|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | "Ingram's points & assists per-36 rival or surpass theirs because he had the ball in his hands far more often than those guys did at that age."
When you make this statement you are operating on an assumption. You simply don't know this to be true, nor can you prove it.
And I will repeat, this is wrong.. Those numbers are a reflection of proficiency, and skill. You can't put up his numbers without it, there's no way around this simple logic.
In his first year, more minutes would not have yielded the same data we see for him this year. A lack of skill and ability is the reason why.
He had the ball in his hands more.. that's why his numbers are better doesn't jive with this simple logic. Which is why it's not fair to be so dismissive of this data. |
Possessions Used Per-36 Minutes, Age 20
Kevin Durant..................24.4
Brandon Ingram.............18.9
Giannis Antetokuonmpo...15.7
Paul George...................14.5
Kawhi Leonard................11.4
Nicolas Batum..................7.8
This becomes even more severe when you do the splits by ISO + PnR possessions (on-ball possesions) vs. everything else.
For example:
ISO + PnR Possessions Used Per 36 Minutes, Age 20
Brandon Ingram......8.8
Kawhi Leonard........0.8
Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | "Ingram's points & assists per-36 rival or surpass theirs because he had the ball in his hands far more often than those guys did at that age."
When you make this statement you are operating on an assumption. You simply don't know this to be true, nor can you prove it.
And I will repeat, this is wrong.. Those numbers are a reflection of proficiency, and skill. You can't put up his numbers without it, there's no way around this simple logic.
In his first year, more minutes would not have yielded the same data we see for him this year. A lack of skill and ability is the reason why.
He had the ball in his hands more.. that's why his numbers are better doesn't jive with this simple logic. Which is why it's not fair to be so dismissive of this data. |
Possessions Used Per-36 Minutes, Age 20
Kevin Durant..................24.4
Brandon Ingram.............18.9
Giannis Antetokuonmpo...15.7
Paul George...................14.5
Kawhi Leonard................11.4
Nicolas Batum..................7.8
This becomes even more severe when you do the splits by ISO + PnR possessions (on-ball possesions) vs. everything else.
For example:
ISO + PnR Possessions Used Per 36 Minutes, Age 20
Brandon Ingram......8.8
Kawhi Leonard........0.8
Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role. |
Ingram's first 35 games, per 36:
16.3 points
5.4 rebounds
3.3 assists
50.7 TS%
last 24 games:
18.9 points
6.1 boards
5.7 assists
58.3 TS%
Those are two different players. Ingram has been on an outlier growth curve since the second half of his rookie season. It's probably best to let his data start stabilizing before prognosticating on future performance based on cumulative numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role."
Those numbers tell you what he would have produced playing the same role as Ingram, with the same personnel?
Those numbers tell you what Ingram would produce under the same conditions as KL?
Would it be safe to say that Ingram's data would look a lot different if he wasn't pressured to fill a role he wasn't ready for?
How might KL's data look if he were asked to play point at that age for extended minutes?
If we're going to be nuanced shouldn't we also consider circumstances and conditions?
And since we can't replicate the same conditions under which a particular result is given aren't we operating on assumption?
You proved KL played well under the conditions he operated in. Not Brandon's.
You didn't prove any of those players mentioned would be just as effective given the same role and opportunity at the same age. There is no way to know.
Which is why I wouldn't dismiss Ingram's per 36 with "oh they would have done it too".
Last edited by SocalDevin on Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killakobe81
Star Player
Joined: 19 May 2008
Posts: 1604
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow interesting that a suggestion that Rondo should start mostly because Lonzo just had surgery a few days ago, reignited a heated debate.
GT I don't disagree with your numbers. Why would I they don't lie. However MANY are used to support beliefs, biases etc. that we have. You are using the multiples that buffer your side and Socal is doing the same with the one that does his.For the sake of the Lakers having both breakout would mean so much to building towards a title I hope you are both correct.
The reason I am pushing harder for Ingram to start is because he has another year on Ball in experience. They are pretty much close in age but we are one year closer to having to make a decision on him longterm contract wise and with the great passing we have accumulated in Ball, LeBron and even Rondo, its Ingram's, scoring shooting and defense that we need unlocked. He doesn't have to be Gianni or even KL or KD. The bar I am setting is young Pippen. I doubt BI will ever be as good as Pipp on defense but if he can approximate his offense (not even the MVP candidate version) and get to 75% on the other side I would be exstatic about his future. Pippen his first couple years wasn't a sure HOF'er, in fact he averaged 14pts
6rebs and 3.5 assists his 2nd year, Ingram surpassed that and shot better % wise. Of course those numbers were playing next to the Goat and not on a 35 win team.
But Ingram averaged 16 5 4 without a superstar taking attention.That is what we need from Ingram to become an elite wing/support star. If he surpasses that, great, but I never saw him as the best player on a title team. His skill and mindset screams to me #2 on a legit contender. If he is your #3? Even better I think you win a title if he is.
BTW my bar for guys that can lead a title team is very high. Only guys that have done it and/or I firmly believe have proven that they potentially can to me are: Bron, KD, Dirk, Steph, Russ, Harden, Davis and maybe a healthy Kawhi who was not a clear #1 when he rang. Russ and Harden have questions to answer but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Dame, Wall Cp3 etc as talented as they are I don't ever see winning a title as the best player on a team.Embiid, Simmons Giannis Mitchell etc to early to tell but I have doubts about them too.
Last edited by Killakobe81 on Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't believe we're having a heated debate =).. Good points btw @Killakobe81 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Villain6Activated
Star Player
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 6697
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| justsomelakerfan wrote: |
Oh this is my new favorite thread on LG without a doubt. It's been a spicy summer. |
It's spicy but it still can't compare to DLO's sophomore year thread, especially post game takes on that thread. So many ban hammers dropped in that thread.
Interestingly though the majority of guys who argued in favor of DLO in that thread are against Ingram in this thread.
_________________
“Life is too short. You have to keep it moving.” - Kobe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | "Ingram's points & assists per-36 rival or surpass theirs because he had the ball in his hands far more often than those guys did at that age."
When you make this statement you are operating on an assumption. You simply don't know this to be true, nor can you prove it.
And I will repeat, this is wrong.. Those numbers are a reflection of proficiency, and skill. You can't put up his numbers without it, there's no way around this simple logic.
In his first year, more minutes would not have yielded the same data we see for him this year. A lack of skill and ability is the reason why.
He had the ball in his hands more.. that's why his numbers are better doesn't jive with this simple logic. Which is why it's not fair to be so dismissive of this data. |
Possessions Used Per-36 Minutes, Age 20
Kevin Durant..................24.4
Brandon Ingram.............18.9
Giannis Antetokuonmpo...15.7
Paul George...................14.5
Kawhi Leonard................11.4
Nicolas Batum..................7.8
This becomes even more severe when you do the splits by ISO + PnR possessions (on-ball possesions) vs. everything else.
For example:
ISO + PnR Possessions Used Per 36 Minutes, Age 20
Brandon Ingram......8.8
Kawhi Leonard........0.8
Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did -but had a demonstrably different role. |
but had a demonstrably different role.
This is the issue that cannot be quantified by numbers when comparing BI with KL. During KL's first 2 years he had a still in prime Parker, an effective Manu, a very good Tim Duncan and D Green having his best 2 years.
Yes this resulted in low usage for KL but he would have been put in better position to score more efficiently with his usage as his teammates would be drawing the defensive attention of the opponent.
These past 2 years and especially last season, BI was looked at as one of the Lakers primary offensive producers and opponents paid more defensive attention on him than KL experienced his first 2 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | "Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role."
Those numbers tell you what he would have produced playing the same role as Ingram, with the same personnel?
Those numbers tell you what Ingram would produce under the same conditions as KL?
Would it be safe to say that Ingram's data would look a lot different if he wasn't pressured to fill a role he wasn't ready for?
How might KL's data look if he were asked to play point at that age for extended minutes?
If we're going to be nuanced shouldn't we also consider circumstances and conditions?
And since we can't replicate the same conditions under which a particular result is given aren't we operating on assumption?
You proved KL played well under the conditions he operated in. Not Brandon's.
You didn't prove any of those players mentioned would be just as effective given the same role and opportunity at the same age. There is no way to know.
Which is why I wouldn't dismiss Ingram's per 36 with "oh they would have done it too". |
Agree. I put together a post under a similar premise. Too many different conditions to consider when comparing stats head to head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Villain6Activated
Star Player
Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 6697
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dao wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | "Ingram's points & assists per-36 rival or surpass theirs because he had the ball in his hands far more often than those guys did at that age."
When you make this statement you are operating on an assumption. You simply don't know this to be true, nor can you prove it.
And I will repeat, this is wrong.. Those numbers are a reflection of proficiency, and skill. You can't put up his numbers without it, there's no way around this simple logic.
In his first year, more minutes would not have yielded the same data we see for him this year. A lack of skill and ability is the reason why.
He had the ball in his hands more.. that's why his numbers are better doesn't jive with this simple logic. Which is why it's not fair to be so dismissive of this data. |
Possessions Used Per-36 Minutes, Age 20
Kevin Durant..................24.4
Brandon Ingram.............18.9
Giannis Antetokuonmpo...15.7
Paul George...................14.5
Kawhi Leonard................11.4
Nicolas Batum..................7.8
This becomes even more severe when you do the splits by ISO + PnR possessions (on-ball possesions) vs. everything else.
For example:
ISO + PnR Possessions Used Per 36 Minutes, Age 20
Brandon Ingram......8.8
Kawhi Leonard........0.8
Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role. |
Ingram's first 35 games, per 36:
16.3 points
5.4 rebounds
3.3 assists
50.7 TS%
last 24 games:
18.9 points
6.1 boards
5.7 assists
58.3 TS%
Those are two different players. Ingram has been on an outlier growth curve since the second half of his rookie season. It's probably best to let his data start stabilizing before prognosticating on future performance based on cumulative numbers. |
In addition to this, I'd like to judge him on how he played in February in his best stretch at Point guard right before he got injured:
Offensive Rating in that stretch: 120 (His second best month ORT was 104!!! that difference is literally absurd)
Defensive Rating in that stretch: 109.
Net Rating in that stretch: +10.3, before that he was negative in every month expect one with +1.1.
True Shooting in that stretch: 61%. Best in any month before that: 54%
What's even cooler about these stats is that during his stretch he had the lowest usage percentage out of any other months which means that he's not just a volume numbers type of guy, he's figuring it out.
Rookie Lonzo> Sophomore Year Ingram, I agree.
February Ingram> Any version of last years Lonzo.
in my opinion.
_________________
“Life is too short. You have to keep it moving.” - Kobe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SocalDevin wrote: | "Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role."
Those numbers tell you what he would have produced playing the same role as Ingram, with the same personnel?
Those numbers tell you what Ingram would produce under the same conditions as KL?
Would it be safe to say that Ingram's data would look a lot different if he wasn't pressured to fill a role he wasn't ready for?
How might KL's data look if he were asked to play point at that age for extended minutes?
If we're going to be nuanced shouldn't we also consider circumstances and conditions?
And since we can't replicate the same conditions under which a particular result is given aren't we operating on assumption?
You proved KL played well under the conditions he operated in. Not Brandon's.
You didn't prove any of those players mentioned would be just as effective given the same role and opportunity at the same age. There is no way to know.
Which is why I wouldn't dismiss Ingram's per 36 with "oh they would have done it too". |
Didn't you start this line of conversation by posting a list comparing Ingram to others? How does this whole context thing work? Are comparisons only valid if they're impossibly apples-to-apples, or are they permissible in any circumstance so long as they paint Ingram in the most positive light possible?
Kawhi did those same things at an excellent rate, which was a harbinger of what he'd eventually be able to do when he was eventually given the opportunity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PlantedTanks wrote: | but had a demonstrably different role.
This is the issue that cannot be quantified by numbers when comparing BI with KL. During KL's first 2 years he had a still in prime Parker, an effective Manu, a very good Tim Duncan and D Green having his best 2 years.
Yes this resulted in low usage for KL but he would have been put in better position to score more efficiently with his usage as his teammates would be drawing the defensive attention of the opponent.
These past 2 years and especially last season, BI was looked at as one of the Lakers primary offensive producers and opponents paid more defensive attention on him than KL experienced his first 2 years. |
Which is why looking at the rate to which he produced when he was in those on-ball roles matters. He didn't get many of those opportunities, but he was very good when he did, which was a harbinger for what he'd be able to do when his role expanded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In terms of the "yes, but look at what he did in a dozen games at point guard" point...how applicable do you think that is to his future? How much point guard (de facto or otherwise) do you expect him to play on a team with LeBron James, Lonzo Ball, & Rajon Rondo? Shouldn't we be looking at how he functions as a wing? Because that's his most likely role? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dao wrote: | Ingram's first 35 games, per 36:
16.3 points
5.4 rebounds
3.3 assists
50.7 TS%
last 24 games:
18.9 points
6.1 boards
5.7 assists
58.3 TS%
Those are two different players. Ingram has been on an outlier growth curve since the second half of his rookie season. It's probably best to let his data start stabilizing before prognosticating on future performance based on cumulative numbers. |
Yeah I think the degree to which people project Ingram as a star should be largely a function of how much confidence you have in his improved play at the end of his season. That's the first time he actually showed, on the court, future production of a star. Before that it was a largely matter of faith.
I'm excited to watch BI for this exact reason -- I don't know whether his last 24 games is cherrypicked (didn't this coincide with a hot streak from 3?) or if it's the new normal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
awntawn
Starting Rotation
Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 953
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | but had a demonstrably different role.
This is the issue that cannot be quantified by numbers when comparing BI with KL. During KL's first 2 years he had a still in prime Parker, an effective Manu, a very good Tim Duncan and D Green having his best 2 years.
Yes this resulted in low usage for KL but he would have been put in better position to score more efficiently with his usage as his teammates would be drawing the defensive attention of the opponent.
These past 2 years and especially last season, BI was looked at as one of the Lakers primary offensive producers and opponents paid more defensive attention on him than KL experienced his first 2 years. |
Which is why looking at the rate to which he produced when he was in those on-ball roles matters. He didn't get many of those opportunities, but he was very good when he did, which was a harbinger for what he'd be able to do when his role expanded. |
I don't think this is fair assessment. Not all ISO possessions are created equal. There's a difference between a guy having to ISO regularly as a primary form of attack against a defense game-planning against you without many other offensive threats on the floor vs the one time a game a team switches a point guard onto a wing in the post with the other team deciding whether they have to leave Duncan, Ginobli, Parker, or Danny Green behind the arc to double.
Players who have such a low number of opportunities generally get the few opportunities they do get in ideal circumstances thereby inflating their rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| awntawn wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | but had a demonstrably different role.
This is the issue that cannot be quantified by numbers when comparing BI with KL. During KL's first 2 years he had a still in prime Parker, an effective Manu, a very good Tim Duncan and D Green having his best 2 years.
Yes this resulted in low usage for KL but he would have been put in better position to score more efficiently with his usage as his teammates would be drawing the defensive attention of the opponent.
These past 2 years and especially last season, BI was looked at as one of the Lakers primary offensive producers and opponents paid more defensive attention on him than KL experienced his first 2 years. |
Which is why looking at the rate to which he produced when he was in those on-ball roles matters. He didn't get many of those opportunities, but he was very good when he did, which was a harbinger for what he'd be able to do when his role expanded. |
I don't think this is fair assessment. Not all ISO possessions are created equal. There's a difference between a guy having to ISO regularly as a primary form of attack against a defense game-planning against you without many other offensive threats on the floor vs the one time a game a team switches a point guard onto a wing in the post with the other team deciding whether they have to leave Duncan, Ginobli, Parker, or Danny Green behind the arc to double.
Players who have such a low number of opportunities generally get the few opportunities they do get in ideal circumstances thereby inflating their rate. |
And that's the best point that's been made in this line of discussion, you won't get any argument from me there. That said, if someone thrives in limited touches on-ball, it's also worth exploring whether or not they can do it on increased volume. Kawhi could. But yes, there is a inverse relationship between frequency and efficiency, no doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SocalDevin
Star Player
Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | "Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role."
Those numbers tell you what he would have produced playing the same role as Ingram, with the same personnel?
Those numbers tell you what Ingram would produce under the same conditions as KL?
Would it be safe to say that Ingram's data would look a lot different if he wasn't pressured to fill a role he wasn't ready for?
How might KL's data look if he were asked to play point at that age for extended minutes?
If we're going to be nuanced shouldn't we also consider circumstances and conditions?
And since we can't replicate the same conditions under which a particular result is given aren't we operating on assumption?
You proved KL played well under the conditions he operated in. Not Brandon's.
You didn't prove any of those players mentioned would be just as effective given the same role and opportunity at the same age. There is no way to know.
Which is why I wouldn't dismiss Ingram's per 36 with "oh they would have done it too". |
[b]Didn't you start this line of conversation by posting a list comparing Ingram to others?[/b] How does this whole context thing work? Are comparisons only valid if they're impossibly apples-to-apples, or are they permissible in any circumstance so long as they paint Ingram in the most positive light possible?
Kawhi did those same things at an excellent rate, which was a harbinger of what he'd eventually be able to do when he was eventually given the opportunity. |
No bud.. you did with this statement..
"It's very possible that Ingram ends up being an outlier and becomes a star despite his first 2 years not mirroring how future stars performed at the same age. "
I posted numbers that contradict this statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoldenThroat wrote: | | PlantedTanks wrote: | but had a demonstrably different role.
This is the issue that cannot be quantified by numbers when comparing BI with KL. During KL's first 2 years he had a still in prime Parker, an effective Manu, a very good Tim Duncan and D Green having his best 2 years.
Yes this resulted in low usage for KL but he would have been put in better position to score more efficiently with his usage as his teammates would be drawing the defensive attention of the opponent.
These past 2 years and especially last season, BI was looked at as one of the Lakers primary offensive producers and opponents paid more defensive attention on him than KL experienced his first 2 years. |
Which is why looking at the rate to which he produced when he was in those on-ball roles matters. He didn't get many of those opportunities, but he was very good when he did, which was a harbinger for what he'd be able to do when his role expanded. |
KL made incremental improvements through his first 4 years and really blossomed offensively in his 5th. I agree you could see his talent with his production increasing accordingly but I never imagined he would reach the status of being a consensus top 5-6 player based off his first 4 seasons.
From my perspective the greatness of KL is when you consider his offensive and defensive impact as a whole. Just tremendous.
At this time I don't see KL level star status in BI but I do see him reaching a level similar to Paul George. I weigh heavily his under developed body as a major contributing factor affecting his numbers these past 2 years. None of the other players that has been listed for comparison had this issue to overcome.
Yes KD also needed some physical development but nothing near BI and talent wise he is on a totally different level than KL and is imo a generational player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VicXLakers
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Posts: 11823
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
repetition is a good thing...the more game experience good or bad = more reps
Being put into situations that may not reflect positively in the stats but are an invaluable learning experience have to be taken into consideration  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beir32 wrote: | How much of his (STILL) not-suited-for-the-NBA body weight issues have had to do with his numbers? Did any of those other players with whom he is being compared have problems putting on weight? I remember Durant being pretty skinny but I'm pretty sure he looked jacked in his teens compared to Ingram.
It's frustrating that he hasn't been able to add more weight in his first few seasons but I hold out hope that he'll fill out and his game will follow suit. |
This is the factor that is in the forefront of my mind w Ingram at all times. The weight/athleticism potential development
Idk what the development rate for athleticism/weight is, I’ve only watched prospects since Julius’ year. But I watch closely
https://www.instagram.com/p/BlYoqv3HRBF/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=droswwnxzw8c
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bif9SSdn5rl/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=15ltrrgki4bbt
Here is Ingram working with Micah twice. Notice that he’s not going close to 100%. In the first vid, Micah’s comments are being blown up with “Micah you told me going 100% is the best thing you can do for your training... ?”
Micah responds “This is a technique day, for when the body needs rest. .But Oladipo is a guy that always goes 100%”
So in 2/4 of Ingram’s vids with Micah, he’s going like 50% or less.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjQUT08n5hN/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1frogc5akuedo
In his videos with his Atlanta trainer in late May, he’s also not going close to 100%
I post this to say ———— I really think his underdeveloped body is susceptible to being worn out... Last year he had no poster dunks compared to about 7 his rookie year. I could tell he wasn’t moving with as much twitch off the dribble as well.
I wonder how much this type of fatigue factors into the training gains he’s looking for.. maybe he would develop quicker skill wise, if he could go 100% more often. Maybe that’s not a death nail, and in 2 years, he’ll have the muscle necessary to go 100% consistently in the offseason, and feel energized on the court as well —— maybe that’s when his breakout season comes. When he’s 23/24.
A lot of people’s high expectations for Ingram’s career are based on his physical advantages, that’s fine... I’ve just seen signs (last season/this summer) that it’s going to be pretty far down the road until Ingram can exert his maximum potential physically, consistently.
He also isn’t gaining muscle at a rapid rate like other young players.. his bones just aren’t evolving like that yet. It’s all gunna take quite some time. Imo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killakobe81
Star Player
Joined: 19 May 2008
Posts: 1604
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jesusdelonla wrote: | | 1ngr4m wrote: | | Jesusdelonla wrote: | | 1ngr4m wrote: | | justsomelakerfan wrote: | | 1ngr4m wrote: | | justsomelakerfan wrote: | | Lakesh0wtime wrote: | | kawhileonard wrote: | Ingram does have a high ceiling, but so does Thon Maker.....
Right now, Ingram isn't as good as people make him out to be, but I rate his ceiling higher than Simmons.
With both Rondo and lebron on the team, it will be interesting to see how Ingram adjusts his game with them. Last season, besides Ingram, no one really held the rock for long times...
Hopefully lebrons arrival doesn't hinder his development (however, I am pretty sure it will). |
It’s funny reading posts from people who don’t like Ingram as a player or want him traded or who are super Kuzma fans.
They know deep down Ingram is good so they say something nice but immediately follow it with a negative. And then follow up with a back handed compliment and then will say something negative again  |
Ingram fans do the same thing with Kuz buddy 
No one wants their favorite Laker traded but what can ya do  |
yeah but Ingram is better then Kuzma and more valuable then Kuzma.
I don't know why this is so hard to grasp for Kuzma fans, as long as BI is on the roster he will be given the priority in terms of starting, minutes, shots, touches etc. |
So that justifies Ingram fans for putting down Kuzma's talent and ceiling to prop up their own favorite player?
It’s funny reading posts from people who don’t like Kuzma as a player or want him traded or who are super Ingram fans. |
I haven't seen any Ingram fans wanting Kuzma traded because Kuzma isn't taking Ingram's spot or shots so it doesn't matter to them. It's different for Kuzma fans because they know that Kuz won't ever start unless Ingram is gone.
Way more reason for Kuzma fans to want Ingram traded then visa versa. The president of a company has nothing to gain if the vice president is gone, but the vise president has everything to gain if the president is out of the picture.
Kuzma is the perfect 6th man scorer off the bench for us, and I want him to close out games as a part of our death lineup, but when anyone suggests Kuzma starting over BI, I strong disagree. |
kuzma was getting his points within the offense while Ingram was force feed to be a #1 option and going with all ISO moves
i don't care who starts but BI is not better then Kuzma on the offensive end. |
If you discount playmaking and focus strictly on playmaking, then MAYBE. But give me the guy with the same amount of points on less shots while getting double the assists. Oh and that guy also has a lower usage percentage?
Hmm, maybe theres a reason why Ingram had the ball in his hands more then Kuzma did???? |
Ya cause Ingram was Luke's favorite while kuzma was late 1st Rd rookie.
If kuzma was force-feed to be #1 option he would average 30 points and not 16points |
I like, no love Kuzma but 30pts?
SO you are predicting Harden/Westbrook with a similar usage rate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mookielala
Star Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 3026
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can't wait for the season to start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 3156
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | | Beir32 wrote: | How much of his (STILL) not-suited-for-the-NBA body weight issues have had to do with his numbers? Did any of those other players with whom he is being compared have problems putting on weight? I remember Durant being pretty skinny but I'm pretty sure he looked jacked in his teens compared to Ingram.
It's frustrating that he hasn't been able to add more weight in his first few seasons but I hold out hope that he'll fill out and his game will follow suit. |
This is the factor that is in the forefront of my mind w Ingram at all times. The weight/athleticism potential development
Idk what the development rate for athleticism/weight is, I’ve only watched prospects since Julius’ year. But I watch closely
https://www.instagram.com/p/BlYoqv3HRBF/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=droswwnxzw8c
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bif9SSdn5rl/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=15ltrrgki4bbt
Here is Ingram working with Micah twice. Notice that he’s not going close to 100%. In the first vid, Micah’s comments are being blown up with “Micah you told me going 100% is the best thing you can do for your training... ?”
Micah responds “This is a technique day, for when the body needs rest. .But Oladipo is a guy that always goes 100%”
So in 2/4 of Ingram’s vids with Micah, he’s going like 50% or less.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BjQUT08n5hN/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1frogc5akuedo
In his videos with his Atlanta trainer in late May, he’s also not going close to 100%
I post this to say ———— I really think his underdeveloped body is susceptible to being worn out... Last year he had no poster dunks compared to about 7 his rookie year. I could tell he wasn’t moving with as much twitch off the dribble as well.
I wonder how much this type of fatigue factors into the training gains he’s looking for.. maybe he would develop quicker skill wise, if he could go 100% more often. Maybe that’s not a death nail, and in 2 years, he’ll have the muscle necessary to go 100% consistently in the offseason, and feel energized on the court as well —— maybe that’s when his breakout season comes. When he’s 23/24.
A lot of people’s high expectations for Ingram’s career are based on his physical advantages, that’s fine... I’ve just seen signs (last season/this summer) that it’s going to be pretty far down the road until Ingram can exert his maximum potential physically, consistently.
He also isn’t gaining muscle at a rapid rate like other young players.. his bones just aren’t evolving like that yet. It’s all gunna take quite some time. Imo |
I wonder how much of this was over training during the season? There was an article where I thought Gunnar Peterson mentioned he realized after his first season with the Lakers he would need to reduce the amount of training/weight lifting the players did during the season
or I could just be making this up due to faulty memory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe he did say that, I remember a 3-4 workout per week goal.
Who really knows - I remember Kobe in his last season saying that his legs were shot until he starting lifting enough to combat that with strength... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PauPau
Starting Rotation
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 844
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We're very lucky to have both players and its likely we will be closing out games with both on the court.
Its possible one of them becomes an all star, its likely we end up with 2 very good players, we ought to be, all of us, happy about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dao
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1ngr4m wrote: | | dao wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: | | SocalDevin wrote: | "Ingram's points & assists per-36 rival or surpass theirs because he had the ball in his hands far more often than those guys did at that age."
When you make this statement you are operating on an assumption. You simply don't know this to be true, nor can you prove it.
And I will repeat, this is wrong.. Those numbers are a reflection of proficiency, and skill. You can't put up his numbers without it, there's no way around this simple logic.
In his first year, more minutes would not have yielded the same data we see for him this year. A lack of skill and ability is the reason why.
He had the ball in his hands more.. that's why his numbers are better doesn't jive with this simple logic. Which is why it's not fair to be so dismissive of this data. |
Possessions Used Per-36 Minutes, Age 20
Kevin Durant..................24.4
Brandon Ingram.............18.9
Giannis Antetokuonmpo...15.7
Paul George...................14.5
Kawhi Leonard................11.4
Nicolas Batum..................7.8
This becomes even more severe when you do the splits by ISO + PnR possessions (on-ball possesions) vs. everything else.
For example:
ISO + PnR Possessions Used Per 36 Minutes, Age 20
Brandon Ingram......8.8
Kawhi Leonard........0.8
Kawhi produced at a solid rate on these possessions when he got the opportunity - a significantly higher rate than Ingram did - but had a demonstrably different role. |
Ingram's first 35 games, per 36:
16.3 points
5.4 rebounds
3.3 assists
50.7 TS%
last 24 games:
18.9 points
6.1 boards
5.7 assists
58.3 TS%
Those are two different players. Ingram has been on an outlier growth curve since the second half of his rookie season. It's probably best to let his data start stabilizing before prognosticating on future performance based on cumulative numbers. |
In addition to this, I'd like to judge him on how he played in February in his best stretch at Point guard right before he got injured:
Offensive Rating in that stretch: 120 (His second best month ORT was 104!!! that difference is literally absurd)
Defensive Rating in that stretch: 109.
Net Rating in that stretch: +10.3, before that he was negative in every month expect one with +1.1.
True Shooting in that stretch: 61%. Best in any month before that: 54%
What's even cooler about these stats is that during his stretch he had the lowest usage percentage out of any other months which means that he's not just a volume numbers type of guy, he's figuring it out.
Rookie Lonzo> Sophomore Year Ingram, I agree.
February Ingram> Any version of last years Lonzo.
in my opinion. |
I'm not so sure about that. Lonzo was really, really good during the stretch where he was shooting around 40% from three. I agree with you on Ingram's February being awesome, though.
Lonzo and Ingram are the same age. They're both excellent prospects. It's unfortunate that they seemed to be pitted against each other by some posters. I consider both of them to be high level prospects. |
|
| 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
|
|
