Then Josh Hart should start outperforming rookie D'lo any day now
your analogy doesn't make any sense but carry on. Has anyone answered your quiz yet?
here's a better one.
If it's THAT simple
Then why didn't rookie Buddy Hield outperform 2nd year Russell?
Because the excuse was that it is more relevant what Ingram's doing because Kuzma stayed in college longer and thus came into the league older.
So my retort to you was, if it's that simple, why didn't the touted Buddy Hield who stayed in college all 4 years AND was a top pick in the draft... not outperform 2nd year Russell?
Maybe it's not as easy as 'just' staying in college longer. What Kuzma's doing is impressive for a rookie no matter how you slice it.
It's a very easy reply.
Kuzma is better than Ingram at 22, but Ingram's just 20.
So theoretically Ingram at 22 will be better than Kuzma at 22.
But in the same vein, what if Kuzma progressed of equal amount in that same span of time?
As they'll always be 2 years apart, they'll both progress as players.
The question becomes will Ingram make such a monumental leap in his game in the next two seasons that will eclipse the leaps that Kuzma is going to make in that same span of time?
That answer can't be known. Because for all we know Ingram could be a 23 ppg scorer at 22, but Kuzma may be a 25 ppg scorer at 24. ( a great problem to have)
So we'll have to wait and see. But the entire "he's 2 years younger" really doesn't mean much of anything when Kuzma is still a rookie.
Just my two cents on that kind of statement.
I wouldn't be waiting for Brandon Knight to get better than Damian Lillard either
Hope you got the analogy now.
I saw an interview with Kuzma a couple weeks ago where he said he is more comfortable at the 4 instead of being on the wing at the 3.
Then Josh Hart should start outperforming rookie D'lo any day now
your analogy doesn't make any sense but carry on. Has anyone answered your quiz yet?
here's a better one.
If it's THAT simple
Then why didn't rookie Buddy Hield outperform 2nd year Russell?
Because the excuse was that it is more relevant what Ingram's doing because Kuzma stayed in college longer and thus came into the league older.
So my retort to you was, if it's that simple, why didn't the touted Buddy Hield who stayed in college all 4 years AND was a top pick in the draft... not outperform 2nd year Russell?
Maybe it's not as easy as 'just' staying in college longer. What Kuzma's doing is impressive for a rookie no matter how you slice it.
It's a very easy reply.
Kuzma is better than Ingram at 22, but Ingram's just 20.
So theoretically Ingram at 22 will be better than Kuzma at 22.
But in the same vein, what if Kuzma progressed of equal amount in that same span of time?
As they'll always be 2 years apart, they'll both progress as players.
The question becomes will Ingram make such a monumental leap in his game in the next two seasons that will eclipse the leaps that Kuzma is going to make in that same span of time?
That answer can't be known. Because for all we know Ingram could be a 23 ppg scorer at 22, but Kuzma may be a 25 ppg scorer at 24. ( a great problem to have)
So we'll have to wait and see. But the entire "he's 2 years younger" really doesn't mean much of anything when Kuzma is still a rookie.
Just my two cents on that kind of statement.
I wouldn't be waiting for Brandon Knight to get better than Damian Lillard either
Hope you got the analogy now.
A better analogy would be Damien Lillard vs DLO since Lillard entered the league at 22, while DLO entered the league at 19. Was never high on Hield but I know you were lol. One can argue that Hield's 2nd season in sacramento was better than Russell's 2nd season efficiency wise (again weird names you bring up Hield isn't even a point guard but I digress)
Point is Ingram was even younger than DLO when he entered the league, so he is doing whatever he's doing now at such a young age so comparing him to Kuzma (which I don't know why since again they don't play the same position, and were not in the same draft class) is an unfair comparison since Kuzma came into the league more mature and was able to make his mistakes and develop under the radar as opposed to Brandon.
Brandon still a better prospect with his physical gifts and basketball IQ than Kuzma, hence we are trying to develop him in hopes that all the investements in him along with his work ethic and reps will pay off by the time he reaches 22 and we're ready to compete.
Lastly, you answered your question and we'll just have to wait and see. Good thing we got Kuzma locked up for a long time, so I do hope he becomes a superstar. _________________ My Dream Starting 5 next Season
It's gonna be pretty hilarious next season or even sooner when people are singing his praises and acting like it's a sudden development when really it's all this 'bad basketball' that is preparing him for the next level. Basically all the pro Ingram folks are trying to get at is that he's on his way. No need for the hyper analysis and I watch basketball therefore I'm right takes.
Hey I sure hope so. The Cavs game was a step in the right direction. But there is very real reason to dislike the way he's played offensively this season, and the prospect of him improving in the future doesn't mean we should suddenly discount it.
For me that reason is because he doesn't know what the hell he's doing yet, like most sophomores.
I disagree. I think if you develop bad habits as a sophomore (and yes, I think Ingram's ball stopping is a bad habit), that portends poorly for the future. Does it mean we should count him out? Of course not. Clarkson is an example of a guy who looked like he'd plateaued, and suddenly he started making slightly better decisions (and fine tuned his stroke) and bam, breakout season at age 25.
But that doesn't mean his habits are not cause for concern. For every Clarkson, there is an Okafor who doesn't figure out the weaknesses in his playstyle (forget effectiveness within that style). And while I think BI is much smarter and more coachable than Okafor, if that same issue affects him even 20% of the extent of Okafor, it's still something to criticize because it's going to cap him. Take a look at Carmelo for the perfect case in point. Incredibly talented player who never broke out of some of his bad habits, and I'm not sure he was ever really a championship player as good as he was during some seasons (e.g. 08-09 and 12-13). In any case, his career was a disappointment given his talent level.
If he's that fit that he can play so many minutes and not foul out, more power to him... most guys can't handle it.
He's finishing games strong too.
I agree.. hard to believe one would even attempt to construct a narrative around a players minutes per game. smh
What's the narrative? That guys score more when they play more minutes? That's as obvious of a point as can be.
Ingram plays 31.7 mpg in October, averages 14.4 ppg (50.3 TS%)
Ingram plays 34.8 mpg in November, averages 16.3 ppg (53.7 TS%)
Ingram plays 36.6 mpg in December, averages 18.0 ppg (49.4 TS%)
I don't understand why this bothers you so much.
Well it's silly to me for obvious reasons.. A players ability to score is more of a product of that players skill level not the minutes they're playing. You could have given him the same amount of minutes last season and seen different results. Or any other player for that matter. You score with skill, not minutes. The minutes give said player an opportunity, the skill is what produces the numbers.
So yea, it's pretty silly.. but you can keep believing that if you want.
And it's not a matter of it bothering me so much.. Most of the posters in here didn't agree with you when you posted this before, including other mods.. =)
More minutes mean more FGA. More FGA mean potentially a better PPG. I don't understand the argument there.
Skill does produce the numbers. What GT is trying to say is that Ingram has been more of a volume shooter this month and his skill/efficiency was not the reason of his improved PPG this December because obviously, BI's skill(TS%) dipped from 0.537 to 0.494 shooting 48% from the field in November to just 41.5% in December. But rather it was BI's shot attempts from 12.6 in November to 15.7, taking 3 more shots per game, in December that increased which resulted to his improved PPG.
Had Ingram retained his 53.7% True shooting last November and carried it into December, he would be already averaging about 19.5 PPG instead of just 18 PPG. Here's the kicker, if Ingram was better "skilled" and shot the league average of 55% TS instead of the 49.4% he's been shooting at, he would already be averaging the magical 20 PPG this month!
Having said that, we have 8 more games this month. His numbers could still change drastically either direction. As to whether he should continue shooting the ball, I believe he should. I think he took attempts away from Zo and Brook more than anyone else and that's fine with me. What he should do however is to lessen his no-regard-for-human-life elbowing everyone from KD to LeBron in the face with his drives to the hole expecting to get fouled. Other teams are adjusting to his game and has been more successful in stopping him at the rim. He's doing the right thing with improving his mid range game as well as focusing more in play making after he draws the defense during his drives.
Additionally, as already mentioned, BI shot the ball best in November where he paired up with Kuz in the starting lineup for 11 out of 13 games played. Defenders sag off of Nance making it difficult for Ingram to score. Case in point . So yeah, I would try shaking up the lineups before trading BI.
Joined: 26 May 2016 Posts: 7825 Location: Long Beach
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:32 am Post subject:
3baller wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
silkwilkes wrote:
If he's that fit that he can play so many minutes and not foul out, more power to him... most guys can't handle it.
He's finishing games strong too.
I agree.. hard to believe one would even attempt to construct a narrative around a players minutes per game. smh
What's the narrative? That guys score more when they play more minutes? That's as obvious of a point as can be.
Ingram plays 31.7 mpg in October, averages 14.4 ppg (50.3 TS%)
Ingram plays 34.8 mpg in November, averages 16.3 ppg (53.7 TS%)
Ingram plays 36.6 mpg in December, averages 18.0 ppg (49.4 TS%)
I don't understand why this bothers you so much.
Well it's silly to me for obvious reasons.. A players ability to score is more of a product of that players skill level not the minutes they're playing. You could have given him the same amount of minutes last season and seen different results. Or any other player for that matter. You score with skill, not minutes. The minutes give said player an opportunity, the skill is what produces the numbers.
So yea, it's pretty silly.. but you can keep believing that if you want.
And it's not a matter of it bothering me so much.. Most of the posters in here didn't agree with you when you posted this before, including other mods.. =)
More minutes mean more FGA. More FGA mean potentially a better PPG. I don't understand the argument there.
Skill does produce the numbers. What GT is trying to say is that Ingram has been more of a volume shooter this month and his skill/efficiency was not the reason of his improved PPG this December because obviously, BI's skill(TS%) dipped from 0.537 to 0.494 shooting 48% from the field in November to just 41.5% in December. But rather it was BI's shot attempts from 12.6 in November to 15.7, taking 3 more shots per game, in December that increased which resulted to his improved PPG.
Had Ingram retained his 53.7% True shooting last November and carried it into December, he would be already averaging about 19.5 PPG instead of just 18 PPG. Here's the kicker, if Ingram was better "skilled" and shot the league average of 55% TS instead of the 49.4% he's been shooting at, he would already be averaging the magical 20 PPG this month!
Having said that, we have 8 more games this month. His numbers could still change drastically either direction. As to whether he should continue shooting the ball, I believe he should. I think he took attempts away from Zo and Brook more than anyone else and that's fine with me. What he should do however is to lessen his no-regard-for-human-life elbowing everyone from KD to LeBron in the face with his drives to the hole expecting to get fouled. Other teams are adjusting to his game and has been more successful in stopping him at the rim. He's doing the right thing with improving his mid range game as well as focusing more in play making after he draws the defense during his drives.
Additionally, as already mentioned, BI shot the ball best in November where he paired up with Kuz in the starting lineup for 11 out of 13 games played. Defenders sag off of Nance making it difficult for Ingram to score. Case in point . So yeah, I would try shaking up the lineups before trading BI.
As I've said before GT is pretty clear in how he communicates his viewpoints. I understand him. Just don't agree..
Don't want to say too much else about it.. I've been cautioned by a mod for my exchange with him.. You guys can have at it though.
Wow this thread got really funny, and a little too familiar . Whether the numbers say a second year player is a lot better than some will give him credit for, or a lot worse...no algorithm stands a chance against an eye test that has been watching Laker games its whole life.
I know it does, I support it actually. I've probably the main person here that complains that Luke plays BI and Lonzo way too many minutes. However, I understand the method to the madness, the front office apparently don't care about what happens with the pick, they want to expedite the young guys development by giving them as many reps as possible, I don't have a problem with that as long as we hit on our free agency targets in the offseason.
I think the criticisms should be directed more at Luke tho, instead of the young guys, thats just how I feel about it.
My complaint is directed at Luke, and the FO by extension. I greatly dislike the development path that they have him on. I think he's done about as well as I could have hoped for while being miscast. I would've loved for them to develop him the same way that Kawhi was developed. He flashes some tremendous defensive potential, but is unable to fulfill his defensive potential while bearing the burden of the offense. That isn't his fault...it's unreasonable to ask him to do that.
He's a lot closer to being a great defensive player than a great offensive one, and I would have loved to see them set his goal as becoming All-NBA defender ASAP, while letting guys who are more equipped to carry the offense carry the load, an focusing his offensive energy on off-ball scenarios. The ISO/on-ball stuff should be the last layer, as it was with Kawhi. This isn't what's best for him and it isn't what's best for the team...short term or long term. If we do hit those Free Agency targets, having the offense run through him instead of having the ball in his hands less won't be applicable experience anyway.
It's gonna be pretty hilarious next season or even sooner when people are singing his praises and acting like it's a sudden development when really it's all this 'bad basketball' that is preparing him for the next level. Basically all the pro Ingram folks are trying to get at is that he's on his way. No need for the hyper analysis and I watch basketball therefore I'm right takes.
Hey I sure hope so. The Cavs game was a step in the right direction. But there is very real reason to dislike the way he's played offensively this season, and the prospect of him improving in the future doesn't mean we should suddenly discount it.
Anyone who thinks that I'm rooting against Ingram because I'm critical of him is doing nothing more than telling on themselves. I'm eager to acknowledge when a guy that I've been critical of has been playing well, with Randle & Clarkson being two recent examples of that.
I'm irritated by how they're using him, but I'm happy with what Ingram's progress relative to where he was. He's on his way, I'm just not sure what he's on his way to. He's tracking to become a net-neutral RPM guy when...around Year 4, if at all? With RPM being shorthand for the same things that I see on tape that lead to him having such bad one-number metrics across the board. He's currently "on his way" to being what? A solid player at some point? Doesn't that have implications?
Ingram is just scratching the surface. He's already playing better than I expected him to be at this time. Give him two more seasons to have a really good idea of what Ingram is going to be. Imo a really really good two way player with the ability to run an offense.
The point some are missing is that no one knows the future. Ingram has made solid improvements so far this year. He is not even half way through his second season and some of us are really excited about where he is at and the potential for more. How he is tracking from a RPM standpoint at this point in time is pretty irrelevant IMO. He will look and be a vastly different player in 2 years.
Additionally, I have no issues with how coaching/mgmt are developing BI. How Leonard was developed is irrelevant. Spurs had Duncan/etc and we’re contenders. We aren’t. There’s more than one way to develop a player.
I know it does, I support it actually. I've probably the main person here that complains that Luke plays BI and Lonzo way too many minutes. However, I understand the method to the madness, the front office apparently don't care about what happens with the pick, they want to expedite the young guys development by giving them as many reps as possible, I don't have a problem with that as long as we hit on our free agency targets in the offseason.
I think the criticisms should be directed more at Luke tho, instead of the young guys, thats just how I feel about it.
My complaint is directed at Luke, and the FO by extension. I greatly dislike the development path that they have him on. I think he's done about as well as I could have hoped for while being miscast. I would've loved for them to develop him the same way that Kawhi was developed. He flashes some tremendous defensive potential, but is unable to fulfill his defensive potential while bearing the burden of the offense. That isn't his fault...it's unreasonable to ask him to do that.
He's a lot closer to being a great defensive player than a great offensive one, and I would have loved to see them set his goal as becoming All-NBA defender ASAP, while letting guys who are more equipped to carry the offense carry the load, an focusing his offensive energy on off-ball scenarios. The ISO/on-ball stuff should be the last layer, as it was with Kawhi. This isn't what's best for him and it isn't what's best for the team...short term or long term. If we do hit those Free Agency targets, having the offense run through him instead of having the ball in his hands less won't be applicable experience anyway.
I agree with this 100%. I don’t understand the way were are using him, he is simply not good at the ISO stuff due his his poor/average shooting. I will say that his game has improved marginally in all aspects and his ability to finish around the rim has improved significantly. He’s very close to being a league average player at this point, both statiscally and from what the eye test tells me. But yes, trusting him into the role of being the go to scorer makes absolutely no sense based on his skill set at this point. We should have had him focusing on his defense and using his length there (his one elite quality) as opposed to have him practicing his ISO skills, which don’t have an elite ceiling.
Question, because his minutes has went up 2 minutes or so progressively and he has added 2pts to his average with the slight increase in minutes. Now do we think he has just gotten a little better or are those 2 minutes the main catalyst for him scoring more points?
To me thats like saying he scores 2 points every 2-3 minutes, is that the case?
Question, because his minutes has went up 2 minutes or so progressively and he has added 2pts to his average with the slight increase in minutes. Now do we think he has just gotten a little better or are those 2 minutes the main catalyst for him scoring more points?
To me thats like saying he scores 2 points every 2-3 minutes, is that the case?
The past couple pages speak directly to this _________________ one dog goes that way the other dog goes the other way
I know it does, I support it actually. I've probably the main person here that complains that Luke plays BI and Lonzo way too many minutes. However, I understand the method to the madness, the front office apparently don't care about what happens with the pick, they want to expedite the young guys development by giving them as many reps as possible, I don't have a problem with that as long as we hit on our free agency targets in the offseason.
I think the criticisms should be directed more at Luke tho, instead of the young guys, thats just how I feel about it.
My complaint is directed at Luke, and the FO by extension. I greatly dislike the development path that they have him on. I think he's done about as well as I could have hoped for while being miscast. I would've loved for them to develop him the same way that Kawhi was developed. He flashes some tremendous defensive potential, but is unable to fulfill his defensive potential while bearing the burden of the offense. That isn't his fault...it's unreasonable to ask him to do that.
He's a lot closer to being a great defensive player than a great offensive one, and I would have loved to see them set his goal as becoming All-NBA defender ASAP, while letting guys who are more equipped to carry the offense carry the load, an focusing his offensive energy on off-ball scenarios. The ISO/on-ball stuff should be the last layer, as it was with Kawhi. This isn't what's best for him and it isn't what's best for the team...short term or long term. If we do hit those Free Agency targets, having the offense run through him instead of having the ball in his hands less won't be applicable experience anyway.
I don't get why it matters. If he develops his offense before his defense on a team that isn't going anywhere this season regardless. Especially if you think his offense needs more work than his defense. Again it reeks of the 'it's not my way therefore it's wrong' kind of attitude, if I'm allowed to say something like that without getting smacked up by the powers that be. I seem to remember KD working on his offense and also struggling mightily well before focusing on the other end and some would say he turned out alright. Is it possible there is more than one path to becoming a great player or does everyone have to be Kawhi? _________________ 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."
I know it does, I support it actually. I've probably the main person here that complains that Luke plays BI and Lonzo way too many minutes. However, I understand the method to the madness, the front office apparently don't care about what happens with the pick, they want to expedite the young guys development by giving them as many reps as possible, I don't have a problem with that as long as we hit on our free agency targets in the offseason.
I think the criticisms should be directed more at Luke tho, instead of the young guys, thats just how I feel about it.
My complaint is directed at Luke, and the FO by extension. I greatly dislike the development path that they have him on. I think he's done about as well as I could have hoped for while being miscast. I would've loved for them to develop him the same way that Kawhi was developed. He flashes some tremendous defensive potential, but is unable to fulfill his defensive potential while bearing the burden of the offense. That isn't his fault...it's unreasonable to ask him to do that.
He's a lot closer to being a great defensive player than a great offensive one, and I would have loved to see them set his goal as becoming All-NBA defender ASAP, while letting guys who are more equipped to carry the offense carry the load, an focusing his offensive energy on off-ball scenarios. The ISO/on-ball stuff should be the last layer, as it was with Kawhi. This isn't what's best for him and it isn't what's best for the team...short term or long term. If we do hit those Free Agency targets, having the offense run through him instead of having the ball in his hands less won't be applicable experience anyway.
I don't get why it matters. If he develops his offense before his defense on a team that isn't going anywhere this season regardless. Especially if you think his offense needs more work than his defense. Again it reeks of the 'it's not my way therefore it's wrong' kind of attitude, if I'm allowed to say something like that without getting smacked up by the powers that be. I seem to remember KD working on his offense and also struggling mightily well before focusing on the other end and some would say he turned out alright. Is it possible there is more than one path to becoming a great player or does everyone have to be Kawhi?
It matters because he's not getting experience doing the things that he will need to be doing if we hit on our Free Agency targets. If we sign Paul George, Paul George is going to take the lion's share of our half court touches. If we sign DeMarcus Cousins or LeBron James, same thing. Is he going to be capable of knocking down spot up jumpers with consistency when that happens? Will he be ready to carry more of a defensive burden instead?
Even if we don't sign a FA, they aren't putting him in a position to do what comes most naturally. KD was a 20 ppg guy from Day 1. Developing him as a scorer - when that's where he was most naturally talented - made perfect sense, because it's the same rationale. That's how players have historically been developed effectively, by emphasizing what they're naturally talented at.
I know it does, I support it actually. I've probably the main person here that complains that Luke plays BI and Lonzo way too many minutes. However, I understand the method to the madness, the front office apparently don't care about what happens with the pick, they want to expedite the young guys development by giving them as many reps as possible, I don't have a problem with that as long as we hit on our free agency targets in the offseason.
I think the criticisms should be directed more at Luke tho, instead of the young guys, thats just how I feel about it.
My complaint is directed at Luke, and the FO by extension. I greatly dislike the development path that they have him on. I think he's done about as well as I could have hoped for while being miscast. I would've loved for them to develop him the same way that Kawhi was developed. He flashes some tremendous defensive potential, but is unable to fulfill his defensive potential while bearing the burden of the offense. That isn't his fault...it's unreasonable to ask him to do that.
He's a lot closer to being a great defensive player than a great offensive one, and I would have loved to see them set his goal as becoming All-NBA defender ASAP, while letting guys who are more equipped to carry the offense carry the load, an focusing his offensive energy on off-ball scenarios. The ISO/on-ball stuff should be the last layer, as it was with Kawhi. This isn't what's best for him and it isn't what's best for the team...short term or long term. If we do hit those Free Agency targets, having the offense run through him instead of having the ball in his hands less won't be applicable experience anyway.
I don't get why it matters. If he develops his offense before his defense on a team that isn't going anywhere this season regardless. Especially if you think his offense needs more work than his defense. Again it reeks of the 'it's not my way therefore it's wrong' kind of attitude, if I'm allowed to say something like that without getting smacked up by the powers that be. I seem to remember KD working on his offense and also struggling mightily well before focusing on the other end and some would say he turned out alright. Is it possible there is more than one path to becoming a great player or does everyone have to be Kawhi?
In GT's argument Ingram is a closer to becoming an effective player through defense versus offense. Durant's base level on offense was much higher than Ingram's.
His other argument is if we get two ball dominant players in FA next year what do you actually want Ingram to learn right now? I think becoming an elite defender, and learning his strengths/spots off ball on offense would be ideal.
Ingram talks about defense in basically every post-game interview, so does Luke. It's clear that is what the coach and team are emphasizing, even if it doesn't always look that way.
I don't see how we could develop BI like Kawhi. We're not the Spurs with several possible HOF players and great role players on the team for BI to play with/behind.
In a different world with a different team, he would develop more behind the scenes. But as it is, he's our best option at SF and the team needs him to keep getting better. Also, I think BI will end up being a better offensive than defensive player - he doesn't have the quick lateral movement of a great defensive player, though his long arms help with that.
Joined: 16 Apr 2014 Posts: 1526 Location: Vancouver BC
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:25 am Post subject:
manlisten wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
Andre2K wrote:
I know it does, I support it actually. I've probably the main person here that complains that Luke plays BI and Lonzo way too many minutes. However, I understand the method to the madness, the front office apparently don't care about what happens with the pick, they want to expedite the young guys development by giving them as many reps as possible, I don't have a problem with that as long as we hit on our free agency targets in the offseason.
I think the criticisms should be directed more at Luke tho, instead of the young guys, thats just how I feel about it.
My complaint is directed at Luke, and the FO by extension. I greatly dislike the development path that they have him on. I think he's done about as well as I could have hoped for while being miscast. I would've loved for them to develop him the same way that Kawhi was developed. He flashes some tremendous defensive potential, but is unable to fulfill his defensive potential while bearing the burden of the offense. That isn't his fault...it's unreasonable to ask him to do that.
He's a lot closer to being a great defensive player than a great offensive one, and I would have loved to see them set his goal as becoming All-NBA defender ASAP, while letting guys who are more equipped to carry the offense carry the load, an focusing his offensive energy on off-ball scenarios. The ISO/on-ball stuff should be the last layer, as it was with Kawhi. This isn't what's best for him and it isn't what's best for the team...short term or long term. If we do hit those Free Agency targets, having the offense run through him instead of having the ball in his hands less won't be applicable experience anyway.
I don't get why it matters. If he develops his offense before his defense on a team that isn't going anywhere this season regardless. Especially if you think his offense needs more work than his defense. Again it reeks of the 'it's not my way therefore it's wrong' kind of attitude, if I'm allowed to say something like that without getting smacked up by the powers that be. I seem to remember KD working on his offense and also struggling mightily well before focusing on the other end and some would say he turned out alright. Is it possible there is more than one path to becoming a great player or does everyone have to be Kawhi?
Matters the most because the habits players acquire in their first few years is what ends up defining them as players in a lot of cases.
I see what GT is saying here and would compare it to what Phil said about Carmelo. I dont remember the exact quote but I remember Phil saying that Carmelo picked up many habits on the Nuggets team while he was still a young player and then he was never really able to change. People are creatures of habit and developing bad habits can have long term consequences.
We dont want what happened with Carmelo to happen with Ingram.
It matters because he's not getting experience doing the things that he will need to be doing if we hit on our Free Agency targets. If we sign Paul George, Paul George is going to take the lion's share of our half court touches. If we sign DeMarcus Cousins or LeBron James, same thing. Is he going to be capable of knocking down spot up jumpers with consistency when that happens? Will he be ready to carry more of a defensive burden instead?
Even if we don't sign a FA, they aren't putting him in a position to do what comes most naturally. KD was a 20 ppg guy from Day 1. Developing him as a scorer - when that's where he was most naturally talented - made perfect sense, because it's the same rationale. That's how players have historically been developed effectively, by emphasizing what they're naturally talented at.
To your point, if the Lakers feel that Ingram has the potential to lead an offense then now is the time to develop that because in the event that they sign a PG or Cousins he'll have even less opportunity to do so. And in the meantime we should be taking away shots from him in order to feed who? Lopez, Nance, KCP? Much easier to develop basic offensive skills like catch and shoot or cutting off ball so may as well worry about that when..no IF the time comes. If he's ever going to become a great scorer now is the time to find out. And if we strike out in free agency we'll be glad we have someone capable of carrying the load on offense. Like you said, the potential to be a great defender is already there. I thought I've seen numbers posted that indicate his spot up 3s are improving. So what's the problem?
It's ultimately a matter of preference and somewhat pretentious to say one way is better than another given the circumstances and results that have yet to be fully realized. If he ends up becoming an all star or superstar via this method then what? Is it still the wrong way to go about 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."
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
while also being 2 years and 2 months younger
. Whether the numbers say a second year player is a lot better than some will give him credit for, or a lot worse...no algorithm stands a chance against an eye test that has been watching Laker games its whole life.
