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

#41 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

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

Posted June 02, 2018 - 09:39 PM

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.

 

Everything cant be reduced to numbers, but with all the historical evidence we have it is actually possible to say how players posting similar numbers have done. That's not a guarantee, but an indication. Combine that with stuff like desire, hard work, talent, style and situation. I think Ingram in particular would score high in all of those aspects.

 

You bring up LO as guy who had all the tools to be great. I'd argue Ingram has all the tools to be great and like i asked before, i'd be curious to see which areas you think he wont improve on or which areas that limit his ability to become a star.

 

Ingram's special quality? I'd say versatility and slashing.



#42 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

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

Posted June 03, 2018 - 12:45 AM

Everything cant be reduced to numbers, but with all the historical evidence we have it is actually possible to say how players posting similar numbers have done. That's not a guarantee, but an indication. Combine that with stuff like desire, hard work, talent, style and situation. I think Ingram in particular would score high in all of those aspects.

 

You bring up LO as guy who had all the tools to be great. I'd argue Ingram has all the tools to be great and like i asked before, i'd be curious to see which areas you think he wont improve on or which areas that limit his ability to become a star.

 

Ingram's special quality? I'd say versatility and slashing.

 

Players aren't the same.  No matter how similar the numbers are, it's rare for 2 players to have the same strengths, weaknesses and tendencies along with all of the intangibles.

 

2 big glaring differences in Ingram compared to most stars?  His weight and he's not a stellar athlete.  He's a good athlete, definitely above average...

 

List the stars that Ingram is supposedly statistically similar to at the same age.  I seriously doubt that there is anyone who had all of these aspects the same or very similar:

 

Team (roster)

Offense

Athleticism

Height

Weight

Shooting

Defense

BBIQ

Handles

Coach

Front Office

Cap Space in 2nd Offseason

Greenlight

Work Ethic

 

I could go on and on.  Too many variables go into who becomes a star and who doesn't.  The strongest indicators of Stardom are not stats.  It's their work ethic, desire to be the best, coachability and NATURAL GIFTS.  Hard to measue the first 2.  3rd can be discerned.  The 4th is known BEFORE the player is drafted.

 

Ingram, and Kuzma to a certain extent, were considered Jacks-of-all-trades.  Kuzma has proven he has the potential to be a gifted scorer, even as a rookie.  Can you say the same for Ingram?  They averaged the same ppg even though Ingram started and Kuzma came off the bench.

 

I'm not saying Ingram CAN'T become a star.  I see a path for that.  I just don't think he's a "can't miss" star like your assertions based on stats seem to imply.  If I'm off-base here, I apologize.


Edited by GCMD, June 03, 2018 - 12:48 AM.

tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#43 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

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

Posted June 03, 2018 - 03:21 AM

Players aren't the same.  No matter how similar the numbers are, it's rare for 2 players to have the same strengths, weaknesses and tendencies along with all of the intangibles.

 

2 big glaring differences in Ingram compared to most stars?  His weight and he's not a stellar athlete.  He's a good athlete, definitely above average...

 

List the stars that Ingram is supposedly statistically similar to at the same age.  I seriously doubt that there is anyone who had all of these aspects the same or very similar:

 

Team (roster)

Offense

Athleticism

Height

Weight

Shooting

Defense

BBIQ

Handles

Coach

Front Office

Cap Space in 2nd Offseason

Greenlight

Work Ethic

 

I could go on and on.  Too many variables go into who becomes a star and who doesn't.  The strongest indicators of Stardom are not stats.  It's their work ethic, desire to be the best, coachability and NATURAL GIFTS.  Hard to measue the first 2.  3rd can be discerned.  The 4th is known BEFORE the player is drafted.

 

Ingram, and Kuzma to a certain extent, were considered Jacks-of-all-trades.  Kuzma has proven he has the potential to be a gifted scorer, even as a rookie.  Can you say the same for Ingram?  They averaged the same ppg even though Ingram started and Kuzma came off the bench.

 

I'm not saying Ingram CAN'T become a star.  I see a path for that.  I just don't think he's a "can't miss" star like your assertions based on stats seem to imply.  If I'm off-base here, I apologize.

 

You are a bit off-base because i'm not implying that he's a can't miss star. At all. In fact, i've said repeatedly that he may never be a star.

 

What i am saying is that it's way too early pass judgement on the guy at this point. In terms of becoming a star i think a few guys come in as stars from day 1, such as Lebron, Shaq, Griffin etc. while the majority of guys take a few years so hit that level. Ingram being extremely young and physically immature clearly is the type of player that take a little while to develop. Combine that with his production, which is on par with just about any current star at the same age and the fact that he doesn't have any real weaknesses in his game and i think you have a guy who has a good chance to become a star.

 

For that reason, it doesn't make sense to trade him at this point.

 

Now if he flatlines next season or if he show weaknesses that he isn't able to improve on, then it's a different story.



#44 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

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

Posted June 03, 2018 - 06:43 AM

Opinion vs historical perspective

#45 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

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

Posted June 03, 2018 - 01:39 PM

You are a bit off-base because i'm not implying that he's a can't miss star. At all. In fact, i've said repeatedly that he may never be a star.

 

What i am saying is that it's way too early pass judgement on the guy at this point. In terms of becoming a star i think a few guys come in as stars from day 1, such as Lebron, Shaq, Griffin etc. while the majority of guys take a few years so hit that level. Ingram being extremely young and physically immature clearly is the type of player that take a little while to develop. Combine that with his production, which is on par with just about any current star at the same age and the fact that he doesn't have any real weaknesses in his game and i think you have a guy who has a good chance to become a star.

 

For that reason, it doesn't make sense to trade him at this point.

 

Now if he flatlines next season or if he show weaknesses that he isn't able to improve on, then it's a different story.

 

You said it's too early to make a judgement and you proceed to make a judgement.

 

My claim was there is no evidence, based on Ingram's performance thus far, that he's a player we could or should build our franchise around.

 

 

If you believe in waiting, that's fine.  Just accept that choosing to wait means you're making a decision on your belief in his star status.  If you wait and it doesn't work out, you're stuck with him because other teams will also see that he's not a star and they won't give you nearly as much as they would give you now.

 

At some point, you have to be willing to cut bait.  The INSTANT D'Angelo Russell was traded, I knew this Front Office had what it took to make tough calls.  I have no doubt that this year, Ingram will either be the man or he could and should be one of those tough calls.


tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#46 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

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

Posted June 04, 2018 - 09:41 AM

You said it's too early to make a judgement and you proceed to make a judgement.

 

My claim was there is no evidence, based on Ingram's performance thus far, that he's a player we could or should build our franchise around.

 

 

If you believe in waiting, that's fine.  Just accept that choosing to wait means you're making a decision on your belief in his star status.  If you wait and it doesn't work out, you're stuck with him because other teams will also see that he's not a star and they won't give you nearly as much as they would give you now.

 

At some point, you have to be willing to cut bait.  The INSTANT D'Angelo Russell was traded, I knew this Front Office had what it took to make tough calls.  I have no doubt that this year, Ingram will either be the man or he could and should be one of those tough calls.

 

So if i'm interested in seeing a player develop i automatically am convinced he's a star? That's nonsense.

 

Historically, players have followed the same developmental curve from their late teens and forward. That’s the general rule. There are exceptions, though. In addition to injuries some are late bloomers, others don’t fit the game that is played in the nba and some guys lack the work ethic or mental focus to improve.

Keeping that in mind I think you always should give young players on their rookie deals an opportunity to develop because the chance for them to improve from age 19-23 is really, really high. That’s not saying that you shouldn’t move them under any circumstances, but since luck plays a major part of getting a star then it would be stupid and shortsighted to give up on guys at the point of their career when they’re the most likely to improve. Especially because of questions regarding fit.

Ingram in particular is the type of player that has a really high chance of making a major jump because of how productive he’s been early on, his tools, versatility, lack of real weaknesses and work ethic.

 

I am willing to cut bait at some point of course, but the smart time to do that would be during the last season before hitting restricted free agency.

 

 

Regarding D-Lo i think that had a lot more to do with the financial landscape than anything else. We may struggle to shed Dengs contract. Imagine if we had to move Mozzy as well. We were lucky to get out of Clarkson's bad contract when we did.



#47 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

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

Posted June 06, 2018 - 06:46 PM

So if i'm interested in seeing a player develop i automatically am convinced he's a star? That's nonsense.

 

Historically, players have followed the same developmental curve from their late teens and forward. That’s the general rule. There are exceptions, though. In addition to injuries some are late bloomers, others don’t fit the game that is played in the nba and some guys lack the work ethic or mental focus to improve.

Keeping that in mind I think you always should give young players on their rookie deals an opportunity to develop because the chance for them to improve from age 19-23 is really, really high. That’s not saying that you shouldn’t move them under any circumstances, but since luck plays a major part of getting a star then it would be stupid and shortsighted to give up on guys at the point of their career when they’re the most likely to improve. Especially because of questions regarding fit.

Ingram in particular is the type of player that has a really high chance of making a major jump because of how productive he’s been early on, his tools, versatility, lack of real weaknesses and work ethic.

 

I am willing to cut bait at some point of course, but the smart time to do that would be during the last season before hitting restricted free agency.

 

 

Regarding D-Lo i think that had a lot more to do with the financial landscape than anything else. We may struggle to shed Dengs contract. Imagine if we had to move Mozzy as well. We were lucky to get out of Clarkson's bad contract when we did.

 

Are there players that have similar stats but don't turn into AllStars?  Yes...a LOT.  You keep ignoring all data that doesn't support your desire.  If you didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

If you choose to wait until you know a player isn't going to be a star, it's not like you can keep it a secret.  You want to keep developing a player without a valid expectation that he's becoming a star?  That's nonsense.

 

It doesn't take that long to properly assess a player's star potential.  Players becoming stars out of the blue?  That's RARE.  Players who have star potential who DON'T become stars?  That's the norm.

 

Let's debunk this right here and now.  Post the list of the 13 players out of the hundreds or THOUSANDS of players drafted in the past 10-15 years who have a similar "Star Trajectory" as Ingram.  This should be good.

 

 

And Russell?  You really think it was more about the money than his fit?  You really think it's a coincidence that Ingram and Randle played much better WITHOUT Russell?  Come on, man...you're better than this.


Edited by GCMD, June 06, 2018 - 06:51 PM.

tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#48 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

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

Posted June 06, 2018 - 09:56 PM

Are there players that have similar stats but don't turn into AllStars?  Yes...a LOT.  You keep ignoring all data that doesn't support your desire.  If you didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

If you choose to wait until you know a player isn't going to be a star, it's not like you can keep it a secret.  You want to keep developing a player without a valid expectation that he's becoming a star?  That's nonsense.

 

It doesn't take that long to properly assess a player's star potential.  Players becoming stars out of the blue?  That's RARE.  Players who have star potential who DON'T become stars?  That's the norm.

 

Let's debunk this right here and now.  Post the list of the 13 players out of the hundreds or THOUSANDS of players drafted in the past 10-15 years who have a similar "Star Trajectory" as Ingram.  This should be good.

 

 

And Russell?  You really think it was more about the money than his fit?  You really think it's a coincidence that Ingram and Randle played much better WITHOUT Russell?  Come on, man...you're better than this.

 

You're so full of [expletive] sometimes. You wanted to trade Randle from day 1 because he didn't fit "the system" as if that mattered. He progressed at the expected level and suddently turned into a really productive player at which point you backtracked.

 

And i'm not playing that game with you just to be ridiculed for saying BI is posting similar numbers as a bunch of hall of famers. You how how to work a computer, so do it yourself. I've said numerus times there is a good chance he doesn't become a star, but if he does make the leap it is most likely that it happens this or next season. I think Ingram has the tools and ability to become a star and I want to see if it happens.  

 

As for Russell i think the money part had more to do with it than fit. LA had to clear Mozzy, Deng and Clarkson to be in the mix for two max guys, which would be nearly impossible to do. Fit isn't nearly as important as talent in the first few years (obviously) and maybe - juuuust maybe - BI and Randle's improved play had something to do with them developing their game. You seem to be completely oblivious to basic player development concepts. 


Edited by DanishLakerFan, June 06, 2018 - 10:17 PM.

  • Rekal likes this

#49 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

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

Posted June 06, 2018 - 10:38 PM

You're so full of [expletive] sometimes. You wanted to trade Randle from day 1 because he didn't fit "the system" as if that mattered. He progressed at the expected level and suddently turned into a really productive player at which point you backtracked.

 

And i'm not playing that game with you just to be ridiculed for saying BI is posting similar numbers as a bunch of hall of famers. You how how to work a computer, so do it yourself. I've said numerus times there is a good chance he doesn't become a star, but if he does make the leap it is most likely that it happens this or next season. I think Ingram has the tools and ability to become a star and I want to see if it happens.  

 

As for Russell i think the money part had more to do with it than fit. LA had to clear Mozzy, Deng and Clarkson to be in the mix for two max guys, which would be nearly impossible to do. Fit isn't nearly as important as talent in the first few years (obviously) and maybe - juuuust maybe - BI and Randle's improved play had something to do with them developing their game. You seem to be completely oblivious to basic player development concepts. 

 

So...

 

Your best evidence for your argument is Ingram has similar stats to stars but you're AFRAID to list those stars?

 

Not sure where we go with this.  Your opinion vs my opinion is a wash.  If you don't want to discuss empirical data that you claim supports your opinion, what are we doing here?

 

And claiming I wanted Randle gone is just false.  I claimed I didn't feel like Randle fit with our offense, which at the time was the Princeton under Byron Scott...was I wrong?

 

I claimed Randle and Russell was a bad fit...was I wrong?

 

I claimed that trying to change Randle into a Draymond Green Clone was the wrong thing to do...was I wrong?

 

I claimed that with a team built around his strengths, Randle could become a Star...was I wrong?

 

I claimed that Randle had specific tendencies offensively that he would NOT change nor was it necessary for him to change.  This year, his BEST year, he reverted to the UK-Version of Randle...again, was I wrong?

 

 

I have asked you for what stands out about Ingram - *crickets*.

I have asked you for the list of players - *crickets*.

 

I think we can call this discussion/debate over.  You have nothing but your opinion to support your claim.  Yours is no more valid than mine.


Edited by GCMD, June 06, 2018 - 10:39 PM.

tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#50 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

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

Posted June 06, 2018 - 10:58 PM

So...

 

Your best evidence for your argument is Ingram has similar stats to stars but you're AFRAID to list those stars?

 

Not sure where we go with this.  Your opinion vs my opinion is a wash.  If you don't want to discuss empirical data that you claim supports your opinion, what are we doing here?

 

And claiming I wanted Randle gone is just false.  I claimed I didn't feel like Randle fit with our offense, which at the time was the Princeton under Byron Scott...was I wrong?

 

I claimed Randle and Russell was a bad fit...was I wrong?

 

I claimed that trying to change Randle into a Draymond Green Clone was the wrong thing to do...was I wrong?

 

I claimed that with a team built around his strengths, Randle could become a Star...was I wrong?

 

I claimed that Randle had specific tendencies offensively that he would NOT change nor was it necessary for him to change.  This year, his BEST year, he reverted to the UK-Version of Randle...again, was I wrong?

 

 

I have asked you for what stands out about Ingram - *crickets*.

I have asked you for the list of players - *crickets*.

 

I think we can call this discussion/debate over.  You have nothing but your opinion to support your claim.  Yours is no more valid than mine.

 

Not afraid of posting the stats. Here you go: 20y/o that put up 16-5-4 per 36. http://bkref.com/tiny/1oqBj That’s just part of the picture with Ingram. You did want LA to trade Randle for a late 1st because he didn’t fit the offense. Do you deny this? Did he fit the offense under Byron? Probably not. Does it really matter if he fit an offense that inevitably would be scratched later on. Of course not. In general, should you move talented players on rookie deals because of questions regarding fit. No, of course not. That would be dumb.

 

You asked about what stands out about Ingram. Production at age, tools, work ethic, ability to get to the rim and lack of real weaknesses. I’ve mentioned this before, so [expletive] your crickets.


Edited by DanishLakerFan, June 07, 2018 - 02:26 AM.


#51 Tensai

Tensai

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,345 posts

Posted June 06, 2018 - 11:07 PM

Ingram is not Durant. But he is special. The disappointment Russell brought is affecting people's views on Ingram negatively.

 

 

Next season he will be more aggressive, and should get better on FTs. The rest will come on its own.


fXlFKv8.gif

 


#52 kball

kball

    Mocker-in-Chief

  • Member
  • 8,462 posts
  • Fan Since:'71
  • Fav. Laker:kobe, magic, logo AND LEBRON!

Posted June 07, 2018 - 06:30 AM

Ingram is not Durant. But he is special. The disappointment Russell brought is affecting people's views on Ingram negatively.

 

 

Next season he will be more aggressive, and should get better on FTs. The rest will come on its own.

Feel its too early for this statement.

 

Could become special yeah.

 

But he's just as close to nothing real special as he is to special right now.

 

Who knows, next season he may get no more than 10 shots a game, and if he's not scoring he has yet to prove himself...

 

Though i do think he's on the way, but i don't even have the confidence in him yet to say he'd be the best laker next season if we totally whiff on FA.

 

Or the 3rd best laker if we hit the motherlode


Edited by kball, June 07, 2018 - 06:33 AM.

  • GCMD likes this

Excited for  1. Lebron! (Still love me some Kobe, but damn this guy is amazing) 2. Another big get (Whether in FA or in a trade we need some attractions and closers) 3. Young Guys making big jump (Assuming we have anyone left after more necessary moves either genius ones or in desperation)

READY FOR SEASON!!!

 

 


#53 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

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

Posted June 07, 2018 - 08:57 AM

He entering his third seqson and was amongst the youngest players in the league in his second season.

He probably wont be best player on teqm. At 24 though... ingram will be top.15 20 in the league i believe

#54 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

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

Posted June 07, 2018 - 09:25 AM

He entering his third seqson and was amongst the youngest players in the league in his second season.

He probably wont be best player on teqm. At 24 though... ingram will be top.15 20 in the league i believe


What would be his worst case scenario?

#55 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

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

Posted June 07, 2018 - 12:47 PM

Injury prone and stagnant. Essentially duplicating his current best more consistently but not around enough to be dependent upon

#56 Tensai

Tensai

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,345 posts

Posted June 07, 2018 - 06:50 PM

Worst case scenario is, he pops his Achilles and ruptures his MCL on both knees and says buh-bye.

 

 

Month-by-month his PER36:

 

 

2016-2017

October: 14.9 ppg 6 rpg 1.6 apg

November: 10.4 ppg 5 rpg 2.7 apg

December: 8.5 ppg 5.8 rpg 2.5 apg

January: 11.5 ppg 4.6 rpg 2.7 apg

February: 11.8 ppg 5.2 rpg 2.2 apg

March: 13.7 ppg 4.2 rpg 2.4 apg

April: 18.9 ppg 5.1 rpg 4.3 apg

 

2017-2018

October: 16.4 ppg 4.4 rpg 3.4 apg

November: 16.9 ppg 6.3 rpg 3 apg

December: 16.1 ppg 5.1 rpg 3.9 apg

January: 17.3 ppg 6.7 rpg 4.6 apg

February: 19.9 ppg 5.6 rpg 6 apg

March: 18.7 ppg 6 rpg 6.4 apg

 

 

 

He's been steadily improving. At his age, I wouldn't ask for anything else. He has become extremely efficient on his shots. There is really no reason why he shouldn't average 18-19 ppg 6-7 rpg 4-5 apg next year. Whatever it means for the team, be it best player or 3rd best player. Production is not exclusive of team but it would be a mistake to assume Ingram's output would suffer.


  • DLN likes this

fXlFKv8.gif

 


#57 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

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

Posted June 07, 2018 - 07:22 PM

Lonzo is a bigger question mark than Ingram and Kuzma is more a question than both but
They have some KD Russ Harden qualities

#58 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

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

Posted June 08, 2018 - 10:49 AM

Not afraid of posting the stats. Here you go: 20y/o that put up 16-5-4 per 36. http://bkref.com/tiny/1oqBj That’s just part of the picture with Ingram. You did want LA to trade Randle for a late 1st because he didn’t fit the offense. Do you deny this? Did he fit the offense under Byron? Probably not. Does it really matter if he fit an offense that inevitably would be scratched later on. Of course not. In general, should you move talented players on rookie deals because of questions regarding fit. No, of course not. That would be dumb.

 

You asked about what stands out about Ingram. Production at age, tools, work ethic, ability to get to the rim and lack of real weaknesses. I’ve mentioned this before, so [expletive] your crickets.

 

I didn't click your link.

 

I thought Randle should have been moved but there was context and legitimate reasons based on RANDLE's game, which you well know.  Don't misquote me.

 

Young players get moved for stars and other draft picks every year.  Stop it.

 

Nothing you've posted is special.  Some of it was straight up lies (lack of real weakness?  LOL).  Some were generic and not close to "special".

 

 

If you want me to look at your list, post it or post the pic.  I'm not clicking an unknown link...that's not smart.


tenor.gif

 

Impeachment: Imminent


#59 BasketballIQ

BasketballIQ

    Legend

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

Posted June 08, 2018 - 11:22 AM

Its basketball reference

Edited by BasketballIQ, June 08, 2018 - 11:22 AM.


#60 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

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

Posted June 08, 2018 - 01:10 PM

I didn't click your link.

 

I thought Randle should have been moved but there was context and legitimate reasons based on RANDLE's game, which you well know.  Don't misquote me.

 

Young players get moved for stars and other draft picks every year.  Stop it.

 

Nothing you've posted is special.  Some of it was straight up lies (lack of real weakness?  LOL).  Some were generic and not close to "special".

 

 

If you want me to look at your list, post it or post the pic.  I'm not clicking an unknown link...that's not smart.

 

Where did i misquote you?

Where did i say that young players aren't moved.

I made my case for why i like Ingram. I also asked you to make a case as for why he isn't special but you're not giving it.

 

I dont really give a [expletive] if you visited that page or not. Its a simple search on basketball reference, but with the way you're reacting i kinda regret i didn't post a link to some gay porn site.


  • Tensai and kball like this




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)