Brandon Ingram Discussion: He Is Who We Thought He Could Be

Its weird we have a fan with such poor outlook for ingram but all those sports analyst keep saying dont trade ingram

 

As a wise man once said...

Spoiler

 

Kudos to bfc for posting real into submission. Who woulda thought all it took was the use of flowcharts hahaha.

Anyways, BI the truff...but I respect your post game bfc.

I would get into defending BI further, but I just feel the sample size isn't nearly enough to consider dude's projection as a non-star. So its truly a wait and see approach.

But you brought up Mitchell (Snyder/Gobert), Tatum (Stevens/Horford) and Simmons (Brown/Embiid)....all them dudes have a system, a defensive presence and/or an established coach. Plus all these dudes is older than BI was as a rookie.

I love Luke as a coach, but he's been brought up under Phil and Kerr. Dude necessarily doesn't run the triangle (doesn't really have a legit triple post threat) or doesn't have the stars/shooting that the dubs do. So he's trying to create his own coaching lane/system, so that's a work in progress.

BI doesn't have that frontline player on defense either to make him look good on that end like all them other dudes, to where he can focus more on offense (Mitchell avg nearly 17 shot attempts, Simmons handles the rock/offense, Tatum relies on an established guard like Ky, to get efficient shots up on offense)...Jules/BLo/Mozzy really didn't afford BI that type of luxury on the offensive side of the ball in his 2 seasons.

I still believe you put players around BI (Bron) in the right system (still evolving) and allow his frame to develop (that's evolving too) and he can go places.

Now if you come back with a retort and I don't appropriately respond, its cause I'm deathly afraid of flowcharts myself.

 

I don't think I chose any specific metrics. If anything, I responded to the specific comparisons you chose (Hayward, George, Pierce) and stats you discussed.

In any case, I understand where you're coming from. These responses are getting time consuming for me to write as well while still ensuring I remain analytical and as objective as possible. Thanks for engaging in a debate about information, rather than facts. We've both presented our viewpoints, and though your's seems to be more popular at the moment, the jury is still out on Brandon Ingram.

I actually think Ingram can be effective next season. I would've liked to see him reach out to Kobe about his shooting program (the same program he gave to Trevor Ariza, which turned him from a horrible shooter to one who shot amazingly in the 2009 playoffs from deep), and I would also like to see Walton play Ingram off ball significantly more - like Livingston in the Warriors offense. I just don't like Luke much as an offensive coach - but I'll save my critique until at least the first few preseason games

 

Thanks... I guess?

In any case, I'm not trying to convince anyone of Ingram's long term outlook. Obviously I was pissed that we didn't trade for Leonard, as I was convinced the trade would put us into championship contender status. But getting labeled as a negative poster for that was strange to me, since at the end of the day I was mad that in my opinion we missed out on a chance to win. I also feel like people forgot about the fact that I was super supportive of our somewhat odd offseason moves (Rondo, Stephenson, McGee, no Lopez, etc.), and our defense first approach for next season. So when I say I don't think Ingram has franchise player potential based on what I've seen so far, and the only response back is about me rather than the argument I'm making, it was disappointing.

So me, posting something in depth like that, it's more to show everyone that there's not circus music playing in my head when I type these posts out. I actually try to think very deeply about the game when I watch. I'm not trying to change people's minds about Ingram, but rather just to get them to understand there is substance behind what I"m saying. Whether or not you agree with me, that's your decision. I can't change that.

 

Eh, I don't respect what most "sports analysts" have to say. Even the supposed "top dogs" (Zach Lowe, Bill Simmons, Nate Silver, Kevin O'Connor) are often full of s***. Cuban sums it up super well in this video:

 

That's fair, but I don't think I've been close minded as far as Ingram. I just posted above how I think he can play off ball and be effective next season. I've also repeatedly said he has all star potential in the next 3-4 years. I'm not hating on the guy. Just showing you how him making a Hayward, Leonard, or George like jump next year isn't guaranteed, by any means. The jury is still very much out on Brandon Ingram.

And for the record, I would have done Ingram/Kumza/2 firsts. Even throw in Wagner (but no more than that). Which is why I was frustrated at our decision. But, that's for a different topic...

 

I respect the effort you’ve put into your posts and the level of detail and depth of thought you go too. I feel like a few times I’ve posted similar length, detailed posts and received a lot of TLDR memes as well haha.

I see where you’re coming from with Ingram. I’m in the: I think he can improve at a slow burn pace boat. I see far more issues with Lonzo and I’ve gone into depth with it with real a few times. All our your guys are talented but flawed in some way or another.

I too was disappointed we didn’t trade for Kawhi. I think he is a top 5 MVP game changing kind of player. But we probably have a shot next offseason for him.

 

I don't want to be a dead horse and Weezy just brought it up again but Pop and the Spurs wanted the farm and the kitchen sink. They wanted Ingram, Kuzma, Hart and three first round picks.

Why are you still frustrated that Magic and Rob decided to gamble on Kawhi coming here next summer?

You keep proposing theoretical trade packages as if they were really requested or offered and then mad that they weren't accepted.

We probably won't win ot all this year but we have a chance at Kawhi next year to pair with Lebron AND the kids. That group has a better chance of winning it all than just Lebron and Kawhi.

 

I'm not going to refute this here. And I was just addressing the package @Weezy mentioned in his post. Obviously nobody knows what the Spurs actually asked for at the end of the day other than Magic, Rob, Pop, Buford, etc.

I will say though, that the last statement you made... You assume LeBron doesn't decline significantly from what you saw last year and what he will be a season from now. I would caution that assumption.

Anyways, it's done. He's a Raptor. Let's see what happens during the season. I was frustrated that day. Now, it's whatever. We gotta roll with the team we got.

 

And the package Weezy mentioned is something several reports in the know were saying. We don't know "exactly" what they wanted but when reputable reporters like Woj and Ramona kept saying they want a huge haul from the Lakers and the kitchen sink, thats what we work with in discussions.

And you assume that he does significantly drop off. Theres a reason Magic and Rob keep bringing up trying to get playmakers and tough players/defenders. Those kinds of players help extend Lebron's career. He doesn't need to play 46 mins a game handling the ball the entire time for the team to have a chance of winning.

 

After reading all that very carefully I say Brandon is going to be pretty darn good.

 

I know I am late to the party, but I just have to say one thing to @bfc1125roy

Not everyone is as analytically number driven as you are. And this is not a bad thing. Personally I love you and @therealdeal number driven arguments as it really makes me better in debates overall, but you have to realize that the majority of people on these boards don’t, so to ask them or expect them to argue in this way is unfair.

There’s a little something, I’m sure even you realize is truth, and that is the commodity known as the eye test. The eye test is how I measure and I would say how most people measure players of any specific sport. If a player passes the eye test exceptionally and his numbers back it up (ala Donovan Mitchell), then chances are that player will be something great barring a freak injury/accident. If a player doesn’t pass the eye test, but his numbers show that he is statistically good (ala Derozan) then that player won’t be highly rated and finally if a player doesn’t pass the eye test and his numbers prove that (ala Kwame Brown) then you know that player is in fact trash.

What the analytical guys do is look at the numbers and really formulate their opinion/assumption on this. An analytical guy will say Lebron is better than Jordan or Bird. A person who watches the games and knows basketball will say it is laughable to compare a Lebron with a Jordan or a James Harden with a Larry Bird. It’s difficult for an analytical guy to look at a player with just his eyes and it’s hard for a guy who uses his eye test to go look at the analytics.

So asking people who don’t focus on numbers to focus on numbers is like asking an analytical guy to focus on just what his eyes see and therein lies the disconnect. You can still have a discussion where both sides compromise a tad to see both sides a bit.

 

I actually dislike analytics when it comes to basketball analysis. I don't think they provide much insight into anything, and can be twisted to make a certain point. And this is coming from a guy who works in a field that uses very, very sophisticated statistics (far more than any basketball advanced stat). In the Kobe-Lebron article I'm working on, there's a whole section where I discredit the heavy use of analytics, specifically, advanced stats. And I totally get what you're saying, about analytics being very kind to guys like LeBron. In fact if you're interested, I have a whole thing in that article about the inherent bias the leaks into these analytics, and why players in modern offenses will always appear to be better than those who played in a different era, especially when the metric used to judge them was formulated recently. There's also the huge problem of reverse causality. I can share some of those points if you'd like.

I 100% agree with you on the eye test. It's just that my eye test tells me that Ingram has a lot of growing to do before he can be the kind of player we hope he becomes one day. Obviously, if I say that, and most people on the board feel otherwise, that's a useless discussion. So I have to use numbers to prove what I'm saying, as it's a least somewhat objective. I didn't even pull them out until @therealdeal mentioned that the numbers showed that we should be very bullish on Ingram, so naturally to refute that, I need statistics of my own.

If you look at the numbers I used though, very little of them were advanced stats. Most of the stats I used were just breakdowns of how Ingram was used in the offense. For instance I saw him pass up a lot of open spot up 3s. But when I said that, people disagreed. So I have to drill down and find the numbers that show he was in the 12th percentile in terms of spot ups, and shot a very poor percentage on those.

In fact, this is why for most of the points I made, I provided a GIF of the actual play occurring. And I discussed the exact offense being used when it was relevant. Because this is how I watch games and formulate my opinions. I see these things and make a mental note of them. However, when confronted on the validity of my opinions, I have to provide some substance. And rather than go through 59 games and clip a bunch of Ingram bricks, it's easier to just use numbers at that point.

TL;DR. I'm an eye test over stats guy any day of the week. But when my eye test conflicts with yours, and I'm called out on the numbers, stats are the only way to have a semblance of an objective discussion on the subject. And, most of the stats I used are not advanced ones, just breakdowns of how Ingram played in the Laker offense last year.

 

TB;DR

 

That’s an unnecessary comment. Just makes members who put a lot of effort and thought into their posts feel like it’s a waste of time.

 

I thought it meant too boring didn't read.