Jump to content


Photo

Build a contender around youngsters


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

Poll: Build a contender around youngsters (6 member(s) have cast votes)

Does the young core need veteran help to turn this team into contender? If so, what sort of support they should receive?

  1. No,they don't need veteran help, they just need some time. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Yes, role players that cover their weaknesses would be adequate help. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Yes, an elite player leading this team for a few years would help them the most. (5 votes [83.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 83.33%

  4. Yes, they need multiple elite players to show them how to win. (1 votes [16.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

What are the areas this team needs to be supported most? (Pick only two)

  1. Defense (2 votes [18.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  2. Offense (2 votes [18.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  3. Shooting (3 votes [27.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

  4. Effort / Toughness (1 votes [9.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  5. Experience (3 votes [27.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.27%

Compared to other young teams, how would you describe the overall level of this current core?

  1. Already better, and have higher potential than other teams. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. About the same, but have higher potential than other teams. (4 votes [66.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  3. Worse, but can be better in future. (2 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  4. Worse, and they don't have as much upside. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted May 28, 2018 - 07:58 AM

I don’t necessarily disagree with that approach although I thought this thread assumed that wasn’t a possibility.

 

And honestly, if we strike out this summer, who is realistically going to be available in 2019? PG, Lebron probably wont be available. Kawhi/Klay/Butler/Kemba, perhaps, but Klay looks to be signing an extension and Kawhi either signs a super-max OR gets moved. So are you really holding out for Jimmy Butler and/or Kemba?

 

You also have to consider that the market right now is completely saturated with talent and there’s a lot more talent available than there is money to spend. Some teams also are way above the cap so there could be talent to be had that way as well.

 

Free Agency isn't the only way to acquire talent.  Carry most of our cap space into the season.  Be prepared to take on contracts or help other teams facilitate trades while stockpiling draft picks. 

 

If we get really lucky, a disgruntled star who is in the final year of his contract forces his way to the Lakers.  We can absorb his contract, give them young players and draft picks and have someone to build around.

 

I don't think it's about striking now.  I think we need to strike at the right time.  We can add mid-tier talent any and every year.  If we add a Superstar (or 2) first, our remaining cap space becomes much more valuable.  Mid Tier players will take less to play with Elite players.  If you spend the money on mid tier players first, you won't have that money to spend on the Elite Players later...and you're not convincing Elite Players to take less when there's more money on the table from better teams.

 

Cart before the horse.

 

A lot of Lakers fans assume Randle or Ingram will make the leap into SuperStardom.  That's the only explanation for trying to skip steps that seem vital for our future.  Seems like you assume that putting role players around Ingram or Randle helps them become stars sooner...please consider the other possible outcome:

 

Surrounding Ingram or Randle with role players doesn't change who they are, which is not a #1 option guy on a good team.


Edited by GCMD, May 28, 2018 - 08:01 AM.

  • bfc1125roy likes this

tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#22 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted May 28, 2018 - 11:03 AM

It really is about striking now if you believe in BI or Lonzo, which i do. Now or 2019.

#23 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted May 28, 2018 - 06:22 PM

It really is about striking now if you believe in BI or Lonzo, which i do. Now or 2019.

 

I believe in Lonzo 100% to be Lonzo.

 

I believe that Ingram has potential to add to his game.

 

 

I also believe that neither is anywhere close to what we'd need as a foundational piece:

 

Lonzo needs to either shoot better from the outside or get better attacking the rim.

Ingram needs to either gain 20lbs of muscle or become a deadly shooter or learn how to play off the ball.

 

 

When one of them becomes a #1 option guy, it will be clear to everyone.  Lonzo is closer to a foundational piece right now (IMHO) because Lonzo EASILY has a bigger effect on the culture of this team.  At their best, maybe 3 players in the NBA can replicate what Lonzo does and at least 30 players who can replicate what Ingram does. 

 

We need people to build around.  Believing in Lonzo or Ingram doesn't make them "the guys".


  • KidRN likes this

tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#24 Tensai

Tensai

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,345 posts

Posted May 28, 2018 - 06:34 PM

@DLF

 

Among the 5 areas in the poll, which of the two do you think this young core needs to be supported with?


fXlFKv8.gif

 


#25 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted May 28, 2018 - 09:01 PM

I believe in Lonzo 100% to be Lonzo.

 

I believe that Ingram has potential to add to his game.

 

 

I also believe that neither is anywhere close to what we'd need as a foundational piece:

 

Lonzo needs to either shoot better from the outside or get better attacking the rim.

Ingram needs to either gain 20lbs of muscle or become a deadly shooter or learn how to play off the ball.

 

 

When one of them becomes a #1 option guy, it will be clear to everyone.  Lonzo is closer to a foundational piece right now (IMHO) because Lonzo EASILY has a bigger effect on the culture of this team.  At their best, maybe 3 players in the NBA can replicate what Lonzo does and at least 30 players who can replicate what Ingram does. 

 

We need people to build around.  Believing in Lonzo or Ingram doesn't make them "the guys".

 

Ok, that's fair. But i disagree. Most players - even MVP-level players such as Curry, Harden, Klay, Kawhi, George, Giannis Westbrook etc. - dont make a jump until they're 21-22 years old and i think Lonzo and BI already is on par with what all these guys did at the same point in their careers. Therefor giving up on guys this early is a horrible way to manage an asset. The only reason why you give up on someone this early is if you can land an established star or if you can pinpoint areas in their game where they wont be able to build on. I'm curious to know what aspects of BI and Lonzo's game you dont think can be improved on.

 

 

 

@DLF

 

Among the 5 areas in the poll, which of the two do you think this young core needs to be supported with?

 

I'd say:

Experience and shooting is the most important. That would really REALLY improve their offense. Defensively, they're able to be in the top 10 and one of the reason is that they're tough and switchy.



#26 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted May 30, 2018 - 05:02 PM

Ok, that's fair. But i disagree. Most players - even MVP-level players such as Curry, Harden, Klay, Kawhi, George, Giannis Westbrook etc. - dont make a jump until they're 21-22 years old and i think Lonzo and BI already is on par with what all these guys did at the same point in their careers. Therefor giving up on guys this early is a horrible way to manage an asset. The only reason why you give up on someone this early is if you can land an established star or if you can pinpoint areas in their game where they wont be able to build on. I'm curious to know what aspects of BI and Lonzo's game you dont think can be improved on.

 

 

You can't extrapolate our players without ignoring that other players could be extrapolated too.  Only a few players reach the status of Curry, Harden, Kawhi, Giannis, et cetera.  VERY FEW continue growing linearly over their career.

 

Lonzo and Ingram, no matter what they have done thus far, are still far off from the guys you listed.  I'm not sure why you assume they will make the massive leaps those guys made.

 

Look at their games as they are.  I'm saying they need to show and prove before I call them foundational pieces.  You want to create a future based on something that you have no evidence of...and what the other SUPERSTARS did at 19 or 20 is not evidence.  Those guys are the exception, not the rule.


tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#27 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted May 30, 2018 - 11:21 PM

You can't extrapolate our players without ignoring that other players could be extrapolated too.  Only a few players reach the status of Curry, Harden, Kawhi, Giannis, et cetera.  VERY FEW continue growing linearly over their career.

 

Lonzo and Ingram, no matter what they have done thus far, are still far off from the guys you listed.  I'm not sure why you assume they will make the massive leaps those guys made.

 

Look at their games as they are.  I'm saying they need to show and prove before I call them foundational pieces.  You want to create a future based on something that you have no evidence of...and what the other SUPERSTARS did at 19 or 20 is not evidence.  Those guys are the exception, not the rule.

 

I dont assume these guys will make the same kind of leap as those other guys. But based on how most nba stars have developed over the years I think it’s fair to assume that IF they will make a leap it most likely will come between yr 1 and 2, 2 and 3 or 3 and 4. For that reason it isn’t a good idea to give up on them this early unless you get back established talent, if you see unfixable holes in these player’s games or if their development stagnate between the early years.

 

As for guys having success early I think that has much more to do with system, style of play, opportunity and physical maturity.



#28 LakerGeezer

LakerGeezer

    Sixth Man

  • Member
  • 3,866 posts
  • Location:North Korea
  • Fan Since:1990
  • Fav. Laker:Dennis Rodman

Posted May 31, 2018 - 02:54 PM

Here's another possible approach to consider, assuming:

-GSW avoids major injury, can keep their core together and dominate the WC for the next 3 years

-No LBJ for us

 

Then:

-Keep all our young guys, including Randle, let them play and develop

-Use cap space to take on some "bad" contracts, making GMs package them with young assets or draft picks.  The last year of each contract usually turns into an asset.  And there are alot of bad ones out there, from the spending spree 2 summers ago.  My #1 target might be Carmelo Anthony- one year left on his contract, bad locker room situation developing etc. OKC is very likely going to move him, particularly if the re-sign PG.   If he reverts to being a knucklehead here, we just buy him out.

 

 

 

Fast forward a year.  We're sitting on a year more of player development, some additional draft picks, and a mountain of cap space.  On the FA market (pure FAs or player options) will/ could be:

-Kawhi

-Klay

-Kyrie

Possibly others, depending on who signs on what terms this summer.

 

 

Also, Houston is going to have to make a big move.  Paul is coming back but they need someone else to get over the hump, but have a cap issue.  Morey is likely willing to make a deal involving a pick/ young asset and Anderson.  Shoot, Capela may be in play too.  I'd take Anderson's contract coupled with Capela in an S&T, at the right price.



#29 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted May 31, 2018 - 07:49 PM

I dont assume these guys will make the same kind of leap as those other guys. But based on how most nba stars have developed over the years I think it’s fair to assume that IF they will make a leap it most likely will come between yr 1 and 2, 2 and 3 or 3 and 4. For that reason it isn’t a good idea to give up on them this early unless you get back established talent, if you see unfixable holes in these player’s games or if their development stagnate between the early years.

 

As for guys having success early I think that has much more to do with system, style of play, opportunity and physical maturity.

 

You can't take stats and extrapolate growth into a Star because Star Status is the exception, not the rule.  Lonzo and Ingram could become the best players in the NBA or they could stay the same.

 

When they show they are growing into stars, it won't be a debate.  Right now, you're seeing what you want to see.  There isn't a 1st or 2nd year player in the NBA you couldn't make the same "Potential Star" argument for. 

 

Take Tatum vs Ingram.  If you just look at their stats from Regular Season, you'd assume Ingram was the better player (16.1ppg / 5.3rpg / 3.9apg vs 13.9ppg / 5.0rpg / 1.6apg).  90% of NBA fans would tell you they'd rather have Tatum, a rookie, over Ingram a sophomore.  Why?  Tatum was the most NBA Ready player in the draft and was a gifted scorer even in college.  Tatum is clearly a better scorer in the NBA and right now, I'd bet on him becoming a star before Ingram.   Ingram wasn't the best anything in college and that hasn't changed in the NBA.

 

Belief in a player isn't evidence of their star potential.  By definition, if the majority of NBA fans don't see that player as a star, they aren't.  Are you suggesting that even 1/3rd of NBA fans think Ingram is a star or even close to being a star?  I'd challenge that claim.


tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#30 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted May 31, 2018 - 07:55 PM

Here's another possible approach to consider, assuming:

-GSW avoids major injury, can keep their core together and dominate the WC for the next 3 years

-No LBJ for us

 

Then:

-Keep all our young guys, including Randle, let them play and develop

-Use cap space to take on some "bad" contracts, making GMs package them with young assets or draft picks.  The last year of each contract usually turns into an asset.  And there are alot of bad ones out there, from the spending spree 2 summers ago.  My #1 target might be Carmelo Anthony- one year left on his contract, bad locker room situation developing etc. OKC is very likely going to move him, particularly if the re-sign PG.   If he reverts to being a knucklehead here, we just buy him out.

 

 

 

Fast forward a year.  We're sitting on a year more of player development, some additional draft picks, and a mountain of cap space.  On the FA market (pure FAs or player options) will/ could be:

-Kawhi

-Klay

-Kyrie

Possibly others, depending on who signs on what terms this summer.

 

 

Also, Houston is going to have to make a big move.  Paul is coming back but they need someone else to get over the hump, but have a cap issue.  Morey is likely willing to make a deal involving a pick/ young asset and Anderson.  Shoot, Capela may be in play too.  I'd take Anderson's contract coupled with Capela in an S&T, at the right price.

 

If we don't get Franchise Altering Players in Free Agency, we shouldn't overpay for anyone.  We shouldn't take any contracts that are longer than 1 year.

 

We can sign Capela outright if we don't get LeBron or PG13.  No need to hamper our future spending by taking a bad contract in a S&T.  All that does is helps HOU land LeBron or PG13...

 

Could we overpay our OWN Free Agents on 1 year deals?  Sure.  They'd be EXCELLENT trade assets and we already know how they fit.

 

No need to take on bad contracts, ever...expiring?  Sure...


tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#31 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted May 31, 2018 - 09:47 PM

You can't take stats and extrapolate growth into a Star because Star Status is the exception, not the rule.  Lonzo and Ingram could become the best players in the NBA or they could stay the same.

 

When they show they are growing into stars, it won't be a debate.  Right now, you're seeing what you want to see.  There isn't a 1st or 2nd year player in the NBA you couldn't make the same "Potential Star" argument for. 

 

Take Tatum vs Ingram.  If you just look at their stats from Regular Season, you'd assume Ingram was the better player (16.1ppg / 5.3rpg / 3.9apg vs 13.9ppg / 5.0rpg / 1.6apg).  90% of NBA fans would tell you they'd rather have Tatum, a rookie, over Ingram a sophomore.  Why?  Tatum was the most NBA Ready player in the draft and was a gifted scorer even in college.  Tatum is clearly a better scorer in the NBA and right now, I'd bet on him becoming a star before Ingram.   Ingram wasn't the best anything in college and that hasn't changed in the NBA.

 

Belief in a player isn't evidence of their star potential.  By definition, if the majority of NBA fans don't see that player as a star, they aren't.  Are you suggesting that even 1/3rd of NBA fans think Ingram is a star or even close to being a star?  I'd challenge that claim.

 

Dont agree with this at all. Historically players largely follow the same developmental curve and while you do have guys that look like stars from day one - Lebron, Shaq, Blake (and Tyreke, MCW) - the vast majority of the stars at least took a few seasons to develop. Exactly how long it takes for these guys to develop depend on how early they come out, what type of skills they come in with along with their physical maturity. For instance, Blake came in after two years of college, red-shirted one season with an injury and as a 21-year old that was completely mature physically so he obviously did well.

 

A guy like Ingram in particular is the type of player that take a while to develop because he came in as the 2nd youngest player in the draft and was obviously not anywhere close to fully developed physically. He still is among the youngest in the league and still isn't anywhere close physically.

 

I'm not going to argue that Tatum doesn't look like a future all-star and he looks better at this point in his career than the vast majority of the guys who were named all-nba players this season. My point is that when you draft someone then you have to allow them a certain amount of time to develop their game.

 

As for what fans think – I couldn’t care less. Fans are so [expletive]ing stupid its ridiculous. They see Donovan Mitchell blow up as a rookie and they’re ready to use that to pass judgement on their own guys.



#32 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 01, 2018 - 12:15 AM

Dont agree with this at all. Historically players largely follow the same developmental curve and while you do have guys that look like stars from day one - Lebron, Shaq, Blake (and Tyreke, MCW) - the vast majority of the stars at least took a few seasons to develop. Exactly how long it takes for these guys to develop depend on how early they come out, what type of skills they come in with along with their physical maturity. For instance, Blake came in after two years of college, red-shirted one season with an injury and as a 21-year old that was completely mature physically so he obviously did well.

 

A guy like Ingram in particular is the type of player that take a while to develop because he came in as the 2nd youngest player in the draft and was obviously not anywhere close to fully developed physically. He still is among the youngest in the league and still isn't anywhere close physically.

 

I'm not going to argue that Tatum doesn't look like a future all-star and he looks better at this point in his career than the vast majority of the guys who were named all-nba players this season. My point is that when you draft someone then you have to allow them a certain amount of time to develop their game.

 

As for what fans think – I couldn’t care less. Fans are so [expletive]ing stupid its ridiculous. They see Donovan Mitchell blow up as a rookie and they’re ready to use that to pass judgement on their own guys.

 

I'm not saying a player can't develop or that they should come into the NBA as a finished product.

 

 

I'm saying that if you are building your franchise around a core, you need reasons to believe those core players are future stars or foundational pieces.

 

 

 

Lonzo is a foundational piece/glue guy/culture changing floor general, no question.  What he brings to the table, it was clear from Day 1.

 

Kuzma has the potential to be an elite scorer.  His scoring prowess and tendencies were clear from Day 1.

 

Randle can be a star on a squad that is constructed around his strengths and weaknesses.  Will that team be good?  That's the question.

 

 

 

Ingram does what?  At Duke, he was a reluctant scorer and had to be prodded to be the leader.  He's not a great outside shooter...decent.  He's not a great rebounder...decent to above average.  He's not a great ball handler...decent to above average.  He's a good defender because of his length but he's not DPOY material either, yet.  So what's special about him?

 

 

If you want to make a case for Randle, Kuzma or Lonzo becoming stars, sure...are they franchise players?  I challenge that.  Ingram?  I'm not sure he's a star on a good team.  He had the complete greenlight this year, clearly focused on the offensive end and Kuzma averaged the same ppg as he did as a ROOKIE off the bench!

 

You want to wait.  That's fine. 

 

If you want to use stats of known stars to justify that, cool...but realize that having similar stats does NOT mean a player is on track to becoming a Star.

 

There is NO FORMULA for Stardom.  They are the exception, not the rule.


tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#33 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 01, 2018 - 10:30 AM

I'm not saying a player can't develop or that they should come into the NBA as a finished product.

 

 

I'm saying that if you are building your franchise around a core, you need reasons to believe those core players are future stars or foundational pieces.

 

 

 

Lonzo is a foundational piece/glue guy/culture changing floor general, no question.  What he brings to the table, it was clear from Day 1.

 

Kuzma has the potential to be an elite scorer.  His scoring prowess and tendencies were clear from Day 1.

 

Randle can be a star on a squad that is constructed around his strengths and weaknesses.  Will that team be good?  That's the question.

 

 

 

Ingram does what?  At Duke, he was a reluctant scorer and had to be prodded to be the leader.  He's not a great outside shooter...decent.  He's not a great rebounder...decent to above average.  He's not a great ball handler...decent to above average.  He's a good defender because of his length but he's not DPOY material either, yet.  So what's special about him?

 

 

If you want to make a case for Randle, Kuzma or Lonzo becoming stars, sure...are they franchise players?  I challenge that.  Ingram?  I'm not sure he's a star on a good team.  He had the complete greenlight this year, clearly focused on the offensive end and Kuzma averaged the same ppg as he did as a ROOKIE off the bench!

 

You want to wait.  That's fine. 

 

If you want to use stats of known stars to justify that, cool...but realize that having similar stats does NOT mean a player is on track to becoming a Star.

 

There is NO FORMULA for Stardom.  They are the exception, not the rule.

 

I pretty sold on Lonzo as a franchise player and all the knocks on him are weird in my opinion.

 

Kuz and Randle clearly are guys that can be key players on a contender. Dont like to put a "# X option" on guys because i think it's kinda retarded, but i would say they have fringe all-star potential at best and at worst they are what they are.

 

Ingram does what? I would flip it around. What doesn't he do. What part of his game isn't he going to be able to improve on and which parts of his game isn't he likely to improve on.

 

 

And i'm not buying this NO Formula for stardom mantra, because it's factually wrong. It's all a numbers game and when we're talking about high lottery picks that produce at a very early age, it's not really an outlier if they make it.


  • Tensai and BasketballIQ like this

#34 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 01, 2018 - 08:56 PM

I pretty sold on Lonzo as a franchise player and all the knocks on him are weird in my opinion.

 
I agree.
 

Kuz and Randle clearly are guys that can be key players on a contender. Dont like to put a "# X option" on guys because i think it's kinda retarded, but i would say they have fringe all-star potential at best and at worst they are what they are.

 

 

You may not like it but when you're building a team, you have to build towards an identity.  That's for the team.  When it comes to the last shot or when you need a bucket, pecking order matters.

 

Retarded?  How?

 

Ingram does what? I would flip it around. What doesn't he do. What part of his game isn't he going to be able to improve on and which parts of his game isn't he likely to improve on.

 
 
You didn't address the operative sentence:  "So what's special about him"?
 
Anyone can improve in most aspects of the game.  I never said they couldn't.
 
 
The discussion was centered on reasons to believe Ingram is a foundational piece or a future Star.  Doing everything isn't the same as doing anything well.  He's not bad at anything but Stars have things they are EXCEPTIONAL at.  What's that for Ingram?
 
Again, what stands out about Ingram outside of his length?
 
 

And i'm not buying this NO Formula for stardom mantra, because it's factually wrong. It's all a numbers game and when we're talking about high lottery picks that produce at a very early age, it's not really an outlier if they make it.

 

I guess you miss the logical fallacy you are basing that argument on.

 

It's easy to look back and see how a Star developed.

It's impossible to take last year's stats and predict when, how or IF a player will become a Star.

 

 

The only way you could POSSIBLY claim to have a formula is to consider ALL of the players that had BETTER NUMBERS that DIDN'T become Stars or Allstars.   Easy to bat 1.000 after the fact.  Easy to create a "formula" when you trim the data to what fits the outcome you want.

 

You're taking known stars and their progression and projecting that on Ingram.   No player is the same and the amount of variables that are involved can NOT be trimmed down to the stats you are basing this assumption.


Edited by GCMD, June 01, 2018 - 08:56 PM.

tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#35 Massacre

Massacre

    yo

  • Contributor
  • 9,272 posts
  • Location:California

Posted June 01, 2018 - 09:43 PM

I think it’s unfair to write off versatility as a non-speciality. I also think that Ingram is an exceptional slasher who has proven he can get to the rim with ease. He has learned how to use his length better to finish over rim protectors and that’s something I expect will continue to get better.

-15.2 shooting-foul percentage (95th percentile, so better than 95% of NBA wings)
-45% of shot attempts in paint (86th percentile)
-Almost 11 drives per game, only small forwards who drove into the paint more were Butler, Giannis and LeBron.
-Almost 6 ppg as a result of slashing, only behind Butler, Giannis and LeBron again (small forwards).

That’s something he will continue building on and only get better at as his body matures. He is well on his way to being elite at getting to the rim and drawing fouls.

However, his decisiveness, pick and roll skills/awareness and 3 point shot still need a lot of work and it’s encouraging to see that’s what his focus is on this summer. He’s toured the country trying to the find the right trainers. If Ingram is still a Laker next season, I expect big improvements.

Edited by Massacre, June 01, 2018 - 09:47 PM.

  • Tensai likes this

#36 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 01, 2018 - 10:41 PM

 

 

You may not like it but when you're building a team, you have to build towards an identity.  That's for the team.  When it comes to the last shot or when you need a bucket, pecking order matters.

 

Retarded?  How?

 

 

Sure, but we often hear stuff like "can he be the #1 option on a contender" and it's an old and narrow minded way of looking at things as if the your rank in the pecking order in a last shot situation is the same as being the most important player on your team.

 

As good as Donovan Mitchell has been it's still Rudy Gobert that is the backbone of that team although he never will be one of the primary options in those kinds of situations.

 

Right now i dont think Ingram is a bad bet in a late clock situation, but ideally your offense isn't based on a pecking order.

 

 

 

 

 
You didn't address the operative sentence:  "So what's special about him"?
 
Anyone can improve in most aspects of the game.  I never said they couldn't.
 
 
The discussion was centered on reasons to believe Ingram is a foundational piece or a future Star.  Doing everything isn't the same as doing anything well.  He's not bad at anything but Stars have things they are EXCEPTIONAL at.  What's that for Ingram?
 
Again, what stands out about Ingram outside of his length?
 
 

 

 

 

I think his tools and versatily as well as production as a 20year old stands out. Work ethic, ability to get to the rim and draw contact despite his slight size. There's a bunch of stuff he does that really stand out. And guys cant improve in most aspects of the game. Simmons wont be able to shoot. Jahlil Okafor wont be a good defender or will be able to run the pick and roll. Guys wont suddently get longer. It not fair that you take a player who was a prospect with major upside but project and then be surprised he haven't developed faster than you normally would expect.

 

 


I guess you miss the logical fallacy you are basing that argument on.

 

It's easy to look back and see how a Star developed.

It's impossible to take last year's stats and predict when, how or IF a player will become a Star.

 

 

The only way you could POSSIBLY claim to have a formula is to consider ALL of the players that had BETTER NUMBERS that DIDN'T become Stars or Allstars.   Easy to bat 1.000 after the fact.  Easy to create a "formula" when you trim the data to what fits the outcome you want.

 

You're taking known stars and their progression and projecting that on Ingram.   No player is the same and the amount of variables that are involved can NOT be trimmed down to the stats you are basing this assumption.

 

 

I didn't miss anything. I just dont agree.

 

I'm not projecting other stars's development on Ingram at all. I'm fully aware that he might not pan out. What i am doing is trying to see what kind of developmental path actual stars have followed historically and then try to see how that fits with where Ingram is.

 

I think one of your problems is that you think the list of guys that have done what Ingram have done at that age is quite long. It isn't. The list of 20-year olds putting up 15-4-3-0.5stl consist of 13 names and while it does include Tyreke Evans, Lamar Odom and Antoine Walker, who weren't really stars, the remaining 10 are all HOFers.



#37 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

  • Member
  • 17,759 posts
  • Name:Julius Jordan
  • Fav. Laker:24

Posted June 02, 2018 - 06:27 AM

If Ingram is a more focused Lamar or Walker in terms of talent. That's potentially a hall of famer
  • LACAS likes this

#38 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 02, 2018 - 07:16 AM

Sure, but we often hear stuff like "can he be the #1 option on a contender" and it's an old and narrow minded way of looking at things as if the your rank in the pecking order in a last shot situation is the same as being the most important player on your team.

 

As good as Donovan Mitchell has been it's still Rudy Gobert that is the backbone of that team although he never will be one of the primary options in those kinds of situations.

 

Right now i dont think Ingram is a bad bet in a late clock situation, but ideally your offense isn't based on a pecking order.

 

 

 

 

I think his tools and versatily as well as production as a 20year old stands out. Work ethic, ability to get to the rim and draw contact despite his slight size. There's a bunch of stuff he does that really stand out. And guys cant improve in most aspects of the game. Simmons wont be able to shoot. Jahlil Okafor wont be a good defender or will be able to run the pick and roll. Guys wont suddently get longer. It not fair that you take a player who was a prospect with major upside but project and then be surprised he haven't developed faster than you normally would expect.

 

 

 

I didn't miss anything. I just dont agree.

 

I'm not projecting other stars's development on Ingram at all. I'm fully aware that he might not pan out. What i am doing is trying to see what kind of developmental path actual stars have followed historically and then try to see how that fits with where Ingram is.

 

I think one of your problems is that you think the list of guys that have done what Ingram have done at that age is quite long. It isn't. The list of 20-year olds putting up 15-4-3-0.5stl consist of 13 names and while it does include Tyreke Evans, Lamar Odom and Antoine Walker, who weren't really stars, the remaining 10 are all HOFers.

 

Ok.  I'll say one more time that the path to stardom can't be reduced to numbers.  You can't quantify desire, hardwork or GOD-given Talent.

 

LO is a great example.  He had every tool to be great.  Perfect basketball body, handles, passing ability, rebounding, versatility...he didn't do a lot with it and you can't quantify LO's off-court issues statistically.

 

You could be right.  Ingram could become a star...but if the numbers he's put up as the #1 option on a bad team is your supporting evidence, that's not convincing.

 

What is Ingram's special quality?  Post that list of players and I can guarantee they had something special about them from Day 1.  It's extremely rare for a player to develop that something special later in their careers.

 

IMHO, Ingram is wasting his time trying to become an elite (on-ball) scorer.  If he doesn't add a lot of muscle, he's going to put himself in position to be injured more often.  He needs to concentrate on becoming an elite perimeter defender.  Offensively, he needs to try to become an elite catch and shoot outside shooter and using his length coming off screens than creating on-ball.  He has potential but he doesn't have that something special that would make it easy to reach that potential, IMHO.

 

Lonzo / Kuzma / Randle?  They all have something that could define their careers.


tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#39 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 15,284 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 02, 2018 - 07:24 AM

And if you want to ignore pecking order, go right ahead.  While I agree that a good offensive system creates equally for all players, it's kinda insane to think that there aren't times when you have to get the ball in the hands of your best player.

 

Pecking order has NOTHING to do with the offensive system.  It is inherent in the level of talent on your team.

 

 

And the Gobert/Donovan comparison is ludicrous.  Gobert is the best DEFENDER on that team but I'm not sure he's EVER been the best offensive player in Utah.  Since the pecking order (#1 option or #2 option) is based on offensive capabilities, this comparison doesn't make sense.


  • KidRN likes this

tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#40 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

  • Member
  • 17,759 posts
  • Name:Julius Jordan
  • Fav. Laker:24

Posted June 02, 2018 - 09:08 AM

You love to type huh?


You're on an island.

Randles jump from year 2 to 3 is an example of the evolution of players who desire to be great
  • Tensai likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)