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

Oh definitely like Dennis Rodman with that hair...





Plus, if you tell him to lift up his skirt, you can see if the carpet matches the drapes.

 

Wow!!!

 

Well good. That's complimentary of you to give that to him. No one here should disagree at that opinion considering what we have seen. But you give such a worried look at him this year for what reason I don't understand. What if he doesn't progress? Really? What if he gets hurt continuously playing as he has always played (most likely everyone on the team will play differently this year). So why your constant worry about his trade value? Who did you want him traded for besides Kawhi? And why could you not simply accept that the Lakers were not going to give up BI and every other talented young player, save Zo, that we had plus 1st round draft picks and some other draft or trade swap thing.

So what is the point of belaboring whether he's going to be a major star or simply a star in 2, 3 or 4 years. We have him. We couldn't draft KAT so we took BI. (and if BI really blows up he may wind up the more impactful player. Let's see how the two of them look even this year. But that's beside the point.

Why expend all the energy whether you're right or wrong in your fairly narrow look (IMO) at BI's ceiling fitting precisely into that ideal timeline for the most impatient here of having to win a title this year. We may still get Kawhi at the deadline anyway. I've said multiple times I really dislike someone capping a talented kid's career and even to a degree the timeline in getting there.

What is it you're so upset with considering the situation "is what it is"? It can't be just winning a subjective argument here. What should the Lakers have done differently with BI since they drafted him until this July 2018?

 

I'm tying up a fairly detailed response to @therealdeal 's post right now which will explain this in more detail. But you can look at the example I posted about how to use Ingram off ball rather than relying on him for 20 points a game. Maybe we can discuss that.

 

First off, thanks for actually debating what I wrote.

Obviously taking that statement to the extreme is pointless. I don't mean anyone can put up big numbers on a bad team, just that it's not something to get excited about when people are claiming Ingram rapidly become an all star that helps lead us to a championship. The only argument I've seen being made on here is his 2nd year statline, and I'm merely trying to say that on a 35 win team, I don't think it means much. Obviously scrubs will be scrubs, whether they're on a good or bad team. But more than Tyreke Evans, plenty have fallen into the trap of not being able to keep up their production when it counts. Michael Cater-Williams is another example you might remember. Honestly though, we don't have to look further than our own players, who we overrated not too long ago.

Clarkson as a Laker put up 14/3/3 and of course was highly touted as a guy who could "take and create shots in the NBA." Of course when it came time to play against legit teams in the playoffs, with LeBron spoonfeeding him, mind you, his stats plummeted to 5/2/1. This was also against bench players, not starters. You can look up the same for Larry Nance.





Now I get it, Ingram and Clarkson are not at all the same players. I'm just trying to show that CONTEXT is king. Being able to create your own shot is a different story when it's on a bad team versus a playoff caliber team.

When you talk about improvements - again context matters. Ingram did improve, no doubt, and was giving more playing time to boot. However skillset wise, I think he didn't expand in the areas I would have liked him to (more on this later). In terms of the team improving, of course we did, but you have to also understand that we acquired new players who contributed in some part to this (e.g. KCP, Lopez). You also can't understate Randle's impact - who was probably the most responsible for our late season victories.

Now, we all know I hate advanced stats, but if you want to talk about Ingram's improvement contributing to wins objectively, we can look at some:



His WS was 7th on the team last year. WS/48 was 13th. He was 10th on the team in ORPM and 13th in DRPM - so again, I don't see a meaningful contribution to our win total from his statistical improvement.

I've talked about the system and way they play mattering more than the final stat line. So now that you've made the argument, let's do a deeper dive:

First on the point of Ingram,

Like I've said, he tries to be a slasher and isolation player in the Laker offense, but his shooting is a huge bottleneck, forcing him to drive to the rim every time. Teams that are smart know exactly what's coming, and can contain it. His lack of upper body strength also leads to repeated injuries because he can't finish through contact. I also don't think we will use him as a primary ball handler in the PnR next season, especially when we have Rondo, LeBron, and even Ball. However, because everyone was enamored with his ability to play point guard: (not sure if this will embed properly)



You can see that a good defensive team like the Raptors employs drop coverage on Ingram here out of the pick and roll, forcing him to shoot midrange, where he was ineffective last season.

The other option is to just pull up from 3 (like the below GIF), but Ingram's stroke and gather makes him take way too long to get this shot off:



If you want him to play off ball, like I do, then his hesitation to shoot open 3 pointers is a huge problem:



Now for the glorious numbers (these are a hair outdated, but bare with me)



Looking at Ingram's spot ups, he was in the 12th percentile for no dribble jumpers. But when attacking the basket, it jumps to the 74th percentile. Playing off ball with LeBron, I don't see much effectiveness taking open looks. But attacking closeouts, you can see that he has some skill there. Of course when defenses know this, they can easily anticipate this and force him into help (Draymond is elite at doing this to non shooting threats on the perimeter). I've also mentioned the injury concerns that go along with this.



Now, let's look at some of the players you want to compare Ingram to. I'll use Paul George, Gordon Hayward, and Paul Pierce here, since I think Ingram can reach Danny Granger status eventually, and his game more closely resembles his than either of those other two guys.

Starting with George,






Right off the bat, you can see that Ingram and George played somewhat similarly. However, he was used much more often in the PnR, and was pretty poor in that regard compared to George. As a shooter, while George's percentiles were not as favorable in the above table, the foundation was there. He shot 39% from 3 on 3.5 attempts per game, and over 80% from the free throw line.



Overall, at both getting to the rim and shooting from the perimeter, George's abilities clearly exceeded Ingram's at that point. And, this was all done on a playoff caliber team.

Defensively, as well, George had the upper hand, being 3rd on the Pacers that year in DBPM. Not to mention the Pacers took the Miami Heat to 6 games in the playoffs, with George playing respectable as well. Most knew at the very least, George would be a defensive stopper... we can't say the same about Brandon Ingram at this point.



I also want to point out that Frank Vogel notably was a terrible offensive coach. We all saw it with the Indiana teams. There was very little motion to the Pacer's offense, and it relied on George to create off the dribble repeatedly. That actually makes George's output here, all the more impressive.

Second, let's move onto Gordon Hayward. I don't have syngery stats for his 2nd season at the moment, but we can follow a similar blueprint...

In his second season, you can see that Hayward had the tools to become a very good shooter, with a decent clip from 3 at 35%, but more importantly a very good FT% at above 83%. While both finished well at the rim in their second season, you can see that Hayward stats from 3-10 ft, 10-16 ft, and 16-3pt line all exceeded Ingram's. The foundation for him to be a threat from the outside was well established at this point.





Corbin played a similar flex offense to Sloan, but shifted focus to the post significantly more - 17.1% of their possessions in Corbin's first season finished with a post up, compared to less than 10% in Sloan's final season. This stifled Hayward's offensive ability overall. Other than his assist rate, which eventually rose to 24%, his ability wasn't unlocked until the Jazz started leaning on him more to penetrate.



Stats don't exist for pick and roll possessions back in the 2011-2012 season, but if you watched the Jazz, you know that Hayward wasn't given the ball much in positions to attack, as the offense deferred to Jefferson and Milsap. Rather he was the recipient of a lot of assists out of the post (majority of his shots that season were assisted). Contrast that to Ingram's, whose shots were not (i.e. he was already given the green light to attack, rather than defer).





It took a change in their strategy to realize Hayward's ability. In contrast, Ingram has already been given the trust Hayward never had under Corbin, but hasn't made use of it.

Defensively, like George, it was clear back then that Hayward was very gifted. He held a prime Kobe to 6-18 shooting in a game against the Lakers (https://archive.is/20130121144516/h...kers-86-85-behind-22-from-Gordon-Hayward.html). The Jazz were not a good defensive team, but the skills were there. Anybody who watched the Jazz knew that back then. Again, Ingram's defense is a question mark at this point.

Third, addressing Paul Pierce.

I'm actually surprised you used Pierce as a comparison, because other than that one statline, there is nothing similar about how they played or their skills. Pierce was a much larger forward, who could play physically and bully his way to the basket. He was also slower, and never a good defender. Ingram is a more finesse player, preferring to use his speed, length, and quickness to attack.

Pierce scored 19 or more points in 10 of his first 11 games in the NBA. By his third season, he was averaging 25/6/3 as the primary option on the C Bags. I don't think anyone expects Ingram to be capable of that next season. The C Bags being bad was true no doubt, but it was clear Pierce was good enough to be a primary option to lead his team to a championship very early on. And like you said, he had more college experience under his belt at that point in his career, so I don't know why you would use him as an example. Putting up empty stats on a bad team doesn't mean much, but when a player like Pierce is able to put up 25/6/3 and drag a pathetic C Bags team to that many wins, it's very obvious those aren't "empty" stats, especially when he's the primary option on a team where defenses every night were catered to stopping him.



Pierce has little to no similarity to Ingram at any point in his career, so I won't continue the in depth analysis any more for the sake of brevity.

I've given more than enough numbers at this point. I think this has been beaten to death.

What everyone uses to point to Ingram's success is when we played him at point guard and used him in the PnR. However, I showed how Ingram was putrid in that setting already. His usage may not be high, because he wasn't effective at generating meaningful offense for the team, so we had to rely on other players like Randle and Kuzma who were better at getting to the rim and collapsing the defense.

I understand what Magic, LeBron, and even Walton see. Ingram is very good at getting to the rim. However, this style of play is going to lead to injury, because he can't sustain that degree of contact over the rigor of an 82 game season without more upper body mass, which he can't gain in one offseason. Eventually, he will get there, but relying on him to generate points via penetration is asking for him to get injured again. We have no problem criticizing player's on other teams for being injury-prone, like Chris Paul, so why can't we do the same with our own guys when it's clear their playstyle is the cause of this.

The alternative is for Ingram to be an off ball spot up shooter and cutter. However, he doesn't cut much off ball (partially Luke's fault), and is a horrible spot up shooter, preferring to pass up open shots to attack close-outs, which again, ties back into my previous point.

With LeBron, Ingram can either play the role an elite perimeter scorer who can create on his own (Wade, Irving), a legit spot up threat (Bosh, Love), or a defensive stopper. At this point, he has failed at showing he is capable of fulfilling any of these roles. And I don't think he will be effective next year for these reasons.

In my opinion, we are lacking elite perimeter scoring and lockdown perimeter defense. I wish Ingram would focus on developing these aspects of his game, but I am not convinced based on his trajectory so far, than he will do so in the next 1-2 seasons. The coaching staff, front office, and Ingram himself seem to be forcing him into the type of player who can be a perimeter oriented ball handler and create for others in the pick and roll. But that's not his game - not yet anyways - and could potentially lead to a disappointing start of the season if he doesn't realize it.

 

Like I said, I don't hate Ingram, but I do have my reasons for not being as high on him as maybe others are. There's a lot more to basketball than just box score stats. Anyone who has ever played or coached can attest to that.

 

I haven't read all that most recent post since you were not really addressing my small and specifically different set of questions.

 

Look back at the previous page where I showed how Ingram can be better utilized off ball (I talked about that post in my reply to you previously, as well).

My response to @therealdeal has more stats and information to back up why this is necessary for Ingram to succeed next year.

 

How about you answering the basic questions here about the source of the high degree of angst and yeah a pretty good level of negativity towards Ingram since Kawhi was dealt to Toronto?

 

I'm not unnecessarily negative towards BI, or angsty about him. I've posted in great detail why I think he's somewhat overrated as a prospect. I've watched him for 2 years now, and I've explained clearly what I see.

This has nothing to do with Leonard. I know I was in support of trading him for Leonard, but that's done, so it's irrelevant. I haven't been high on Ingram since the middle of last season. I've watched games, read breakdowns, and done my homework. I think it's pretty clear at this point there isn't circus music playing in my head when I'm presenting my opinion.

As far as his trade value, I'm talking about it in this context. Everyone automatically assumes BI will improve greatly next season. I hope he does. But honestly, there's also the possibility that he moves laterally or even backwards in terms of his production, depending on how well he adjusts to a LeBron led offense. Since I don't view BI as a cornerstone franchise player, especially if he doesn't reach his full potential, then I have to view him as the asset he is: a versatile wing player. If he doesn't improve, that asset loses value. D'Angelo Russell is a great example of this. And ironically, he was a player we tried to force into a role that didn't fit him (playmaking point guard).

As for how Luke should have used him in the offense thusfar, I responded to your previous post about an example of how to use Ingram off ball. This is the 3rd time I'm referencing this post, so go ahead and take a look.

If you're content to just wait and see what happens, that's fine. But don't get agitated when you pop into a thread on a Lakers board about Brandon Ingram and see there are opposing view points to how effective he will be next season, and start blindly criticizing whoever doesn't share your viewpoint without at least attempting to understand where they are coming from.

 

Well you've been real negative like we could be in a better place than having him on the roster. And obviously we will see with what kind of an offense they come up with. But we drafted him and and it was the correct choice and we will see where he is next year. It is what it is and I expect the organization to run their entirely new roster as how they best see fit. So no need to have gone on about whether it's a big risk or anything. There was and is nothing better to be had for him as long as it looks like we ought to be able to retain him while still acquiring Leonard if Leonard truly wants to be here. It's all on Leonard now and I expect from what I have seen exciting things to come this year from Ingram with his steady progress rather than him conceivably not improving measurably or hurting himself because of the way he was being utilized last year. Nothing this year will be like last year. Kind of a glass half empty vs should be 3/4 full evaluation of Ingram is what I got out of all the first posts.

And the colorful reference to I guess what you see as heard mentality here in over valuing our young prospects in a broad brush fashion when we were specifically talking about Brandon Ingram.


"If you're content to just wait and see what happens, that's fine."

See there ya go. As opposed to doing WHAT?

 

All I'm saying is I don't think there's much to be enamored about. He wasn't the primary offensive option, we didn't win a lot of games, and he really only had one way of attacking (driving to the rim). That isn't indicative to me of a player that will thrive alongside LeBron in any capacity, without major adjustments.

We can compare him to players who made a jump from their first year to second year, and continued to get better, eventually reaching all star status. The short answer is, we don't know what's going to happen to Ingram next season. The longer answer is, we can see how each of those players played within their offense. How they generated their baskets. And ultimately, the indicators that allowed them to progress into being elite offensive (or two-way) players in this league. You need context for statistics.

There's plenty of history showing my dislike of advanced stats. In fact the first thread I made here about my Kobe vs. LeBron article (http://lakersball.com/threads/help-with-kobe-lebron-article.3100/) has multiple posts about me talking about how advanced stats aren't great for player comparisons. Funnily enough, the first section of my article is titled "Why stats, especially advanced stats, aren't everything."

In the Andrew Bynum thread, I talked about how while his numbers in the 2011-2012 season appear to be good on the sura=face, the 4 out 1 in offense we ran through him ultimately caused our demise in the 2nd round due to Bynum's inability to facilitate out of the post.

I'm pretty sure I also was in a discussion with you about why Brook Lopez wouldn't be a good fit on this team. You had brought in advanced stats about rim protection (and DRPM I believe? but don't quote me on that) and I was countering with the flaws in those numbers.

I haven't actually used many advanced stats, other than Win Shares and DBPM. Most of the numbers I used were just breakdowns of the same stats you've presented. Things like what plays a player generated his points from, how effective they were in certain situations, and more details about scoring (e.g. where on the court the basket was made, was it assisted or unassisted). I also used rankings against other NBA players to put this into perspective. This is what I mean by adding context to statistics. Understanding the scenario from which the numbers came from is more important than the actual numbers itself.

I used Win Shares and DBPM for a couple of reasons. One, in your own words, "The proof is in the numbers." Second, you used advanced stats in the original post (USG%). Third, you wanted hard proof against the fact that Ingram's increased production wasn't greatly responsible for our team's increased win total. The eye test doesn't work for these purposes, while those statistics do exactly that. I was merely trying to communicate my point in a language you seem to understand and prefer.

All of my analysis comes from watching games, looking at offensive and defensive schemes, and breaking them down accordingly. In fact, that's why for a lot of the scenarios I explained with numbers, I added an example of a play that illustrated my point. That's how I think and view the game. Stats can help back this up when the context is correct. But if you would like to focus on a more stats-based argument, which it seemed like you did, I am happy to go that route as well. And I think I've provided more than enough statistics to support my statements, regardless.

I think you're moving the goal posts here, more than me.

We have to evaluate players on 2 fundamental skills: offense and defense.

For George and Hayward, I showed how it was very clear by the conclusion of their 2nd seasons that their floor as a player was being a good defender. If anything, their offense was what came into question. Ingram on the other hand, hasn't shown nearly the same abilities to be a lockdown defender, nor the desire to be one (again, he has the skillset to be one, but will he prioritize this?)

But going into their offenses, for Hayward, I talked about how his production was limited because he wasn't given the green light. I can't go back and ask Corbin to let Hayward attack more instead of posting up Al Jefferson every time down, so we don't know what would have been. What we do know though, is that once Synder came onboard and let Hayward attack, their offense flourished and the Jazz became a playoff team. On the subject of spot up shooting, I showed how Hayward was much further along in his shooting than Ingram at that point their respective careers, so while it wasn't a stretch to project Hayward as becoming a good shooter, it was for Ingram.

On the subject of George, I never mentioned how George didn't have to create to impress me. In fact I stated he was better in the PnR, better at shooting, and better at getting to the rim than Ingram all by his 2nd year - and provided the numbers to back it up. I also stated he did this in an offense run by a coach notorious for his terrible offensive coaching (Vogel), which makes it more impressive. So I'm not sure where you're getting any of that from.

Looking at Paul Pierce, like I said, completely different story. He's a tier above even Hayward and George right now on the offensive end. If you watched the C Bags back then, it was obvious he was going to be an elite scorer in his rookie year, if not in his 2nd year. His team was bad, sure, but there's an important nuance here. Pierce put up pretty good numbers (elite by his 3rd year) on a bad team where he was THE primary scoring option. That means defenses were geared to stopping him, and Pierce had very few offensive alternatives to rely on. This is the same reason why Kobe's 35 ppg in 2006 is extremely impressive as well. Ingram was not the primary scoring option on the Lakers. In fact he was so poor at generating offense, that Kuzma, a rookie, took away a lot of that responsibility from him early in the season. Ingram may very well project to be a better defensive player than Pierce ever was, but on offense, it's not even a question.

Multiple people have brought up that same stretch of games, so I was addressing them all at once, my apologies.

In any case, I've put out the numbers that Ingram was not good at generating offense in the PnR throughout the season. You give an explanation for why they are poor, and that's fine, but you completely ignored the points I brought up for why I'm not optimistic about his ability to improve here, specifically on the point of drop coverage:

1) He can't score against drop coverage because it takes away the drive to the rim, forcing him to shoot midrange, which goes back to his shooting woes.

2) The other option is going for the 3. But, the time it takes him to gather and release his shot makes him unable to shoot 3's out of the PnR efficiently

The key here is: "once he fills out a bit." It's not going to happen in 1 offseason. In fact, given his small and lanky frame, will probably take him 3-4 years. He has improved at the rim by learning how to use his length, but playing like he does without the requisite upper body strength (which will take years to develop) leads to injury. Other players in a similar situation, like Durant, were able to shift their playing style to a perimeter based game (what I've been advocating Ingram do repeatedly), but Ingram's poor shooting prevents this.

The Lakers used Ingram A LOT in pick and rolls last year. It was nearly 40% of all his possessions, yet he was in the 24th percentile in the league in those situations. If you think this will change, then let's run the following thought experiment.

You mention that Ingram is best at attacking the rim. Well what are the 4 ways you can attack the rim in an NBA offense?

1) Isolation - I don't think anyone wants Ingram to repeatedly ISO next year.

2) PnR - You seem to think we won't do this.

3) Off of closeouts - This is valid, but once defenses realize this is the only way you will attack the rim, they can easily prevent it. See the Draymond GIF I posted in my previous post.

4) In transition - He may do this well, but ultimately it makes his offensive options limited outside of transition play. And of course, the injury concerns come up again.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "guys who can create their own shot." Outside of Stephenson, I don't see it. Ball and Rondo are facilitators. We don't want KCP trying to create his own shot. Kuzma can do it, but he's coming off the bench. That leaves us with McGee.

Of course with Ingram, other than attacking the rim in transition, him creating his own offense isn't a good idea. What he needs to work on is his perimeter and off ball game. But judging on his hesitation to shoot and free throw percentages, I think it's foolish to think he will be elite from there anytime soon. That leaves slashing - which at this point will lead to injury, like last year. This is why I keep saying he should primarily focus on being an off ball cutter while he builds his strength and works on his jumper. That will maximize his value most with our facilitators in LeBron, Ball, Rondo, etc.

 

I see I'm going to have to update this gif

 

College Ingram vs. Today

 

more tattoos creates the illusion that he's gained some weight

 

I thought this was the Ingram thread not the Wes Johnson.