in LA. Maybe the new environment will let him break out: I'd love that. But I feel like looking at his PPG and ignoring all the metrics that actually account for winning is kind of missing the point of looking at metrics at all.
If your intention by posting those stats wasn't to excuse his below average performance so far, and instead was to project his future performance then we don't really have a disagreement. Ingram definitely has the potential to improve and maybe even hit the same tier as some of those players you posted. Nearly every advanced statistic shows him to be below average to poor overall so far though.
Edit: Let me be clear here too. When I say below average to poor overall I mean... Overall. That doesn't mean I think he is below average in every single category. Certain things like his ability to draw fouls and pass the ball while being the main ball handler are above average to extremely good. However those areas do not cover over the other worse areas that cause him to overall be below average... So far. But again, he certainly has the potential to improve and be a good player.
Last edited by Mythrol; 06-28-2019 at 10:20 PM.
Los Angeles Lakers: Which young core member has the highest ceiling?
https://lakeshowlife.com/2019/06/11/...est-ceiling/2/
During the 2018-2019 season, Brandon Ingram scored 1.00 points per possession out of isolation plays, which was in the 80th percentile in the NBA.
Ingram’s skill out of one-on-one situations is truly impressive when compared with some of the best players in the NBA.
Kevin Durant: 1.06 ppp (85th percentile)
Kawhi Leonard: 1.05 ppp (84th percentile)
Kemba Walker: 1.03 ppp (82nd percentile)
DeMar DeRozan: 1.00 ppp (80th percentile)
Jimmy Butler: 0.99 ppp (76th percentile)
Kyrie Irving: 0.98 ppp (74th percentile)
LeBron James: 0.97 ppp (73rd percentile)
Brandon Ingram was also 27th in the NBA in points scored off of drives at 6.7 PPG.
At 21 Ingram is already one of the best in the league at creating and converting shots. Couple this with a player that can lock up elite perimeter players.
Not a below average player by any stretch of the imagination. He's already a good player.
Watched Ingram for the entirety of his career. He's doesn't stat pad, nor are his counting stats misleading. The metrics you're citing are all influenced by factors outside of Ingram's own personal ability. Team play, and quality of coaching effects those numbers. PPG and the efficiency by which they are derived gives me an indication of what a player is capable of producing. Is it the end all be all? Of course not.
I don't think that's a fair evaluation of the other metrics. If you are a truly impactful player, producing wins, then you have good WS/48 values regardless of how many games your team overall wins.
Evidence of this is abundant: look at how AD has only been on a winning team twice in his 7 year career, yet continually has extremely high WS/48 numbers. It's because the metric is specifically designed to reduce the team's impact on the statistic and create a representation of the impact of the individual. If you just assumed that WS/48 was impacted by factors beyond the individual player, such as general team success, you would expect every player on a fantastic team to have good WS metrics, which doesn't happen: take Jonas Jerebko, for example, who played on last year's Warriors team, reached the finals, won over 50 games, and yet only had an individual .130 WS/48. That's a relatively pedestrian rating, and is the kind of number you would not expect if team success vastly impacted the metric.
PER has nothing to do with team success either: it's entirely designed to formulate the overall production of an individual player.
If we're going to argue that metrics like PER and WS/48, which are specifically designed to try and produce a representation of the individual rather than of team success, are too influenced by external factors to make real judgements with, then is it not true that PPG is also a highly dependent number, since it relies on the amount of shots you get per game, the offensive gravity of the other players on the court, the quality of your average defender, and various other external factors that we can't control for?
No factor is perfect, but I think it's kind of naive to just look at the box score stats, which are just a raw number that gets spit out, and assume that's a real representation of what's going on within the game while simultaneously dismissing the advanced stats which recognise their own contingency and actively try to reduce the volatility that that creates.
You're misrepresenting my position.. "Is it the end all be all? Of course not." I will reiterate, I said it provides insight into ability.. Nor did I say the analytics you referenced should be dismissed.
The Lakers were not a team that put a lot of weight into analytics. If Ingram was utilized in a manner that optimized his current abilities he would have better metrics. He was misused, and poorly developed under the coaching staff he had.
They had him playing point guard and he struggled initially, once he got acclimated to that position he started playing better in that role. You're going to see inconsistency in a young prospect that's playing multiple positions. The numbers will reflect that inconsistency. All you can ask for is growth, and he's demonstrated growth.
Like I said. Ingram has some skills which are not below average. Thank you for posting an example of one area he is good in. But just because he has some that are above average doesn't mean it outweighs his bad areas. Overall, he is a below average player. The vast majority of advanced statistics support the fact he is currently a below average player. Hopefully the change of teams does him wonders and he becomes really good.
Last edited by Mythrol; 06-28-2019 at 11:04 PM.
Like I said, if that's what you wish to believe that is fine. Nothing I say will convince you otherwise, nor is there anything you could post that would change my perspective on Ingram.
Sure that's fine when it's opinions. I firmly believe you already had an opinion you were locked into before ever coming into this thread about Ingram and no one was ever going to change that no matter what. That's never been my objective.
My point has been advanced statistics say Ingram is below average overall, which nothing has been shown to refute that because nothing can be shown, it's a fact based off of said advanced statistics.
There you go with the underhanded remarks.. That first paragraph didn't need to be communicated to me. In the future, if you want to interact with me, keep it about basketball. Don't make me the subject of your post. If that's a problem simply ignore me.
How could it be an underhanded remark when I'm literally agreeing with something you yourself are saying? Did you originally underhand remark yourself?
This is of course while you completely ignore my entire 2nd paragraph about advanced statistics. It's almost as if you care to focus on my first paragraph to be able to pass over the meat of my point which is about how advanced statistics do not put Ingram in a good light.
Last edited by Mythrol; 06-28-2019 at 11:35 PM.
Appreciate the info on the ignore feature.. I can no longer see your posts.. =)
That will be best for us both as long as someone agreeing with you is enough to cause you to feel attacked.
Last edited by Mythrol; 06-28-2019 at 11:39 PM.
That's the part that I find so puzzling: he hasn't really demonstrated growth. His points per game have gone up, sure, and that is a good thing in a vacuum. Better than them going down, at least. But he literally got worse in every other box score stat this year compared to last, and he shot worse from 3 too. All of his advanced stats were better last year than this year. I get that he was playing multiple positions and that he didn't like LA, and that Lebron being there put additional pressure on them. That's why I'm open to the fact that he can improve: there are decent explanations for why he wasn't producing.
But the fact that there are decent explanations for his lack of production doesn't somehow make it so that there was production where there wasn't. He still regressed, even if it's understandable that he did so. Again, I hope that New Orleans is a better environment for him and that he improves and shows the signs of stardom that so many of his supporters like to bring up, but just because I hope he will play at a high level doesn't mean he has been playing at a high level in the past.
Yea I don't think there's any place else for us to go. Even before this drawn out exchange I stated that these kind of exchanges yield very little. As I communicated to the other gentleman I'm fine with you believing whatever it is you believe. I'll take 18 points per with solid efficiency from a developing 21 year old that plays elite man defense.
To be clear too, before last season started many people were saying because of how much attention Lebron forces the other team to put on him that Lonzo and Ingram were in line to make big steps forward in their game. Instead, both players regressed overall.
I have no doubts that Lebron ended up being a horrible influence on the team and in the locker room especially after the public show of trying to get everyone traded. I can excuse a lot of their regression because of this.
I simply can't believe in the same breath someone can excuse his poor performance and also still say Ingram was great. It feels like a catch 22 to me. Either he was bad because of the situation he was in or he was a great scorer, elite on defense, same tier as Pippin and Kawhi. I can't comprehend how people can hold both viewpoints at the same time.
Last edited by Mythrol; 06-28-2019 at 11:55 PM.
Gotcha.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
