|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
 Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | For the life of me I really can't understand why anyone would be harping on his shooting after one year. It makes zero sense to me, unless you just don't like the kid.
Why would you harp on any deficiency of a one year prospect that's fixable? |
He shot 24.5% on non corner 3s. He shot 62% from the line. That's tantamount to saying Randle's inability to shoot after his rookie year (71.5% from the line, 31.25% on non corner 3s, 0-4 on corners 3s) shouldn't be a concern about his game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | dao wrote: | | tox wrote: | | KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | All I ask for is Ingram to be a 35.5% 3pt shooter in his prime
I think that's enough to open up his game and be an Allstar. Hopefully he's good in the midrange too |
Midrange will be fine. He was good at NCAA 3s ( = NBA Long 2) and from midrange this season. Not concerned with that. Hell, he shot 36.4% from the corners -- not amazing but pretty good.
His problem lies in the full range, 24+ feet 3 pointers. He's been terrible on those, and he has no prior track record of making 3s that far away. That's where my concern about his shooting lies. |
come on mane. It is not uncommon for young rookies to struggle adjusting to the deeper NBA three. Hell, Jimmy Butler is an All Star now, and a decent three point shooter (36%+ in 2 of the last three years). He made two threes all season as a 22 year old rookie. He shot 28% as a 24 year old third year player. Ingram is 19! He shot 30% as a rookie. Give him an offseason please!
If he is at 35% in his prime, that's good enough. Remember that he will be playing PF in a couple years  |
He shot 24.5% on non corner 3s. If you don't find that the least bit concerning, good for you. But I absolutely do. |
It is certainly your prerogative to be concerned.. I personally have a hard time taking issue with deficiencies in a first year player. Especially one as raw physically as Ingram. Russell, by the admission of many here who love him is a not so great shooter. With that being said I don't think anyone here expects that to always be an issue. I actually think he'll end up being one of the better sharp shooters in the league before it's over and done with. These kids are still lumps of clay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | For the life of me I really can't understand why anyone would be harping on his shooting after one year. It makes zero sense to me, unless you just don't like the kid.
Why would you harp on any deficiency of a one year prospect that's fixable? |
He shot 24.5% on non corner 3s. He shot 62% from the line. That's tantamount to saying Randle's inability to shoot after his rookie year (71.5% from the line, 31.25% on non corner 3s, 0-4 on corners 3s) shouldn't be a concern about his game. |
I wouldn't draw any conclusions as to how proficient he'd be in the long run based on rookie numbers. But that's just me.
You could also pull up some awful rookie stats from other players who are now elite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | For the life of me I really can't understand why anyone would be harping on his shooting after one year. It makes zero sense to me, unless you just don't like the kid.
Why would you harp on any deficiency of a one year prospect that's fixable? |
He shot 24.5% on non corner 3s. He shot 62% from the line. That's tantamount to saying Randle's inability to shoot after his rookie year (71.5% from the line, 31.25% on non corner 3s, 0-4 on corners 3s) shouldn't be a concern about his game. |
I wouldn't draw any conclusions as to how proficient he'd be in the long run based on rookie numbers. But that's just me.
You could also pull up some awful rookie stats from other players who are now elite. |
Can you? I'd be interested if you can find anyone with comparable shooting numbers -- 62% from the line, 25% on non-corner 3s-- who became a decent shooter from 24+ feet out. Someone brought up Butler, who shot hardly any 3s as a rookie, but he shot 77% from the line. I'd be relieved to find players whose template BI could follow in terms of shooting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | For the life of me I really can't understand why anyone would be harping on his shooting after one year. It makes zero sense to me, unless you just don't like the kid.
Why would you harp on any deficiency of a one year prospect that's fixable? |
He shot 24.5% on non corner 3s. He shot 62% from the line. That's tantamount to saying Randle's inability to shoot after his rookie year (71.5% from the line, 31.25% on non corner 3s, 0-4 on corners 3s) shouldn't be a concern about his game. |
I wouldn't draw any conclusions as to how proficient he'd be in the long run based on rookie numbers. But that's just me.
You could also pull up some awful rookie stats from other players who are now elite. |
Can you? I'd be interested if you can find anyone with comparable shooting numbers -- 62% from the line, 25% on non-corner 3s-- who became a decent shooter from 24+ feet out. Someone brought up Butler, who shot hardly any 3s as a rookie, but he shot 77% from the line. |
Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rationale is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
We have a fundamental difference in how we view stats. You see them as a window into the future. I see them as a tool one could utilize to assess a player at the present.
I could possibly be overly optimistic, but I'd be willing to wager that Russell will end up being one of the top shooters in this league in spite of his current woes. Not as confident with Ingram, but I do expect him to improve. Especially since he understands it's an issue, and he's taking the necessary steps to correct it.
But like I said, I personally wouldn't be concerned about deficiencies and imperfections in lumps of clay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
We have a fundamental difference in how we view stats. You see them as a window into the future. I see them as a tool one could utilize to assess a player at the present.
I could possibly be overly optimistic, but I'd be willing to wager that Russell will end up being one of the top shooters in this league in spite of his current woes. Not as confident with Ingram, but I do expect him to improve. Especially since he understands it's an issue, and he's taking the necessary steps to correct it.
But like I said, I personally wouldn't be concerned about deficiencies and imperfections in lumps of clay. |
Not really. The difference between you and me is that you view all stats as the same. I actually attempt to contextualize them, and by virtue of that, I actually try to get a nuanced view of what's going on. Ingram's rebounding was trash for a 3, but he's got "Bambi legs" (to quote KIROE). Durant, who is a decent comparison in this regard, also was a bad rebounder as a rookie (worse, in fact), and now he's fine. Since the logic is that BI/KD were poor rebounders due to their slight builds, and that this will get rectified when they bulk up (as it did for KD), I'm not concerned at all about this stat.
His shooting stats however are a different story. Stats tend to be a little more projective in shooting capability, and so yes I'm concerned about how his stroke will fundamentally translate to 24+ feet. I expect him to work on it and improve, but how much? If there were actually evidence of players with awful 3FG% outside of the corners + poor FT% becoming good shooters, then I'd be less concerned. But alas, that seems not to be the case, which is why I'm concerned. And note that that's not a strong stance, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
We have a fundamental difference in how we view stats. You see them as a window into the future. I see them as a tool one could utilize to assess a player at the present.
I could possibly be overly optimistic, but I'd be willing to wager that Russell will end up being one of the top shooters in this league in spite of his current woes. Not as confident with Ingram, but I do expect him to improve. Especially since he understands it's an issue, and he's taking the necessary steps to correct it.
But like I said, I personally wouldn't be concerned about deficiencies and imperfections in lumps of clay. |
Not really. The difference between you and me is that you view all stats as the same. I actually attempt to contextualize them, and by virtue of that, I actually try to get a nuanced view of what's going on. Ingram's rebounding was trash for a 3, but he's got "Bambi legs" (to quote KIROE). Durant, who is a decent comparison in this regard, also was a bad rebounder as a rookie (worse, in fact), and now he's fine. Since the logic is that BI/KD were poor rebounders due to their slight builds, and that this will get rectified when they bulk up (as it did for KD), I'm not concerned at all about this stat.
His shooting stats however are a different story. Stats tend to be a little more projective in shooting capability, and so yes I'm concerned about how his stroke will fundamentally translate to 24+ feet. I expect him to work on it and improve, but how much? If there were actually evidence of players with awful 3FG% outside of the corners + poor FT% becoming good shooters, then I'd be less concerned. But alas, that seems not to be the case, which is why I'm concerned. And note that that's not a strong stance, either. |
Actually I don't view all stats the same.. Your "nuanced" perspective is simply an educated guess. That's what we're all doing here.. guessing. I don't see stats as an indicator of what is to come. But that's fine if you do, your prerogative.
Bottom line, we have a raw product that's working on it's imperfections. I have no reason to believe his shortcomings can't be rectified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
We have a fundamental difference in how we view stats. You see them as a window into the future. I see them as a tool one could utilize to assess a player at the present.
I could possibly be overly optimistic, but I'd be willing to wager that Russell will end up being one of the top shooters in this league in spite of his current woes. Not as confident with Ingram, but I do expect him to improve. Especially since he understands it's an issue, and he's taking the necessary steps to correct it.
But like I said, I personally wouldn't be concerned about deficiencies and imperfections in lumps of clay. |
Not really. The difference between you and me is that you view all stats as the same. I actually attempt to contextualize them, and by virtue of that, I actually try to get a nuanced view of what's going on. Ingram's rebounding was trash for a 3, but he's got "Bambi legs" (to quote KIROE). Durant, who is a decent comparison in this regard, also was a bad rebounder as a rookie (worse, in fact), and now he's fine. Since the logic is that BI/KD were poor rebounders due to their slight builds, and that this will get rectified when they bulk up (as it did for KD), I'm not concerned at all about this stat.
His shooting stats however are a different story. Stats tend to be a little more projective in shooting capability, and so yes I'm concerned about how his stroke will fundamentally translate to 24+ feet. I expect him to work on it and improve, but how much? If there were actually evidence of players with awful 3FG% outside of the corners + poor FT% becoming good shooters, then I'd be less concerned. But alas, that seems not to be the case, which is why I'm concerned. And note that that's not a strong stance, either. |
Actually I don't view all stats the same.. Your "nuanced" perspective is simply an educated guess. That's what we're all doing here.. guessing. I don't see stats as an indicator of what is to come. But that's fine if you do, your prerogative.
Bottom line, we have a raw product that's working on it's imperfections. I have no reason to believe his shortcomings can't be rectified. |
All guesses (your term) are not the same. Statistics are part of the information that goes into the 'educated' part of educated guess. Without stats, one's guess is, by definition, less educated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
We have a fundamental difference in how we view stats. You see them as a window into the future. I see them as a tool one could utilize to assess a player at the present.
I could possibly be overly optimistic, but I'd be willing to wager that Russell will end up being one of the top shooters in this league in spite of his current woes. Not as confident with Ingram, but I do expect him to improve. Especially since he understands it's an issue, and he's taking the necessary steps to correct it.
But like I said, I personally wouldn't be concerned about deficiencies and imperfections in lumps of clay. |
Not really. The difference between you and me is that you view all stats as the same. I actually attempt to contextualize them, and by virtue of that, I actually try to get a nuanced view of what's going on. Ingram's rebounding was trash for a 3, but he's got "Bambi legs" (to quote KIROE). Durant, who is a decent comparison in this regard, also was a bad rebounder as a rookie (worse, in fact), and now he's fine. Since the logic is that BI/KD were poor rebounders due to their slight builds, and that this will get rectified when they bulk up (as it did for KD), I'm not concerned at all about this stat.
His shooting stats however are a different story. Stats tend to be a little more projective in shooting capability, and so yes I'm concerned about how his stroke will fundamentally translate to 24+ feet. I expect him to work on it and improve, but how much? If there were actually evidence of players with awful 3FG% outside of the corners + poor FT% becoming good shooters, then I'd be less concerned. But alas, that seems not to be the case, which is why I'm concerned. And note that that's not a strong stance, either. |
Actually I don't view all stats the same.. Your "nuanced" perspective is simply an educated guess. That's what we're all doing here.. guessing. I don't see stats as an indicator of what is to come. But that's fine if you do, your prerogative.
Bottom line, we have a raw product that's working on it's imperfections. I have no reason to believe his shortcomings can't be rectified. |
All guesses (your term) are not the same. Statistics are part of the information that goes into the 'educated' part of educated guess. Without stats, one's guess is, by definition, less educated. |
Not sure why you felt it necessary to point out what's clearly apparent.
My point is stats can't predict the future. Especially stats from a one year prospect. I can believe this without believing they have absolutely no value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | dao wrote: | | tox wrote: | | KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | All I ask for is Ingram to be a 35.5% 3pt shooter in his prime
I think that's enough to open up his game and be an Allstar. Hopefully he's good in the midrange too |
Midrange will be fine. He was good at NCAA 3s ( = NBA Long 2) and from midrange this season. Not concerned with that. Hell, he shot 36.4% from the corners -- not amazing but pretty good.
His problem lies in the full range, 24+ feet 3 pointers. He's been terrible on those, and he has no prior track record of making 3s that far away. That's where my concern about his shooting lies. |
come on mane. It is not uncommon for young rookies to struggle adjusting to the deeper NBA three. Hell, Jimmy Butler is an All Star now, and a decent three point shooter (36%+ in 2 of the last three years). He made two threes all season as a 22 year old rookie. He shot 28% as a 24 year old third year player. Ingram is 19! He shot 30% as a rookie. Give him an offseason please!
If he is at 35% in his prime, that's good enough. Remember that he will be playing PF in a couple years |
He shot 24.5% on non corner 3s. If you don't find that the least bit concerning, good for you. But I absolutely do. |
He's a 19 year old rookie man, one that's retooling his shooting stroke. Of course it's not a good percentage, but I'm not going to start worrying about his range until I see him having the same struggles after a complete offseason.
Before the All Star break, we could look at his stats and say that he sucks at mid range jumpers and sucks at finishing in the paint. But after a couple tweaks (jumping off one foot, and a slightly tweaked shooting form as pointed out by several posters), he was well above average as both a finisher and a mid range shooter after the All Star break. Right now, the stats show that he sucks at shooting the deep three. Let's give him an offseason to work with the shooting coaches before having an aneurysm over his stats on deeper threes.
If anything, the solid stats on corner threes are encouraging at least. He just needs to extend his range a couple more feet. I'm no expert on shooting, but I wonder if lack of strength is a factor with the deeper threes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK gentlemen let's end this three point shooting discussion RIGHT NOW, or at least delay it until next season:
Rookie Durant also struggled with adjusting to NBA threes. He shot 28.8% from three. Yep. That's lower than Ingram  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: |
Actually I don't view all stats the same.. Your "nuanced" perspective is simply an educated guess. That's what we're all doing here.. guessing. I don't see stats as an indicator of what is to come. But that's fine if you do, your prerogative.
Bottom line, we have a raw product that's working on it's imperfections. I have no reason to believe his shortcomings can't be rectified. |
Maybe you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing that there is a legitimate possibility of his shooting not translating. At no point have I made an "educated guess" about anything. I'm not predicting anything. I'm simply stating the fact that there are strongly negative statistical markers vis-a-vis Ingram's shooting. Consequently, there is reason to be concerned that it won't translate the way most of us hoped (or even expected). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: |
Actually I don't view all stats the same.. Your "nuanced" perspective is simply an educated guess. That's what we're all doing here.. guessing. I don't see stats as an indicator of what is to come. But that's fine if you do, your prerogative.
Bottom line, we have a raw product that's working on it's imperfections. I have no reason to believe his shortcomings can't be rectified. |
Maybe you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing that there is a legitimate possibility of his shooting not translating. At no point have I made an "educated guess" about anything. I'm not predicting anything. I'm simply stating the fact that there are strongly negative statistical markers vis-a-vis Ingram's shooting. Consequently, there is reason to be concerned that it won't translate the way most of us hoped (or even expected). |
Fair enough.. you're just concerned. =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerLogic
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 17886
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even Kawhi Leonard was a better FT shooter at the same age as Ingram. If Ingram becomes an elite shooter from 3 and FT line, he would be the first to make such an improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: |
Actually I don't view all stats the same.. Your "nuanced" perspective is simply an educated guess. That's what we're all doing here.. guessing. I don't see stats as an indicator of what is to come. But that's fine if you do, your prerogative.
Bottom line, we have a raw product that's working on it's imperfections. I have no reason to believe his shortcomings can't be rectified. |
Maybe you misunderstood my point. I'm arguing that there is a legitimate possibility of his shooting not translating. At no point have I made an "educated guess" about anything. I'm not predicting anything. I'm simply stating the fact that there are strongly negative statistical markers vis-a-vis Ingram's shooting. Consequently, there is reason to be concerned that it won't translate the way most of us hoped (or even expected). |
Yeah so with rookie Durant shooting lower from three than rookie Ingram, I think we definitely have to give Ingram a year to extend his range before being too concerned. Durant was a much, much better free throw shooter though, so depending on how much weight you put into the correlation between free throw shooting and three point shooting, there is definitely still plenty of room to be concerned. However, there are plenty of guys who struggled from the line at age 19 but later became solid free throw shooters.
Again, I think this next season will tell us a lot about Ingram's shooting upside. If he doesn't make big gains from the line and from three, I will officially be concerned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dao wrote: | OK gentlemen let's end this three point shooting discussion RIGHT NOW, or at least delay it until next season:
Rookie Durant also struggled with adjusting to NBA threes. He shot 28.8% from three. Yep. That's lower than Ingram |
I'm honestly disappointed in you. My argument isn't about Ingram's raw 3FG%. My argument stems from the fact that Ingram was assumed to be a good shooter based on his college 3FG%. I don't have the stats on hand, but I remember reading that most of Ingram's 3s were at the short college 3 point line (edit: in contrast to Hield, who was shooting long 3s -- and his 3FG% translated over after an adjustment period). In his rookie year, Ingram also shot well from long 2s as well as decently from the short corner 3. Meanwhile, his FT% was poor this year as it was in college, and his shooting from outside the corners was bad. And concerningly, they were bad even on wide open shots.
In other words, my concern about Ingram's 3 point shooting stems from the fact that there is reason to believe he never had NBA range (24+ feet) to begin with. In other words, is there reason to be concerned that Ingram's jump shot might translate like Anthony Brown's? I argue yes, outside of the corners where I think BI can get really good. That's why I've raised concern about his shooting -- and nothing more.
Durant is irrelevant. He was shooting long 3s in college, and he shot 87% from the line as a rookie. He also shot hardly any corner 3s, which will deflate his percentage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerLogic wrote: | | Even Kawhi Leonard was a better FT shooter at the same age as Ingram. If Ingram becomes an elite shooter from 3 and FT line, he would be the first to make such an improvement. |
Jason Kidd shot 69% from the free throw line his rookie year, and 27% from three. He peeked at 87% from the free throw line, and 42% from the three.
Granted 70% isn't terrible, but he did improve. All I'm saying is our kid is still raw, he'll most likely get better.
And I would have to agree tox, based on the info you provided, he may have never had NBA 3pt range to begin with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chase.button07
Star Player
Joined: 19 Feb 2017
Posts: 4996
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
Damm toxxie when did you become all sophisticated, writing articles & fancy stuff?
Now hurry up and send link to that article |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerLogic
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 17886
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | LakerLogic wrote: | | Even Kawhi Leonard was a better FT shooter at the same age as Ingram. If Ingram becomes an elite shooter from 3 and FT line, he would be the first to make such an improvement. |
Jason Kidd shot 69% from the free throw line his rookie year, and 27% from three. He peeked at 87% from the free throw line, and 42% from the three.
Granted 70% isn't terrible, but he did improve. All I'm saying is our kid is still raw, he'll most likely get better.
And I would have to agree tox, based on the info you provided, he may have never had NBA 3pt range to begin with. |
Kidd is a career 35% 3-pt shooter, not great but not bad. Keep in mind, he never really took 3s off the dribble. I consider an elite shooter from 3 at least 39% on high-volume with the ability to shoot off the dribble as well as catch and shoot. Kidd was basically a set shooter. Ingram is starting at a much lower place. How many FTs did he airball? He has a long way to go. Let's hope he gets there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | dao wrote: | OK gentlemen let's end this three point shooting discussion RIGHT NOW, or at least delay it until next season:
Rookie Durant also struggled with adjusting to NBA threes. He shot 28.8% from three. Yep. That's lower than Ingram |
I'm honestly disappointed in you. My argument isn't about Ingram's raw 3FG%. My argument stems from the fact that Ingram was assumed to be a good shooter based on his college 3FG%. I don't have the stats on hand, but I remember reading that most of Ingram's 3s were at the short college 3 point line (edit: in contrast to Hield, who was shooting long 3s -- and his 3FG% translated over after an adjustment period). In his rookie year, Ingram also shot well from long 2s as well as decently from the short corner 3. Meanwhile, his FT% was poor this year as it was in college, and his shooting from outside the corners was bad. And concerningly, they were bad even on wide open shots.
In other words, my concern about Ingram's 3 point shooting stems from the fact that there is reason to believe he never had NBA range (24+ feet) to begin with. In other words, is there reason to be concerned that Ingram's jump shot might translate like Anthony Brown's? I argue yes, outside of the corners where I think BI can get really good. That's why I've raised concern about his shooting -- and nothing more.
Durant is irrelevant. He was shooting long 3s in college, and he shot 87% from the line as a rookie. He also shot hardly any corner 3s, which will deflate his percentage. |
I'm not saying it's a lock that Ingram will become a good three point shooter. My point though is that it's too early to make a good projection either way. Ingram struggled from three this year. He doesn't yet have NBA range. However, Durant struggling from three is absolutely relevant. It is a picture perfect example of the fact that some players struggle adjusting to the NBA three. However, there is usually a very abrupt point at which they start to "click," and it usually occurs quite early in their careers. For Hield, it was mid season of his rookie year. For Durant, it was in his first offseason.
Again, before prognosticating in any meaningful way, I think we have to give him an offseason to work with the shooting coaches man. It's just too early to predict his long term shooting ability. The poor free throw shooting is not a good sign historically. The lack of deep college three point attempts is another concern, since Hield and Durant showed more range in college. However, Durant struggling as a rookie even more than Ingram struggled from three, to me, is very relevant here. It means that despite some concerning signs, it is too early to make any definitive statements regarding his long term ability to hit NBA threes. Especially since he is undergoing significant changes in shooting form, something that most guys don't have to do. He changed his shooting form mid season, and it translated into a significant improvement in mid range shooting. That has to be a positive sign, doesn't it? His shooting form itself is a work in progress. And he's still young enough to change it. Again, we'll get a much clearer picture after this offseason. If he doesn't make significant improvements, then year, ring the alarm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chase.button07 wrote: | | tox wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | Again, you can find rookie stats from players who are now elite that were terrible. My point is these kids are still raw.
If it makes sense to you to draw conclusions based on first year numbers so be it. I suspect there's nothing anyone could say to convince you it doesn't make much sense. The rational is, this is who he is now.. so this is who he most likely will always be. We can just agree to disagree, but I personally feel it's silly to make any assumptions after one year in the league. I'm thinking you probably don't expect Russell to always be a lousy shooter. |
I'm talking about shooting. You do realize I wrote an article in January on why Ingram's terrible rookie year stats don't matte in certain aspects? Yes, I'm aware he's a skinny rookie adapting to the league, and I obviously factor that into the evaluation. But shooting is something that translates to future performance more directly, so I'm not just going to shrug at some poor numbers shooting beyond 24+ feet (something which was true for him in NCAA as well, when he earned his rep as a shooter) when paired with his FT%.
I have no idea why you're bringing up Russell (actually, I do but I'll play nice), but I'm concerned about him becoming an elite shooter as well. In terms of elite shooting, his FT% is not up to snuff either (77%), and his 3FG% splits aren't that impressive (either by C&S/pullup or by contested/uncontested). I have no idea why you're calling him a lousy shooter, but yes I am concerned he won't get to the >40% mark on all 3s (and >35% on pullup 3s) that'll get him to that next level. |
Damm toxxie when did you become all sophisticated, writing articles & fancy stuff?
Now hurry up and send link to that article |
I wrote it for GT's site a while ago. It's pretty outdated -- I talk about how BI doesn't really dunk at the rim or show that much explosiveness Here's a link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | LakerLogic wrote: | | Even Kawhi Leonard was a better FT shooter at the same age as Ingram. If Ingram becomes an elite shooter from 3 and FT line, he would be the first to make such an improvement. |
Jason Kidd shot 69% from the free throw line his rookie year, and 27% from three. He peeked at 87% from the free throw line, and 42% from the three.
Granted 70% isn't terrible, but he did improve. All I'm saying is our kid is still raw, he'll most likely get better.
And I would have to agree tox, based on the info you provided, he may have never had NBA 3pt range to begin with. |
Kidd is a really good example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerLogic wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | LakerLogic wrote: | | Even Kawhi Leonard was a better FT shooter at the same age as Ingram. If Ingram becomes an elite shooter from 3 and FT line, he would be the first to make such an improvement. |
Jason Kidd shot 69% from the free throw line his rookie year, and 27% from three. He peeked at 87% from the free throw line, and 42% from the three.
Granted 70% isn't terrible, but he did improve. All I'm saying is our kid is still raw, he'll most likely get better.
And I would have to agree tox, based on the info you provided, he may have never had NBA 3pt range to begin with. |
Kidd is a career 35% 3-pt shooter, not great but not bad. Keep in mind, he never really took 3s off the dribble. I consider an elite shooter from 3 at least 39% on high-volume with the ability to shoot off the dribble as well as catch and shoot. Kidd was basically a set shooter. Ingram is starting at a much lower place. How many FTs did he airball? He has a long way to go. Let's hope he gets there. |
That's fine but Ingram doesn't have to develop into an elite 3 point shooter by your standards to be effective from that range. Of course he has a long way to go, point is he'll improve. No reason to believe he won't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
