|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MJST wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Clarkson scores 14.9 ppg in 22.6 mpg. You don't think he'd score more if he played 34.4 mpg? |
Sure he would.. He's a skilled scorer, an aggressive one as well.
Let's frame that around production and whether or not it adds value to the team.
Replace Clakrson with Bogut or Brewer.. Would more minutes equate to more production? Would an increase in shot attempts from either of those two benefit the team?
Your argument on the surface is valid if applied to specific players. I don't believe it is as a blanket statement. |
See your argument is flawed because you aren't taking role into the equation.
With Bogut or Brewer, extended minutes means there's potential for more shot opportunities but they aren't going to be running plays through them, because they don't run plays through them because that isn't their role whatsoever. They'll likely get more shots, but that's a product of them being out there longer(which is a point for GT)
But also Ingram's role on the team, he's going to have more offense ran through him as thats his role on the team. So yes, more minutes will mean more shot opportunities which will mean more scoring.
He could get the same minutes and same shot opportunities a year from now and score more because he's increased his efficiency as a scorer as well.
So again, GT's point stands. |
No it doesn't stand.. but you can believe it does.
You actually helped make my point unbeknownst.
You introduced variables into the equation, which is the point I made earlier about why his* argument was flawed. This is why as a blanket statement it doesn't work.
Different players, different skill sets, different roles, different mentalities. More minutes will yield different results because of these variables.
Last edited by SocalDevin on Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Clarkson scores 14.9 ppg in 22.6 mpg. You don't think he'd score more if he played 34.4 mpg? |
Sure he would.. He's a skilled scorer, an aggressive one as well.
Let's frame that around production and whether or not it adds value to the team.
Replace Clakrson with Bogut or Brewer.. Would more minutes equate to more production? Would an increase in shot attempts from either of those two benefit the team?
Your argument on the surface is valid if applied to specific players. I don't believe it is as a blanket statement. |
Has Ingram's increased shot attempts benefitted the team? Because when he's on the court, the Lakers score 97.8 Points Per 100 Possessions. When he's off of the court, they score 107.0. This discrepancy (-9.2) is by far the worst on the team of any player who's played significant minutes. The next closest is Nance (-5.5) followed by Lonzo (-3.6).
I'd argue that the Lakers would be a better offensive team if they distributed some of Ingram's attempts (and minutes) amongst guys like Clarkson, Randle, & Kuzma.
And yes, more minutes for Bogut or Brewer would lead to more PPG for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26309
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | MJST wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Clarkson scores 14.9 ppg in 22.6 mpg. You don't think he'd score more if he played 34.4 mpg? |
Sure he would.. He's a skilled scorer, an aggressive one as well.
Let's frame that around production and whether or not it adds value to the team.
Replace Clakrson with Bogut or Brewer.. Would more minutes equate to more production? Would an increase in shot attempts from either of those two benefit the team?
Your argument on the surface is valid if applied to specific players. I don't believe it is as a blanket statement. |
See your argument is flawed because you aren't taking role into the equation.
With Bogut or Brewer, extended minutes means there's potential for more shot opportunities but they aren't going to be running plays through them, because they don't run plays through them because that isn't their role whatsoever. They'll likely get more shots, but that's a product of them being out there longer(which is a point for GT)
But also Ingram's role on the team, he's going to have more offense ran through him as thats his role on the team. So yes, more minutes will mean more shot opportunities which will mean more scoring.
He could get the same minutes and same shot opportunities a year from now and score more because he's increased his efficiency as a scorer as well.
So again, GT's point stands. |
No it doesn't stand.. but you can believe it does.
You actually helped make my point unbeknownst.
You introduced variables into the equation, which is the point I made earlier about why he's argument was flawed. This is why as a blanket statement it doesn't work.
Different players, different skill sets, different roles, different mentalities. More minutes will yield different results because of these variables. |
Blanket statement
More minutes = more chances in the offense for you to score.
That's also true. because it opens the door for the ball to find you more. Your efficiency at it is going to determine whether or not your numbers are going to go up or down.
Corey Brewer could get 10 threes and make 1 in 35 minutes, and get 3 threes making zero in 13 minutes. he scored more points because he had more opportunities to score, but he didn't have the efficiency for it to make much of a dent.
However by the nature of 'being out there longer' he had more offensive opportunities. That's going to be a true unless the ball never ever ever is coming your way.
You think Nance gets the same offensive opportunities if he's playing 15 minutes coming off the bench than he does playing 20 minutes for the starting lineup?
Your ROLE on the team is going to matter in terms of how much offense is funneled through you BUT by the nature of the game of basketball, being out there longer is going to equate for more offensive opportunities for you.
Even people that never touch the ball are going to get more chances to score in 30 minutes than in 20. That's just the nature of how the game works. Efficiency is what will factor into it depending on how much of a difference it makes.
However Ingram can score 20 points in 35 mins one season and 23 points in the same amount of minutes the next season because his efficiency as a scorer has increased and thus he got more opportunities or he got the same opportunities and took advantage of more of them. But he wouldn't get as many in 28 minutes that he would in 35 minutes.
If you're trying to argue that he could, then I'd disagree with you as well.
If you are inefficient but get more opportunities in the offense due to the increased minutes you play then it would behoove the team to spread around the offense a bit more for the benefit of the team.
It comes down to yes more minutes gets you more offensive opportunities. Whether it helps the team or not has to do with the efficiency of the player getting those opportunities.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Last edited by MJST on Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PHILosophize wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | Whether it benefits the team is an entirely different subject. But all of these players are in the NBA; they have skill. So if you give virtually any of them more minutes, they are likely to have increased production. |
No.. lol Just no..  |
Let's say our starting lineup was:
Caruso
Blue
Brewer
Deng
Bogut
Are you saying that with that lineup we would basically get shutout every game and that nobody would get any rebounds or assists?
Edit: Actually, I don't even need to go that far. Are you saying that they wouldn't have increased production compared to their averages right now? |
Some would produce at the same rate they currently produce. =) Also their mentalities would change, the shift in role would change the way they play. That change in play would effect their production/numbers. Some for the better, some for the worst. Under those conditions some would become less productive, given the opportunity/time they would have a negative impact on the team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Clarkson scores 14.9 ppg in 22.6 mpg. You don't think he'd score more if he played 34.4 mpg? |
Sure he would.. He's a skilled scorer, an aggressive one as well.
Let's frame that around production and whether or not it adds value to the team.
Replace Clakrson with Bogut or Brewer.. Would more minutes equate to more production? Would an increase in shot attempts from either of those two benefit the team?
Your argument on the surface is valid if applied to specific players. I don't believe it is as a blanket statement. |
Has Ingram's increased shot attempts benefitted the team? Because when he's on the court, the Lakers score 97.8 Points Per 100 Possessions. When he's off of the court, they score 107.0. This discrepancy (-9.2) is by far the worst on the team of any player who's played significant minutes. The next closest is Nance (-5.5) followed by Lonzo (-3.6).
I'd argue that the Lakers would be a better offensive team if they distributed some of Ingram's attempts (and minutes) amongst guys like Clarkson, Randle, & Kuzma.
And yes, more minutes for Bogut or Brewer would lead to more PPG for them. |
That pretty much settles it for me, If you believe they're a better team with Ingram off the floor. =) Like I said earlier, we can agree to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | Whether it benefits the team is an entirely different subject. But all of these players are in the NBA; they have skill. So if you give virtually any of them more minutes, they are likely to have increased production. |
No.. lol Just no.. |
Let's say our starting lineup was:
Caruso
Blue
Brewer
Deng
Bogut
Are you saying that with that lineup we would basically get shutout every game and that nobody would get any rebounds or assists?
Edit: Actually, I don't even need to go that far. Are you saying that they wouldn't have increased production compared to their averages right now? |
Some would produce at the same rate they currently produce. =) Also their mentalities would change, the shift in role would change the way they play. That change in play would effect their production/numbers. Some for the better, some for the worst. Under those conditions some would become less productive, given the opportunity/time they would have a negative impact on the team. |
So if they're each getting 35mpg, they're still combining for 8 ppg in your mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | That pretty much settles it for me, If you believe they're a better team with Ingram off the floor. =) Like I said earlier, we can agree to disagree. |
They are, objectively speaking, a better team with Ingram off the floor. No belief required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | Whether it benefits the team is an entirely different subject. But all of these players are in the NBA; they have skill. So if you give virtually any of them more minutes, they are likely to have increased production. |
No.. lol Just no.. |
Let's say our starting lineup was:
Caruso
Blue
Brewer
Deng
Bogut
Are you saying that with that lineup we would basically get shutout every game and that nobody would get any rebounds or assists?
Edit: Actually, I don't even need to go that far. Are you saying that they wouldn't have increased production compared to their averages right now? |
Some would produce at the same rate they currently produce. =) Also their mentalities would change, the shift in role would change the way they play. That change in play would effect their production/numbers. Some for the better, some for the worst. Under those conditions some would become less productive, given the opportunity/time they would have a negative impact on the team. |
So if they're each getting 35mpg, they're still combining for 8 ppg in your mind? |
"Some would produce at the same rate"
If they're producing at the same rate, they'd have more points naturally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | That pretty much settles it for me, If you believe they're a better team with Ingram off the floor. =) Like I said earlier, we can agree to disagree. |
They are, objectively speaking, a better team with Ingram off the floor. No belief required. |
Well yea.. you believe that. I don't, I'm sure many others don't.
But it's cool, you believe that lol. You also believe Ball is having a better year than Ingram. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | That pretty much settles it for me, If you believe they're a better team with Ingram off the floor. =) Like I said earlier, we can agree to disagree. |
They are, objectively speaking, a better team with Ingram off the floor. No belief required. |
Well yea.. you believe that. I don't, I'm sure many others don't.
But it's cool, you believe that lol. You also believe Ball is having a better year than Ingram. |
The former is not a belief, it's a fact. The latter is a belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PHILosophize
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 10758
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | Whether it benefits the team is an entirely different subject. But all of these players are in the NBA; they have skill. So if you give virtually any of them more minutes, they are likely to have increased production. |
No.. lol Just no.. |
Let's say our starting lineup was:
Caruso
Blue
Brewer
Deng
Bogut
Are you saying that with that lineup we would basically get shutout every game and that nobody would get any rebounds or assists?
Edit: Actually, I don't even need to go that far. Are you saying that they wouldn't have increased production compared to their averages right now? |
Some would produce at the same rate they currently produce. =) Also their mentalities would change, the shift in role would change the way they play. That change in play would effect their production/numbers. Some for the better, some for the worst. Under those conditions some would become less productive, given the opportunity/time they would have a negative impact on the team. |
None of them would be less productive; they are good enough basketball players that since in that scenario they would be playing more minutes, they would produce more. Like I said, virtually any NBA player is good enough to do more stuff on the court if given more minutes. Hell, if you gave me 30 minutes a game in the NBA I might have a few shots bounce exactly to me and I might grab a few rebounds. I may also cherry pick for a layup or something. That's an extreme example; these guys are professionals and are good enough to score/rebound/assist more when given more minutes.
Now, would they be less efficient? That is quite possible and is oftentimes exactly why players aren't given more minutes. But efficiency is not the same thing as production.
Ingram has produced more with the increased minutes. However, his efficiency has arguably declined due to the TS%. That his efficiency has decreased when his minutes have increased potentially shows that the increased production is not due to development.
_________________
one dog goes that way the other dog goes the other way
Last edited by PHILosophize on Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | That pretty much settles it for me, If you believe they're a better team with Ingram off the floor. =) Like I said earlier, we can agree to disagree. |
They are, objectively speaking, a better team with Ingram off the floor. No belief required. |
Well yea.. you believe that. I don't, I'm sure many others don't.
But it's cool, you believe that lol. You also believe Ball is having a better year than Ingram. |
The former is not a belief, it's a fact. The latter is a belief. |
Like I said.. believe what you will. =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that the Lakers have been outscored by 105 points with Ingram on the court.
I believe that the Lakers have outscored their opponents by 18 points when Ingram has not been on the court.
I believe that this is easily the largest discrepancy of any Laker that's played significant minutes.
Because those are beliefs, apparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | Clarkson scores 14.9 ppg in 22.6 mpg. You don't think he'd score more if he played 34.4 mpg? |
Sure he would.. He's a skilled scorer, an aggressive one as well.
Let's frame that around production and whether or not it adds value to the team.
Replace Clakrson with Bogut or Brewer.. Would more minutes equate to more production? Would an increase in shot attempts from either of those two benefit the team?
Your argument on the surface is valid if applied to specific players. I don't believe it is as a blanket statement. |
Of course Bogut and Brewer would produce more. Maybe by only 1 ppg (say, 1 extra tip every other game) or something, but when you're averaging 5 ppg, 1 ppg more is actually a big improvement by percentage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PHILosophize wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | PHILosophize wrote: | | Whether it benefits the team is an entirely different subject. But all of these players are in the NBA; they have skill. So if you give virtually any of them more minutes, they are likely to have increased production. |
No.. lol Just no.. |
Let's say our starting lineup was:
Caruso
Blue
Brewer
Deng
Bogut
Are you saying that with that lineup we would basically get shutout every game and that nobody would get any rebounds or assists?
Edit: Actually, I don't even need to go that far. Are you saying that they wouldn't have increased production compared to their averages right now? |
Some would produce at the same rate they currently produce. =) Also their mentalities would change, the shift in role would change the way they play. That change in play would effect their production/numbers. Some for the better, some for the worst. Under those conditions some would become less productive, given the opportunity/time they would have a negative impact on the team. |
None of them would be less productive; they are good enough basketball players that since in that scenario they would be playing more minutes, they would produce more. Like I said, virtually any NBA player is good enough to do more stuff on the court if given more minutes. Hell, if you gave me 30 minutes a game in the NBA I might have a few shots bounce exactly to me and I might grab a few rebounds. I may also cherry pick for a layup or something. That's an extreme example; these guys are professionals and are good enough to score/rebound/assist more when given more minutes.
Now, would they be less efficient? That is quite possible and is oftentimes exactly why players aren't given more minutes. But efficiency is not the same thing as production.
Ingram has produced more with the increased minutes. However, his efficiency has arguably declined due to the TS%. That his efficiency has decreased when his minutes have increased potentially shows that the increased production is not due to development. |
Production: yielding results, benefits, or profits
So as I said before, more minutes for those individuals wouldn't necessarily yield better production.
A starting line up consisting of..
Caruso
Blue
Brewer
Deng
Bogut
would decrease the effectiveness of some. A change in role they are incapable of fulfilling would have an effect on their efficiency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This convo is balllssssss balllllssss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | I believe that the Lakers have been outscored by 105 points with Ingram on the court.
I believe that the Lakers have outscored their opponents by 18 points when Ingram has not been on the court.
I believe that this is easily the largest discrepancy of any Laker that's played significant minutes.
Because those are beliefs, apparently. |
Does this account for..
Who's playing with him.
What plays and sets are being run when he's on the court.
How roles are shifted when he's on the court.
Are players being utilized to compliment each other while he's on the floor.
Is he being utilized properly.
This has more to do with coaching philosophies than the actual player.
You have a belief is how I see it.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26309
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | I believe that the Lakers have been outscored by 105 points with Ingram on the court.
I believe that the Lakers have outscored their opponents by 18 points when Ingram has not been on the court.
I believe that this is easily the largest discrepancy of any Laker that's played significant minutes.
Because those are beliefs, apparently. |
When it comes to Ingram if you bring up facts and stats to prove your point, they'll be treated like it's just your opinion, while the opinion they have in response to your facts/stats is treated like the facts instead.
It's just how it is with the constant defense Ingram even if you are the only one that brings evidence to back up your claim.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
our best player...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VicXLakers wrote: | | our best player... |
Not on the scoreboard, but in your hearts, where it counts the most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MJST wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | I believe that the Lakers have been outscored by 105 points with Ingram on the court.
I believe that the Lakers have outscored their opponents by 18 points when Ingram has not been on the court.
I believe that this is easily the largest discrepancy of any Laker that's played significant minutes.
Because those are beliefs, apparently. |
When it comes to Ingram if you bring up facts and stats to prove your point, they'll be treated like it's just your opinion, while the opinion they have in response to your facts/stats is treated like the facts instead.
It's just how it is with the constant defense Ingram even if you are the only one that brings evidence to back up your claim. |
You've said this already.. you're talking about an interpretation of stats, and characterizing the interpretation as fact. It isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manlisten
Star Player
Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 3188
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | That pretty much settles it for me, If you believe they're a better team with Ingram off the floor. =) Like I said earlier, we can agree to disagree. |
They are, objectively speaking, a better team with Ingram off the floor. No belief required. |
This guy gets it.
_________________
It was reminiscent of one of those Most Interesting Man in the World advertisements: "I don't always shoot 6-for-28 from the field, but when I do, I become the youngest player in league history to score 28,000 career points." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | I believe that the Lakers have been outscored by 105 points with Ingram on the court.
I believe that the Lakers have outscored their opponents by 18 points when Ingram has not been on the court.
I believe that this is easily the largest discrepancy of any Laker that's played significant minutes.
Because those are beliefs, apparently. |
Does this account for..
Who's playing with him.
What plays and sets are being run when he's on the court.
How roles are shifted when he's on the court.
Are players being utilized to compliment each other while he's on the floor.
Is he being utilized properly.
This has more to do with coaching philosophies than the actual player.
You have a belief is how I see it.. |
Every analytic that accounts for quality of teammates and competition rates him lowly as well.
If the argument is that Brandon Ingram somehow has a voodoo curse over his head where the sets that the Lakers run, the shifting roles, and whether or not his teammates are used in complimentary manners are all factors working against him more severely than they happen to work for anyone else, then by God that's a tragedy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | I believe that the Lakers have been outscored by 105 points with Ingram on the court.
I believe that the Lakers have outscored their opponents by 18 points when Ingram has not been on the court.
I believe that this is easily the largest discrepancy of any Laker that's played significant minutes.
Because those are beliefs, apparently. |
Does this account for..
Who's playing with him.
What plays and sets are being run when he's on the court.
How roles are shifted when he's on the court.
Are players being utilized to compliment each other while he's on the floor.
Is he being utilized properly.
This has more to do with coaching philosophies than the actual player.
You have a belief is how I see it.. |
Every analytic that accounts for quality of teammates and competition rates him lowly as well.
If the argument is that Brandon Ingram somehow has a voodoo curse over his head where the sets that the Lakers run, the shifting roles, and whether or not his teammates are used in complimentary manners are all factors working against him more severely than they happen to work for anyone else, then by God that's a tragedy. |
Call it what you will.. those variables do effect the analytics for specific players. Which is why they only tell part of the story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26309
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those variables apply to everyone, not just Ingram, so if under those variables and circumstances Ingram is the only one who doesn't seem to 'benefit' from it, then maybe perhaps there's something to it.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk |
|
| 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
|
|
