OFFICIAL BRANDON INGRAM THREAD
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 554, 555, 556 ... 1883, 1884, 1885  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRoost
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 4790

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:06 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
We'll be having an Ingram party and someone will crash in.. "Hey Hey HEEEYYYY" Knock that shet off, look at his ft percentage, stop the music, stop the dancing, have you seen his lousy 3 point shooting percentage? Take your assis home lol..

And it's all good I guess, we all should be able to express dissent, but it's always the same argument with some of you.


Ingram will definitely turn different minds around here. If it took Lonzo SL to get it done then I can say that barring any major injury, Untouchable will get it done in preseason. Just looking at his stroke in that one game, jumpers looking wet.


Last edited by CRoost on Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:06 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
This is In regards to Ingram this off-season..

“Anybody that called us wanted him,” Johnson said. “We said, ‘No thank you.'”


These GM's must be nuts to want a guy as terrible as Ingram was his rookie year. And stats prove he was god awful..


1) Ingram had a terrible rookie season.
2) Ingram has the potential to be a fantastic player.

Those two things can both be true at the same time.


Yep, they can both be true, but some of you tend to harp on the negatives in regards to Ingram.

There's usually someone raining on the parade with rookie stats when we gush over him. Which is your or their prerogative. I just think it's silly, and it makes you come off as a hater when you're always doing it.


Then don't call for a response by sarcastically noting "why would anyone want him if his rookie stats were so awful?" if you know that those are two different things.

I'm much more interested in getting it right rather than being right in the first place. When expectations are such that the guy who runs this team will be disappointed if he doesn't make a historically unprecedented leap in production, I'm fine standing on the other side of that line, and I really don't care if I come off as a hater. I'm certainly rooting for the kid, I just don't need to BS myself or others in the process.


Thing is, I'm fine with you believing whatever it is you believe. I'm just saying I think it's silly, and makes no sense. No one is going to convince you otherwise, so I have no interest in trying to change your mind. My post wasn't a call for a response, If I wanted one from Ingram detractors I would simply address them directly.


If you don't believe that Ingram will average 40+ PPG this year, does that make you an Ingram detractor?

There are virtually no Ingram detractors here. There are just some folks that don't believe he'll average 40, 30, or even 20 this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
This is In regards to Ingram this off-season..

“Anybody that called us wanted him,” Johnson said. “We said, ‘No thank you.'”


These GM's must be nuts to want a guy as terrible as Ingram was his rookie year. And stats prove he was god awful..


1) Ingram had a terrible rookie season.
2) Ingram has the potential to be a fantastic player.

Those two things can both be true at the same time.


Yep, they can both be true, but some of you tend to harp on the negatives in regards to Ingram.

There's usually someone raining on the parade with rookie stats when we gush over him. Which is your or their prerogative. I just think it's silly, and it makes you come off as a hater when you're always doing it.


Then don't call for a response by sarcastically noting "why would anyone want him if his rookie stats were so awful?" if you know that those are two different things.

I'm much more interested in getting it right rather than being right in the first place. When expectations are such that the guy who runs this team will be disappointed if he doesn't make a historically unprecedented leap in production, I'm fine standing on the other side of that line, and I really don't care if I come off as a hater. I'm certainly rooting for the kid, I just don't need to BS myself or others in the process.


Thing is, I'm fine with you believing whatever it is you believe. I'm just saying I think it's silly, and makes no sense. No one is going to convince you otherwise, so I have no interest in trying to change your mind. My post wasn't a call for a response, If I wanted one from Ingram detractors I would simply address them directly.


If you don't believe that Ingram will average 40+ PPG this year, does that make you an Ingram detractor?

There are virtually no Ingram detractors here. There are just some folks that don't believe he'll average 40, 30, or even 20 this year.


Odd hypothetical, let's forget I used the word detractor. I'll be more specific. I'll say they're more like party crashers lol. Maybe sometimes we are overly optimistic with our young players. In the Russell thread there would usually be someone in there to remind those high on him of his deficiencies. Same thing happens in here. The reason why it's even more absurd to do it in here is Ingram was a rookie. Why harp on negatives with a rookie, and even worse.. use rookie stats to project where his career might be headed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:16 pm    Post subject:

CRoost wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
We'll be having an Ingram party and someone will crash in.. "Hey Hey HEEEYYYY" Knock that shet off, look at his ft percentage, stop the music, stop the dancing, have you seen his lousy 3 point shooting percentage? Take your assis home lol..

And it's all good I guess, we all should be able to express dissent, but it's always the same argument with some of you.


Ingram will definitely turn different minds around here. If it took Lonzo SL to get it done then I can say that barring any major injury, Untouchable will get it done in preseason. Just looking at his stroke in that one game, jumpers looking wet.


I agree, which is why I say time will tell us everything we need to know about Ingram. =)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:19 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
We'll be having an Ingram party and someone will crash in.. "Hey Hey HEEEYYYY" Knock that shet off, look at his ft percentage, stop the music, stop the dancing, have you seen his lousy 3 point shooting percentage? Take your assis home lol..

And it's all good I guess, we all should be able to express dissent, but it's always the same argument with some of you.


So quoting actual stats is raining on a parade? I have high hopes for Ingram but he hasn't shown us a lot so far. Let's allow him to develop and then reassess.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:26 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
We'll be having an Ingram party and someone will crash in.. "Hey Hey HEEEYYYY" Knock that shet off, look at his ft percentage, stop the music, stop the dancing, have you seen his lousy 3 point shooting percentage? Take your assis home lol..

And it's all good I guess, we all should be able to express dissent, but it's always the same argument with some of you.


So quoting actual stats is raining on a parade? I have high hopes for Ingram but he hasn't shown us a lot so far. Let's allow him to develop and then reassess.


No, its the quoting of the same stats over and over again to try to convince those who are high on him, or giving him adulation that they shouldn't. Almost like what you just did. "Let's allow him to develop and then reassess."

I'm actually fine with giving him praise now, for the improvements he has made, and his work ethic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26085

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:35 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:

Odd hypothetical, let's forget I used the word detractor. I'll be more specific. I'll say they're more like party crashers lol. Maybe sometimes we are overly optimistic with our young players. In the Russell thread there would usually be someone in there to remind those high on him of his deficiencies. Same thing happens in here. The reason why it's even more absurd to do it in here is Ingram was a rookie. Why harp on negatives with a rookie, and even worse.. use rookie stats to project where his career might be headed.


A lot of Russell and Randle's 'inefficiencies" were hyperbole or people ignoring any progress they'd made from the season before, or downplaying any leaps they made in their game or acting like they didn't happen.

A lot of Ingram's inefficiencies are actual honest critique, explanation and expectation, and his progress is instead the hyperbole. However it's treated as the opposite by those people.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
justsomelakerfan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 10939

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:42 pm    Post subject:

this thread @ stats
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:

Odd hypothetical, let's forget I used the word detractor. I'll be more specific. I'll say they're more like party crashers lol. Maybe sometimes we are overly optimistic with our young players. In the Russell thread there would usually be someone in there to remind those high on him of his deficiencies. Same thing happens in here. The reason why it's even more absurd to do it in here is Ingram was a rookie. Why harp on negatives with a rookie, and even worse.. use rookie stats to project where his career might be headed.


A lot of Russell and Randle's 'inefficiencies" were hyperbole or people ignoring any progress they'd made from the season before, or downplaying any leaps they made in their game or acting like they didn't happen.

A lot of Ingram's inefficiencies are actual honest critique, explanation and expectation, and his progress is instead the hyperbole. However it's treated as the opposite by those people.


The honest critique of Ingram has become redundant. And the reason why it makes no sense is quite simply because he was a rookie. No way around that, and I can't stress it enough. He was a rookie..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject:

justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:49 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
This is In regards to Ingram this off-season..

“Anybody that called us wanted him,” Johnson said. “We said, ‘No thank you.'”


These GM's must be nuts to want a guy as terrible as Ingram was his rookie year. And stats prove he was god awful..


1) Ingram had a terrible rookie season.
2) Ingram has the potential to be a fantastic player.

Those two things can both be true at the same time.
If you truly believe point 2, then why would you appraise him as a tier 3 prospect in the "rank our assets" thread?

GoldenThroat wrote:
Tier 1a - Lonzo Ball
Tier 1b - Nobody
Tier 2 - Nobody
Tier 3 - Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma
Tier 4 - Everyone else



It's seems pretty clear that you are much lower on Ingram going forward than most Lakers fans are. It's not simply a matter of saying he had poor stats as a rook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
justsomelakerfan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 10939

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:52 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.


Well what are you saying here, so stats don't apply to NBA players until they're in their third or fourth year? When do you start taking stats into account for evaluating players then, what applies for you? Do we ignore numbers on Lonzo until he's in his third NBA season?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26085

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:52 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
MJST wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:

Odd hypothetical, let's forget I used the word detractor. I'll be more specific. I'll say they're more like party crashers lol. Maybe sometimes we are overly optimistic with our young players. In the Russell thread there would usually be someone in there to remind those high on him of his deficiencies. Same thing happens in here. The reason why it's even more absurd to do it in here is Ingram was a rookie. Why harp on negatives with a rookie, and even worse.. use rookie stats to project where his career might be headed.


A lot of Russell and Randle's 'inefficiencies" were hyperbole or people ignoring any progress they'd made from the season before, or downplaying any leaps they made in their game or acting like they didn't happen.

A lot of Ingram's inefficiencies are actual honest critique, explanation and expectation, and his progress is instead the hyperbole. However it's treated as the opposite by those people.


The honest critique of Ingram has become redundant. And the reason why it makes no sense is quite simply because he was a rookie. No way around that, and I can't stress it enough. He was a rookie..


And our last 2 rookies had better all around rookie seasons than Ingram did but didn't get half the hype, optimism or credit that Ingram has.

We should at least be consistent.

justsomelakerfan wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.


Well what are you saying here, so stats don't apply to NBA players until they're in their third or fourth year? When do you start taking stats into account for evaluating players then, what applies for you? Do we ignore numbers on Lonzo until he's in his third NBA season?


It only matters when it's payers they don't like. Ingram can have 3-4 seasons to develop before we're allowed to honestly critique him, but Russell and Randle whom all had better rookie seasons than Ingram are who they'll always be by their 2nd season and nothing can ever change it.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AY2043
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 10620

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:55 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
We'll be having an Ingram party and someone will crash in.. "Hey Hey HEEEYYYY" Knock that shet off, look at his ft percentage, stop the music, stop the dancing, have you seen his lousy 3 point shooting percentage? Take your assis home lol..

And it's all good I guess, we all should be able to express dissent, but it's always the same argument with some of you.

So honest discussion about his play isn't welcome?

Funny how you don't have this problem with regards to the Randle thread, or the Russell thread before that, where people routinely come in and bash those players without even attempting to make cogent argument regarding their play.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
€H£M£$TR¥
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Apr 2017
Posts: 3782

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:59 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
There are virtually no Ingram detractors here. There are just some folks that don't believe he'll average 40, 30, or even 20 this year.


It's healthy to be cynical of optimism after an extended absence from contention. However, shouldn't such vocal / written cynicism be reserved for non Laker fanatics? We are passionate about our team because we have traditionally set high expectations on every single one of our players. Work hard, play hard, celebrate like no other franchise. If saying BI will hit 30 per game is a detriment to our P&G nation, I'll cease immediately; yet we must not fear being disappointed.

He's one of our most Dynamic players - unselfish and plays within the flow and strengths of our team. Hes quick on the outlet, has the ability to jump start a fast break off the board, and is willing to learn from our extensive alumn in the area.

I catch myself projecting 2-3 years down the line, and need to remember Kobe's initial years. He wasn't Mamba from day one. So I know I need to check my expectations.

One thing is for sure, Laker Nation united is stronger than when we squabble over pride. We all have different perspectives. Some are numbers based, some are faith based, some are reminded by historic trends, and some are backed by individual collegiate performance... et al. Until we see that first preseason game, and on to the regular season, threads will be like this.

TL;DR cynicism is deserved, just don't expect everyone to hold that perspective in the off season. A lot of us are lit, because Ball, more likely than not, will ignite the best of BI's potential. I hope the whole starting lineup averages 20 pts a game, Randle included.
_________________
DEAR BASKETBALL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject:

justsomelakerfan wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.


Well what are you saying here, so stats don't apply to NBA players until they're in their third or fourth year? When do you start taking stats into account for evaluating players then, what applies for you? Do we ignore numbers on Lonzo until he's in his third NBA season?


I'm saying it isn't wise to build a narrative on a prospect based on lousy rookie numbers. Some players are more polished than others entering the league. Being more polished initially doesn't necessarily mean the raw prospect won't close the gap and at some point exceed. On the flip side you can build one around impressive rookie numbers. And it is totally appropriate to do it for Ball for obvious reasons.

Clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AY2043
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 10620

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:02 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.


Well what are you saying here, so stats don't apply to NBA players until they're in their third or fourth year? When do you start taking stats into account for evaluating players then, what applies for you? Do we ignore numbers on Lonzo until he's in his third NBA season?


I'm saying it isn't wise to build a narrative on a prospect based on lousy rookie numbers. Some players are more polished than others entering the league. Being more polished initially doesn't necessarily mean the raw prospect won't close the gap and at some point exceed. On the flip side you can build one around impressive rookie numbers. And it is totally appropriate to do it for Ball for obvious reasons.

Clearly

But the narrative is that he had bad stats as a rookie but still has a lot of potential to be a very very good player. I don't understand what the problem is with that. It's an objective fact.

Everyone is rooting for him just the same
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
justsomelakerfan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 10939

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:04 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.


Well what are you saying here, so stats don't apply to NBA players until they're in their third or fourth year? When do you start taking stats into account for evaluating players then, what applies for you? Do we ignore numbers on Lonzo until he's in his third NBA season?


I'm saying it isn't wise to build a narrative on a prospect based on lousy rookie numbers. Some players are more polished than others entering the league. Being more polished initially doesn't necessarily mean the raw prospect won't close the gap and at some point exceed. On the flip side you can build one around impressive rookie numbers. And it is totally appropriate to do it for Ball for obvious reasons.

Clearly


So just making sure that I'm following you here, for your use of stats - it's OK to make an assessment on a young player if their numbers are good but not if their numbers are bad?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:06 pm    Post subject:

justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats
the funny thing is when amateurs get a hold of stats and try to do more with them than they are capable of: projecting players future performance based on limited data. NBA teams pay very smart people a lot of money to try to do this, and even they aren't that great at it. Hell, Cranjis on twitter is maybe one of the top amateur stats guys out there, and he was standing on a statistical soap box blasting the Kuzma pick, only to retract his opinions after a couple SL games.

So unless you have a PhD in math or something and get paid for your expertise in statistical analysis, you're going to have to excuse us for taking these sort of player projections with a grain of salt. Because they absolutely are opinions when it comes to player projection. Now analyzing what a player actually did on the court, that's very easy nowadays. It's fair to say that Ingram's cumulative rookie stats were poor, I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed with that. But we still think the Untouchable tag is justified. We'll see who's right in due time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:07 pm    Post subject:

AY2043 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
We'll be having an Ingram party and someone will crash in.. "Hey Hey HEEEYYYY" Knock that shet off, look at his ft percentage, stop the music, stop the dancing, have you seen his lousy 3 point shooting percentage? Take your assis home lol..

And it's all good I guess, we all should be able to express dissent, but it's always the same argument with some of you.

So honest discussion about his play isn't welcome?

Funny how you don't have this problem with regards to the Randle thread, or the Russell thread before that, where people routinely come in and bash those players without even attempting to make cogent argument regarding their play.


I didn't have a problem with it happening in the Russell thread, yet I mentioned that it was actually happening there and how absurd it was? Also Tox, Yin, and GT did a good job of putting those guys in check lol.. In regards to Randle I'm a bit ignorant of what was happening in his thread. I hardly ever go there.

If you guys want to continue to harp on Ingram's rookie numbers so be it.. I'm just expressing how silly I think it is. It's all good, we're still Laker brethren at the end of the day.

With that being said, you guys really need to rethink this idea you have that it's okay to dump on this guy because other people dumped on that guy, and why isn't this guy being dumped on more, it's not fair.. He should be getting dumped on too. We gotta be better than that. lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7825
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:11 pm    Post subject:

justsomelakerfan wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.


Well what are you saying here, so stats don't apply to NBA players until they're in their third or fourth year? When do you start taking stats into account for evaluating players then, what applies for you? Do we ignore numbers on Lonzo until he's in his third NBA season?


I'm saying it isn't wise to build a narrative on a prospect based on lousy rookie numbers. Some players are more polished than others entering the league. Being more polished initially doesn't necessarily mean the raw prospect won't close the gap and at some point exceed. On the flip side you can build one around impressive rookie numbers. And it is totally appropriate to do it for Ball for obvious reasons.

Clearly


So just making sure that I'm following you here, for your use of stats - it's OK to make an assessment on a young player if their numbers are good but not if their numbers are bad?


I'm saying you can make a more credible argument for your projection. Even though it's still a guessing game for the most part.

If a prospect shows a great deal of promise in his rookie year, then it's fair to say he has a high floor.

If a prospect has a terrible outing his rookie year, you would say that his floor is considerably lower.

Thus making it easier to make projections with the prospect who played better. Even though you can't be certain. That's just how I see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:14 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
dao wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
This is In regards to Ingram this off-season..

“Anybody that called us wanted him,” Johnson said. “We said, ‘No thank you.'”


These GM's must be nuts to want a guy as terrible as Ingram was his rookie year. And stats prove he was god awful..


1) Ingram had a terrible rookie season.
2) Ingram has the potential to be a fantastic player.

Those two things can both be true at the same time.
If you truly believe point 2, then why would you appraise him as a tier 3 prospect in the "rank our assets" thread?

GoldenThroat wrote:
Tier 1a - Lonzo Ball
Tier 1b - Nobody
Tier 2 - Nobody
Tier 3 - Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma
Tier 4 - Everyone else



It's seems pretty clear that you are much lower on Ingram going forward than most Lakers fans are. It's not simply a matter of saying he had poor stats as a rook.


I went off of the parameters as defined by the OP in that thread.

Tier 1a - "The Chosen One"
Tier 1b - "Practically Untouchable"
Tier 2 - "Premium Value"
Tier 3 - "Talented but Tradable"

I think that "Talented but Tradable" describes him pretty well. Yes, I'm well aware that I'm much lower on Ingram going forward than most Laker fans are.

I included the has the potential to be qualifier regarding him being a fantastic player, because I can simultaneously think that he won't reach that all-star/superstar level that you guys think he will while acknowledging that he has the potential to. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand here.
Ok good, now things are perfectly clear. You think he theoretically could become an All Star player, but ultimately will fail to reach this level. Receipt taken!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:17 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
dao wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
This is In regards to Ingram this off-season..

“Anybody that called us wanted him,” Johnson said. “We said, ‘No thank you.'”


These GM's must be nuts to want a guy as terrible as Ingram was his rookie year. And stats prove he was god awful..


1) Ingram had a terrible rookie season.
2) Ingram has the potential to be a fantastic player.

Those two things can both be true at the same time.
If you truly believe point 2, then why would you appraise him as a tier 3 prospect in the "rank our assets" thread?

GoldenThroat wrote:
Tier 1a - Lonzo Ball
Tier 1b - Nobody
Tier 2 - Nobody
Tier 3 - Brandon Ingram, Kyle Kuzma
Tier 4 - Everyone else



It's seems pretty clear that you are much lower on Ingram going forward than most Lakers fans are. It's not simply a matter of saying he had poor stats as a rook.


I went off of the parameters as defined by the OP in that thread.

Tier 1a - "The Chosen One"
Tier 1b - "Practically Untouchable"
Tier 2 - "Premium Value"
Tier 3 - "Talented but Tradable"

I think that "Talented but Tradable" describes him pretty well. Yes, I'm well aware that I'm much lower on Ingram going forward than most Laker fans are.

I included the has the potential to be qualifier regarding him being a fantastic player, because I can simultaneously think that he won't reach that all-star/superstar level that you guys think he will while acknowledging that he has the potential to. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand here.
Ok good, now things are perfectly clear. You think he theoretically could become an All Star player, but ultimately will fail to reach this level. Receipt taken!


Lol, you sure you want to play receipts?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dao
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 5572

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:18 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats


Yep, as it should be.. two years from now stats guys can make a more compelling argument. Or one that is credible.
correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
justsomelakerfan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 10939

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:20 pm    Post subject:

dao wrote:
justsomelakerfan wrote:
this thread @ stats
the funny thing is when amateurs get a hold of stats and try to do more with them than they are capable of: projecting players future performance based on limited data. NBA teams pay very smart people a lot of money to try to do this, and even they aren't that great at it. Hell, Cranjis on twitter is maybe one of the top amateur stats guys out there, and he was standing on a statistical soap box blasting the Kuzma pick, only to retract his opinions after a couple SL games.

So unless you have a PhD in math or something and get paid for your expertise in statistical analysis, you're going to have to excuse us for taking these sort of player projections with a grain of salt. Because they absolutely are opinions when it comes to player projection. Now analyzing what a player actually did on the court, that's very easy nowadays. It's fair to say that Ingram's cumulative rookie stats were poor, I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed with that. But we still think the Untouchable tag is justified. We'll see who's right in due time.


Sure, but there's taking numbers with a grain of salt and then there's ignoring them.

Personally, I took Cranjis' analysis on Kuzma with a grain of salt because I actually really dug Kuzma's eye test, he had some real skills and a smooth shot. I didn't think he'd be the best Laker in team history this past summer, but I did think he had the potential to be a good impact player or potential future starter if some things broke right. And he still hasn't played an NBA game yet, so who really knows now?

And I see that's what posters here do with Ingram, which is fine by me! What I'm trying to support is using numbers as context to build a more tempered conclusion about a player's trajectory.

You gotta read what I'm saying about BI, I'm not critiquing or even arguing with his Mr. Untouchable status. All I was saying was based on his statistical performance last season, it's more than BI taking a big leap to get to 20ppg... it's maybe one of the most unprecedented leaps in NBA history, so I find calling for him to have a 20ppg season basically ridiculous.

I like to take numbers and performances with a grain of salt. Numbers are absolutely telling, but they don't say everything. They still say enough to warrant not ignoring them no matter what stage of a player's career he's at. You can always learn things from them... perhaps combining them with his upward trend throughout last season and his visible skills & physical profile, you can even deduce that Brandon Ingram can become a great NBA player but he might not be fantastic right away? That's all I'm getting at.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 554, 555, 556 ... 1883, 1884, 1885  Next
Page 555 of 1885
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB