OFFICIAL BRANDON INGRAM THREAD!!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 802, 803, 804 ... 1115, 1116, 1117  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:33 pm    Post subject:

epak wrote:
I wouldn't have guessed at the start of the season that we'd have 4 guys: KCP, BI, Lonzo and Kuzma all averaging over 30 mpg.

2 rookies and a 1 year player at 30+ mpg.
That's insane. Rare to find a team with that recipe w/o a superstar going to the playoffs. But I still believe! hahah.


Yeah, it's quite a shift for Luke. JC led the team last year with 29.2mpg, and that'd be 5th most on the team this year.
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mookielala
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 2374

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:44 pm    Post subject:

Ingram is getting minutes partly because we are are shallow at SF, also he's one of the few starters who doesn't at times look like a liability (lonzo, lopez). It's pretty amazing Kuzma is getting so many minutes considering he's sharing time with LNJ and Julius. I'd like to see Julius get more minutes, so I think we should go small ball as much as we can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:46 pm    Post subject:

mookielala wrote:
Ingram is getting minutes partly because we are are shallow at SF, also he's one of the few starters who doesn't at times look like a liability (lonzo, lopez). It's pretty amazing Kuzma is getting so many minutes considering he's sharing time with LNJ and Julius. I'd like to see Julius get more minutes, so I think we should go small ball as much as we can.


To be clear, I'm perfectly fine with Ingram's minutes. I'm glad him, Lonzo, & Kuzma especially are getting so much run. It just wasn't what I expected before the season based on how Luke handled minutes last year.
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mookielala
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 2374

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
mookielala wrote:
Ingram is getting minutes partly because we are are shallow at SF, also he's one of the few starters who doesn't at times look like a liability (lonzo, lopez). It's pretty amazing Kuzma is getting so many minutes considering he's sharing time with LNJ and Julius. I'd like to see Julius get more minutes, so I think we should go small ball as much as we can.


To be clear, I'm perfectly fine with Ingram's minutes. I'm glad him, Lonzo, & Kuzma especially are getting so much run. It just wasn't what I expected before the season based on how Luke handled minutes last year.


Totally clear. Are you still making that BI vid?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
defense
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 27891

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:49 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
epak wrote:
I wouldn't have guessed at the start of the season that we'd have 4 guys: KCP, BI, Lonzo and Kuzma all averaging over 30 mpg.

2 rookies and a 1 year player at 30+ mpg.
That's insane. Rare to find a team with that recipe w/o a superstar going to the playoffs. But I still believe! hahah.


Yeah, it's quite a shift for Luke. JC led the team last year with 29.2mpg, and that'd be 5th most on the team this year.


Not sure where to go with this question so I'll just ask here. Quite a few people on LG believe the Lakers are a better team if Randle and Kuzma start next the Lonzo/KCP/Ingram. You mind giving me your opinion on this projected line up? I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something because I think that line up wouldn't make us any better, maybe even worse.

Also can you give us your preferred starting line up?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 92004
Location: Do you believe in Magic?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:50 pm    Post subject:

IIRC DLO's minutes in his 2nd year were about the same as year 1.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html

But his PPG (+2.4PPG), APG (+1.3) went up despite modest +.5 MPG. That was as close of a static representation of MPG/increase in stats as you can get. Ingram went from about 29mpg to 34mpg, which is a pretty big jump. His numbers also jumped too naturally.
_________________
We can wait. Do not trade Lonzo/BI/Kuz/Hart. Chase max FA in 2019 instead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:51 pm    Post subject:

mookielala wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
mookielala wrote:
Ingram is getting minutes partly because we are are shallow at SF, also he's one of the few starters who doesn't at times look like a liability (lonzo, lopez). It's pretty amazing Kuzma is getting so many minutes considering he's sharing time with LNJ and Julius. I'd like to see Julius get more minutes, so I think we should go small ball as much as we can.


To be clear, I'm perfectly fine with Ingram's minutes. I'm glad him, Lonzo, & Kuzma especially are getting so much run. It just wasn't what I expected before the season based on how Luke handled minutes last year.


Totally clear. Are you still making that BI vid?


Yeah, I've just decided to push it back because as of right this moment, there's a chance that I'll get to talk to Brian Keefe for a few minutes about the development stuff that they've worked on over the last year. They don't usually let media talk to assistant coaches (they don't want an assistant to contradict the head coach on anything), and they still might not let me, but it's looking promising because my intent is to strictly talk about Ingram's development.

But as a result, I gotta wait for them to get back from the road trip. It's mostly done aside from that and the voiceovers.
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
socalsp3
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2016
Posts: 2398

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject:

Food for though KD was the worse in the NBA in RPM his first two years.
_________________
Zo-Mo is coming
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:57 pm    Post subject:

defense wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
epak wrote:
I wouldn't have guessed at the start of the season that we'd have 4 guys: KCP, BI, Lonzo and Kuzma all averaging over 30 mpg.

2 rookies and a 1 year player at 30+ mpg.
That's insane. Rare to find a team with that recipe w/o a superstar going to the playoffs. But I still believe! hahah.


Yeah, it's quite a shift for Luke. JC led the team last year with 29.2mpg, and that'd be 5th most on the team this year.


Not sure where to go with this question so I'll just ask here. Quite a few people on LG believe the Lakers are a better team if Randle and Kuzma start next the Lonzo/KCP/Ingram. You mind giving me your opinion on this projected line up? I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something because I think that line up wouldn't make us any better, maybe even worse.

Also can you give us your preferred starting line up?


I think that's our best lineup, and the numbers reflect that. That particular grouping has gotten the 4th most minutes of any 5-man unit. And I think you of all people would appreciate a particular stat category here.



I think it alleviates some of the playmaking burden off of Lonzo, and allows the first unit to effectively switch everything, at least in most cases.
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:58 pm    Post subject:

socalsp3 wrote:
Food for though KD was the worse in the NBA in RPM his first two years.


I don't think RPM was available before 2013-14. Where did you hear that? Has someone calculated it for previous years?
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
defense
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 27891

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
defense wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
epak wrote:
I wouldn't have guessed at the start of the season that we'd have 4 guys: KCP, BI, Lonzo and Kuzma all averaging over 30 mpg.

2 rookies and a 1 year player at 30+ mpg.
That's insane. Rare to find a team with that recipe w/o a superstar going to the playoffs. But I still believe! hahah.


Yeah, it's quite a shift for Luke. JC led the team last year with 29.2mpg, and that'd be 5th most on the team this year.


Not sure where to go with this question so I'll just ask here. Quite a few people on LG believe the Lakers are a better team if Randle and Kuzma start next the Lonzo/KCP/Ingram. You mind giving me your opinion on this projected line up? I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something because I think that line up wouldn't make us any better, maybe even worse.

Also can you give us your preferred starting line up?


I think that's our best lineup, and the numbers reflect that. That particular grouping has gotten the 4th most minutes of any 5-man unit. And I think you of all people would appreciate a particular stat category here.

https://i.imgur.com/Xa7FOzj.png

I think it alleviates some of the playmaking burden off of Lonzo, and allows the first unit to effectively switch everything, at least in most cases.


Hopefully we get to see it this season. I'm dying to know if would work long term. I have my doubts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerQueen
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:17 pm    Post subject:

Comparing his per 36 numbers is nice, but if you gave him 33 minutes in the first 20 or so games last year would he produce at the level he is now? Absolutely not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mookielala
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 2374

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:18 pm    Post subject:

Wow, that is a pretty stark difference. Lines up with what you would think too. Good O and D.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 1345

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:21 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
defense wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
epak wrote:
I wouldn't have guessed at the start of the season that we'd have 4 guys: KCP, BI, Lonzo and Kuzma all averaging over 30 mpg.

2 rookies and a 1 year player at 30+ mpg.
That's insane. Rare to find a team with that recipe w/o a superstar going to the playoffs. But I still believe! hahah.


Yeah, it's quite a shift for Luke. JC led the team last year with 29.2mpg, and that'd be 5th most on the team this year.


Not sure where to go with this question so I'll just ask here. Quite a few people on LG believe the Lakers are a better team if Randle and Kuzma start next the Lonzo/KCP/Ingram. You mind giving me your opinion on this projected line up? I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something because I think that line up wouldn't make us any better, maybe even worse.

Also can you give us your preferred starting line up?


I think that's our best lineup, and the numbers reflect that. That particular grouping has gotten the 4th most minutes of any 5-man unit. And I think you of all people would appreciate a particular stat category here.

https://i.imgur.com/Xa7FOzj.png

I think it alleviates some of the playmaking burden off of Lonzo, and allows the first unit to effectively switch everything, at least in most cases.


Ball/KCP/BI/JR/Kuz lineup is our best lineup by far. I don't know why Luke won't give them more burn let alone start them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
epak
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 22144

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:23 pm    Post subject:

The Juggernaut wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
defense wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
epak wrote:
I wouldn't have guessed at the start of the season that we'd have 4 guys: KCP, BI, Lonzo and Kuzma all averaging over 30 mpg.

2 rookies and a 1 year player at 30+ mpg.
That's insane. Rare to find a team with that recipe w/o a superstar going to the playoffs. But I still believe! hahah.


Yeah, it's quite a shift for Luke. JC led the team last year with 29.2mpg, and that'd be 5th most on the team this year.


Not sure where to go with this question so I'll just ask here. Quite a few people on LG believe the Lakers are a better team if Randle and Kuzma start next the Lonzo/KCP/Ingram. You mind giving me your opinion on this projected line up? I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing something because I think that line up wouldn't make us any better, maybe even worse.

Also can you give us your preferred starting line up?


I think that's our best lineup, and the numbers reflect that. That particular grouping has gotten the 4th most minutes of any 5-man unit. And I think you of all people would appreciate a particular stat category here.

https://i.imgur.com/Xa7FOzj.png

I think it alleviates some of the playmaking burden off of Lonzo, and allows the first unit to effectively switch everything, at least in most cases.


Ball/KCP/BI/JR/Kuz lineup is our best lineup by far. I don't know why Luke won't give them more burn let alone start them.



Seriously. Just start them, so we can know if that lineup is for real or not. I want to see if Jules can handle the workload at his high impact rate.
_________________
👊 2018-19 NBA Champions Los Angeles Lakers 👊

Kawhi to Lakers 2018 for Deng + Zubac + Hart + 2nd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 3884
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:24 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
manlisten wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
If I can put my extreme hater hat on for a moment...how much is the perception of Ingram's progress shaped by how many minutes he's getting? He's the 5th-leading scorer on the team Per-36, 404th out of 444 players in RPM, still below replacement level in BPM, and the Lakers are scoring 9 points per 100 possessions more when he's off of the court than when he's on...but he's playing 33.7mpg (no one played more than 29.2 last year), so he's now at 16ppg. He's become really good at driving to the basket - which is not insignificant - but has he really grown all that much outside of that? If he got last year's minutes (28.8) he'd be at 13.7ppg right now, scoring at the same rate.


Putting the same hat on, how much of this take is influenced by the fact that you didn't believe he had much potential as a scorer and are sticking to it until he undeniably proves that idea to be wrong?


How about he proves my POV of him as a scorer wrong first, rather than undeniably wrong?

The biggest difference, by far, is his minutes. I expected Ingram to be a 13-14ppg guy based on the types of minutes that guys got last year. At the rate he's scored this year, he'd be averaging 13.7ppg based on the minutes he got last year (28.8). Had you told me before the year that he'd be getting 33.7mpg, I'd have guessed he'd be in the 15-16ppg range.


The main problem with this theory is that you could give more minutes to quite a few players.. and not see an increase in their scoring and field goal percentage. Not see an increase in their blocks and rebounds. You actually stated that you believed that Clarkson would average more rebounds and blocks with 5 more minutes of playing time. And that Corey Brewer would average more points and a higher FG% with more playing time. No way to prove you wrong but I doubt you find too many individuals who'd agree with that.

First the narrative was "our" perspective is nuanced and has more validity because we base our analysis on actual data, "you guys" base your analysis on the eye test. Now we have data that clearly shows progression across the board and it's dismissed because it's being attributed to more playing time.

Debate is futile for the most part, in regards to player value. Perspectives are rarely changed. I suppose we can all continue to bump heads respectfully until Ingram definitively makes it apparent that many were just flat out wrong about him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:25 pm    Post subject:

defense wrote:
Hopefully we get to see it this season. I'm dying to know if would work long term. I have my doubts.


I have some skepticism as well, and they're definitely not staying at +28 over a larger sample, but I think it's worth going to ASAP. It's not like the current starters have done a great job, and they've gotten a good deal of minutes at this point. There are some politics in benching Lopez though.
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:31 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
The main problem with this theory is that you could give more minutes to quite a few players.. and not see an increase in their scoring and field goal percentage. Not see an increase in their blocks and rebounds. You actually stated that you believed that Clarkson would average more rebounds and blocks with 5 more minutes of playing time. And that Corey Brewer would average more points and a higher FG% with more playing time. No way to prove you wrong but I doubt you find too many individuals who'd agree with that.

First the narrative was "our" perspective is nuanced and has more validity because we base our analysis on actual data, "you guys" base your analysis on the eye test. Now we have data that clearly shows progression across the board and it's dismissed because it's being attributed to more playing time.

Debate is futile for the most part, in regards to player value. Perspectives are rarely changed. I suppose we can all continue to bump heads respectfully until Ingram definitively makes it apparent that many were just flat out wrong about him.


I did not say that Brewer would average a higher FG% with more playing time. But yes, he and Clarkson would average more points, rebounds, blocks, etc. if given 5 more minutes per game, and it would likely be pretty close to whatever increase 5 more minutes per game would represent. A player is going to put up more counting numbers in 30 minutes than they do in 25. If you want to argue that, we have nothing to discuss as it pertains to that.

We have data that suggests a significant increase in his ability to drive to the basket, and marginal improvement in other areas, with perhaps the exception of shot-blocking. That's what the data suggests.
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 3884
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
The main problem with this theory is that you could give more minutes to quite a few players.. and not see an increase in their scoring and field goal percentage. Not see an increase in their blocks and rebounds. You actually stated that you believed that Clarkson would average more rebounds and blocks with 5 more minutes of playing time. And that Corey Brewer would average more points and a higher FG% with more playing time. No way to prove you wrong but I doubt you find too many individuals who'd agree with that.

First the narrative was "our" perspective is nuanced and has more validity because we base our analysis on actual data, "you guys" base your analysis on the eye test. Now we have data that clearly shows progression across the board and it's dismissed because it's being attributed to more playing time.

Debate is futile for the most part, in regards to player value. Perspectives are rarely changed. I suppose we can all continue to bump heads respectfully until Ingram definitively makes it apparent that many were just flat out wrong about him.


I did not say that Brewer would average a higher FG% with more playing time. But yes, he and Clarkson would average more points, rebounds, blocks, etc. if given 5 more minutes per game, and it would likely be pretty close to whatever increase 5 more minutes per game would represent. A player is going to put up more counting numbers in 30 minutes than they do in 25. If you want to argue that, we have nothing to discuss as it pertains to that.

We have data that suggests a significant increase in his ability to drive to the basket, and marginal improvement in other areas, with perhaps the exception of shot-blocking. That's what the data suggests.


My point is Ingram has scored more with a higher FG percentage. Which is key, which indicates an advancement in skill level. Not all players you give more minutes to will increase their scoring and FG percentage. We can agree to disagree though.

Marginal improvement across the board, with major improvement in scoring efficiency certainly qualifies as progress considering where he started last season. And I wouldn't characterize shooting almost 70% from the ft line after shooting close to 60 last season as marginal.

We wanted better FT shooting, Done..
We wanted more blocks, Done.
We wanted better off ball defense, Done.

Progression beats stagnation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
epak
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 22144

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject:

Per 36:

Year 1: 11.7 pts, 5 rebs, 2.6 asst, 40% fg, 29% 3pt, 62% ft
Year 2: 17.1 pts, 5.8 rebs, 3.1 asst, 46% fg, 30% 3pt, 68% ft

That's pretty good. The thing that I thought would push him over to the Magic Johnson expectation was an increase in ftr. He's at .405 (5.6 fta per 36) compared to .312 (3.4 fta per 36) last year.

Just as a barometer, James Harden has a ftr of .43 this year; has been over .500 the last 7 years. I think the league cracking down on BS foul calls at the 3 point line is dropping his attempts.
_________________
👊 2018-19 NBA Champions Los Angeles Lakers 👊

Kawhi to Lakers 2018 for Deng + Zubac + Hart + 2nd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 3884
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:03 pm    Post subject:

epak wrote:
Per 36:

Year 1: 11.7 pts, 5 rebs, 2.6 asst, 40% fg, 29% 3pt, 62% ft
Year 2: 17.1 pts, 5.8 rebs, 3.1 asst, 46% fg, 30% 3pt, 68% ft

That's pretty good. The thing that I thought would push him over to the Magic Johnson expectation was an increase in ftr. He's at .405 (5.6 fta per 36) compared to .312 (3.4 fta per 36) last year.

Just as a barometer, James Harden has a ftr of .43 this year; has been over .500 the last 7 years. I think the league cracking down on BS foul calls at the 3 point line is dropping his attempts.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59514
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject:

epak wrote:
Per 36:

Year 1: 11.7 pts, 5 rebs, 2.6 asst, 40% fg, 29% 3pt, 62% ft
Year 2: 17.1 pts, 5.8 rebs, 3.1 asst, 46% fg, 30% 3pt, 68% ft

That's pretty good. The thing that I thought would push him over to the Magic Johnson expectation was an increase in ftr. He's at .405 (5.6 fta per 36) compared to .312 (3.4 fta per 36) last year.

Just as a barometer, James Harden has a ftr of .43 this year; has been over .500 the last 7 years. I think the league cracking down on BS foul calls at the 3 point line is dropping his attempts.


That's elite development. It's so rare that it gets that good from year 1 to year 2.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TheBlackMamba
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 6442

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:36 pm    Post subject:

Is it fair to say that he's improved significantly as an individual scorer from where he was at this point last year, but his lack of a jumpshot and tendency to ISO (without good shooters to kick out to on his drives) are what play into his negative offensive box score plus/minus metrics since both are detrimental to the team's offensive flow and efficiency? I don't think it's just his own shooting that holds back his impact, but the lack of shooting around him, which is obviously a team-wide issue. Put shooters around him and space the floor better, all of a sudden we're much better positioned to play off of his driving ability, which is really his one gift on offense and something that's worked well for him individually even without spacing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36959

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:48 pm    Post subject:

TheBlackMamba wrote:
Is it fair to say that he's improved significantly as an individual scorer from where he was at this point last year, but his lack of a jumpshot and tendency to ISO (without good shooters to kick out to on his drives) are what play into his negative offensive box score plus/minus metrics since both are detrimental to the team's offensive flow and efficiency? I don't think it's just his own shooting that holds back his impact, but the lack of shooting around him, which is obviously a team-wide issue. Put shooters around him and space the floor better, all of a sudden we're much better positioned to play off of his driving ability, which is really his one gift on offense and something that's worked well for him individually even without spacing.


Jeremias Engelmann (the guy who came up with RPM) addressed this the other day. He said that the two main factors in ORPM disliking Ingram are his poor A:TO ratio and the fact that the Lakers score 9 points per 100 possessions more when he's off of the court.
_________________
Sign up for The Athletic through this link to get 40% off your first year's subscription: LINK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
manlisten
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 1494

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:00 pm    Post subject:

LakerSanity wrote:
manlisten wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
manlisten wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
If I can put my extreme hater hat on for a moment...how much is the perception of Ingram's progress shaped by how many minutes he's getting? He's the 5th-leading scorer on the team Per-36, 404th out of 444 players in RPM, still below replacement level in BPM, and the Lakers are scoring 9 points per 100 possessions more when he's off of the court than when he's on...but he's playing 33.7mpg (no one played more than 29.2 last year), so he's now at 16ppg. He's become really good at driving to the basket - which is not insignificant - but has he really grown all that much outside of that? If he got last year's minutes (28.8) he'd be at 13.7ppg right now, scoring at the same rate.


Putting the same hat on, how much of this take is influenced by the fact that you didn't believe he had much potential as a scorer and are sticking to it until he undeniably proves that idea to be wrong?


That's uncalled for... and he's a mod by the way, so clearly you have forgotten the rules of this forum. Address the post, not the poster.


I addressed the idea. Never said anything personal.


Your entire post was about how HE didn't believe Ingram had potential and that he is somehow stubbornly sticking to it contrary to proof which undermines his perspective, as if he has some kind of agenda.

That's addressing HIM and HIS perceived biases or perceived agenda, not whether the idea of Ingram still having ways to improve are valid or not.

No, you did not address the post... you addressed the poster. I do hope you get that distinction now (and that everyone else reading this does as well).


It's interesting that there was a post directly above mine clearly addressing a poster's intelligence or lack of that went under the radar.
_________________
It was reminiscent of one of those Most Interesting Man in the World advertisements: "I don't always shoot 6-for-28 from the field, but when I do, I become the youngest player in league history to score 28,000 career points."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 802, 803, 804 ... 1115, 1116, 1117  Next
Page 803 of 1117
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
© 1995-2010 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