Jump to content


Photo

Why I am not high on Brandon Ingram for this upcoming season


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

#1 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 5,561 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 20, 2018 - 07:03 PM

With all the debate on Ingram's potential, this is something I've worked on today to show why I don't think he will be effective playing alongside LeBron next season.

 

1. Putting Up Decent Stats on a Bad Team Doesn't Mean Much

 

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 to support Ingram is the potential for improvement given 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 like 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.
 
N5992mX.png
 
tXcX8nQ.png
 
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.
 

2. Ingram's Improved Statline Didn't Contribute Much to Our Increased Win Total

 

One of the most common arguments I hear in favor of Ingram is that his production increased from season 1 to season 2, and we won a bunch more games, so therefore he was effective and will continue to get better.

 
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:
 
BXUtwXN.png
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.
 

3. Just Because Other Players Put Up Worse Stats in Their Second Year, Doesn't Mean Ingram will Become As Good

 

I see this infographic or similar ones posted way too often:
 
DS4vhyTX4AEAlgk.jpg
 
I'm going to focus on comparisons to George, Hayward, and Paul Pierce, as these are 3 common players I've heard to show that Ingram is on a superstar track.
 
What matters though, is the context of these stats. We need to consider the system they were produced in. Time for a deeper dive, first looking at 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.
 
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.
 
DisfiguredForthrightKrill-size_restricte
 
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:
 
BowedIdioticBlueshark-size_restricted.gi
 
If you want him to play off ball, like I do, then his hesitation to shoot open 3 pointers is a huge problem:
 
BetterGraveAntarcticfurseal-size_restric
 
Now for the glorious numbers (these are a hair outdated, but bare with me)
 
V3uiFTA.png
 
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.
 
LinedSpanishHornet-size_restricted.gif

 

 

4. Ingram vs. Paul George (2nd year)

 

Screen-Shot-2018-02-01-at-10.42.19-PM.pn
 
Screen-Shot-2018-02-01-at-10.44.33-PM.pn
 
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.
 
wruziB4.png
 
 
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.
 
Qq2kmb9.png
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.
 
5. Ingram vs. Gordon Hayward (2nd year)
 
I don't have synergy stats for Hayward's 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.
 
dlbIyvD.png
 
hAAkYEj.png
 
 
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.
 
BCyVKXyCcAA4fGK.jpg
 
 
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).
 
vbPX5Xu.png
 
qrsnlz2.png
 
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 ( 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. 

 

6. Ingram vs. Paul Pierce (2nd year)
 
I'm actually surprised Pierce is ever used as a comparison, because other than his 2nd year 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 Celtics. I don't think anyone expects Ingram to be capable of that next season. The Celtics 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 Pierce had more college experience under his belt at that point in his career, so I don't know why he is used 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 Celtics 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.
 
EAanA1W.png
 
 
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.
 
7. Conclusion
 
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.
 
 

Edited by bfc1125roy, July 20, 2018 - 07:06 PM.

  • GCMD, -Wade-, Japago and 1 other like this

#2 Busty Bluth

Busty Bluth

    --Hey Brother!--

  • Member
  • 28,367 posts
  • Location:Moms House
  • Name:Byron "Buster AKA Busty" Bluth

Posted July 20, 2018 - 08:27 PM

I haven’t read the post YET....I just wanted to be first to comment. I won’t be writing anyone off in [expletive]ing July. Except maybe Deng🤦‍♂️ what do you say we let things play out a bit. Plenty of time to beat this dead horse when games actually matter. What ever you do please don’t dig yourself into the Ingram (sucks) hole you can’t see improvement if/when he shows some. I will now attempt to decipher your theory.


Bye for now
  • Tensai and LACAS like this

#3 LakeShow1o1

LakeShow1o1

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,886 posts
  • Name:The Black Mamba Will Rise
  • Fan Since:1996
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bean Bryant

Posted July 20, 2018 - 10:05 PM

Right off the bat, I'm going to tell you that I only skimmed through your post cause it's a bit overwhelming due to all the imagery and wall of text.  With that being said I do commend you for taking the time to look up all the stats, images, and providing your input.

 

- I've been one to compare Ingram's growth and development to some of those guys you've posted such as Hayward, George, and Kawhi in terms of them not having a real breakout until their 3rd, 4th, and sometimes even 5th years.  Looking back, it's probably a weak argument considering its obvious that every player develops differently and it largely has to do with the environment they're in, the system they're playing, the role they have on a team, and most importantly the players they have surrounding them.

 

- One can argue that Ingram should have greater scoring numbers considering he's the only scoring option on this team, similar to a guy like Devin Booker (now that's a player whose putting up numbers on a poor team) whom is really the only clear cut talent on a given roster.  The thing is Ingram isn't a scorer and until you realize that, you'll never really appreciate his style of play.  He's an extremely versatile player on both ends whose role on this roster in the first 2 seasons of his career was to playmake.  Watching Ingram his first 2 years, the things that stand out to me are this.

  • Extremely high IQ player whom makes superb reads on the offensive end.  (Whether that be finding cutters, slashing himself, driving the lane and disrupting the defense, etc.)
  • Despite his slender physique, he's proven that he LOVES to drive and finish at the rim, rather than settle for a jump-shot.  He's able to do so with his length at a relatively efficient rate  (this is a good trait, but with Lebron he will have to adjust as he will get more open looks from the periemeter)
  • At just 20 years of age, he's shown that he knows how to play within an offense and rarely forces up a bad shot.  He plays selfless and sometimes it's to a fault.  
  • Defensively speaking, he knows how to utilize his length on this end as well and the potential is there.  His leaping ability and overall athleticism isn't anything to holler about, but he has shown the ability to defend with his long arms.

 

Your argument of putting up stats on a bad team is correct in certain cases, but one can always counter that with the simple idea that had Ingram been surrounded with more talented pieces, he would have contributed at an even greater and more efficient clip due to the defenses having to shift their focus. 

 

  •  Kawhi had to luxury of slowly developing his game under one of the greatest systems in Pop as well as having the luxury of being 4th fiddle in his early years to Duncan, Parker, and Manu.
  • Gordon Hayward was brought up with Sloan and played alongside some All-Star caliber talent pretty early in guys like Deron Williams, Paul Milsap, AK47, and Al Jefferson
  • Paul George was brought up alongside All-Star Danny Granger, David West, and an All-Star form of Roy Hibbert

Bottom line is although it may seem that a player should or would post-up higher numbers on a poor team, at the same time it's much easier and convenient for a developing player to produce alongside proven All-Star talent.

 

I'm one that hates posting highlights to support any argument, but the fact that you think Ingram passes up open 3s, can't finish through contact, and essentially lacks offensive versatility is false.  

 

(Ingram vs. the best defense in the league)

 

(Game winning 3)

 

Actual breakdown of aspects of his game that he's improved. (Gotta love LakerFilmRoom)

 

 

 

Ingram has shown that he can finish at the rim, has an extremely tight handle for a guy his size, reads and reacts with what the defense provides, and is slowly improving his jumper.  Again, simply because he isn't a lights out scorer and shooter that would immediately draw your attention such as guys like Donovan Mitchell or Devin Booker, he is very good at other aspects of the game that make you wonder just how great he can become if he can put it all together.


Edited by LakeShow1o1, July 20, 2018 - 10:05 PM.

  • Nightmare likes this

#4 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 5,561 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 20, 2018 - 10:20 PM

Right off the bat, I'm going to tell you that I only skimmed through your post cause it's a bit overwhelming due to all the imagery and wall of text.  With that being said I do commend you for taking the time to look up all the stats, images, and providing your input.

 

- I've been one to compare Ingram's growth and development to some of those guys you've posted such as Hayward, George, and Kawhi in terms of them not having a real breakout until their 3rd, 4th, and sometimes even 5th years.  Looking back, it's probably a weak argument considering its obvious that every player develops differently and it largely has to do with the environment they're in, the system they're playing, the role they have on a team, and most importantly the players they have surrounding them.

 

- One can argue that Ingram should have greater scoring numbers considering he's the only scoring option on this team, similar to a guy like Devin Booker (now that's a player whose putting up numbers on a poor team) whom is really the only clear cut talent on a given roster.  The thing is Ingram isn't a scorer and until you realize that, you'll never really appreciate his style of play.  He's an extremely versatile player on both ends whose role on this roster in the first 2 seasons of his career was to playmake.  Watching Ingram his first 2 years, the things that stand out to me are this.

  • Extremely high IQ player whom makes superb reads on the offensive end.  (Whether that be finding cutters, slashing himself, driving the lane and disrupting the defense, etc.)
  • Despite his slender physique, he's proven that he LOVES to drive and finish at the rim, rather than settle for a jump-shot.  He's able to do so with his length at a relatively efficient rate  (this is a good trait, but with Lebron he will have to adjust as he will get more open looks from the periemeter)
  • At just 20 years of age, he's shown that he knows how to play within an offense and rarely forces up a bad shot.  He plays selfless and sometimes it's to a fault.  
  • Defensively speaking, he knows how to utilize his length on this end as well and the potential is there.  His leaping ability and overall athleticism isn't anything to holler about, but he has shown the ability to defend with his long arms.

 

Your argument of putting up stats on a bad team is correct in certain cases, but one can always counter that with the simple idea that had Ingram been surrounded with more talented pieces, he would have contributed at an even greater and more efficient clip due to the defenses having to shift their focus. 

 

I get what you're saying. But defenses had to focus on a lot more than Ingram. KCP, Randle, Kuzma, and even Lopez at times were all greater offensive threats than Ingram. It's just that Ingram's one dimensional game (slasher) prevented him from taking advantage of those opportunities.

 

  •  Kawhi had to luxury of slowly developing his game under one of the greatest systems in Pop as well as having the luxury of being 4th fiddle in his early years to Duncan, Parker, and Manu.

By his second year, Leonard nearly won Finals MVP (if not for a Ray Allen 3). He also held LeBron to 25 ppg on 45% shooting in the finals, which, based on his regular season numbers, was [expletive]ing amazing.

  • Gordon Hayward was brought up with Sloan and played alongside some All-Star caliber talent pretty early in guys like Deron Williams, Paul Milsap, AK47, and Al Jefferson

I discussed Hayward in depth in the OP. But it was more about how Corbin held Hayward back by running the offense through Jefferson. If you looked closely enough, the skills were already there. They just needed to hand the keys over to him.

  • Paul George was brought up alongside All-Star Danny Granger, David West, and an All-Star form of Roy Hibbert

I discussed PG in depth as well. But by his second year, he was doing everything better than Ingram (PnR, shooting, driving).

 

Bottom line is although it may seem that a player should or would post-up higher numbers on a poor team, at the same time it's much easier and convenient for a developing player to produce alongside proven All-Star talent.

 

I'm one that hates posting highlights to support any argument, but the fact that you think Ingram passes up open 3s, can't finish through contact, and essentially lacks offensive versatility is false.  

 

Regarding passing up open 3s, and lacking offensive versatility, I actually provided numbers to back it up. I'll repost it here: V3uiFTA.png

 

BetterGraveAntarcticfurseal-size_restric

 

You can see that Ingram was in the 12th percentile on spot up shots. The fact that he attempted under 2 threes a game, further shows he didn't want to take them. I even put an example play above of him doing this.

 

His offensive versatility is addressed in the OP. He was great at getting to the rim (74th percentile in attacking closeouts from the above graphic) but not at much else. He was lackluster in the PnR even though this accounted for nearly 40% of his possessions, and the shooting I just discussed. His poor FT% doesn't give me much confidence he will improve greatly in that regard either.

 

With regards to finishing through contact: Ingram is getting better at it, no doubt. But it's leading to injuries. He should be playing more off ball and perimeter - but his PnR skills and shooting skills need to improve significantly for the defense to respect him in these situations.

 

(Ingram vs. the best defense in the league)

 

(Game winning 3)

 

Actual breakdown of aspects of his game that he's improved. (Gotta love LakerFilmRoom)

 

 

 

Ingram has shown that he can finish at the rim, has an extremely tight handle for a guy his size, reads and reacts with what the defense provides, and is slowly improving his jumper.  Again, simply because he isn't a lights out scorer and shooter that would immediately draw your attention such as guys like Donovan Mitchell or Devin Booker, he is very good at other aspects of the game that make you wonder just how great he can become if he can put it all together.


Edited by bfc1125roy, July 20, 2018 - 10:25 PM.

  • GCMD likes this

#5 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 5,561 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 20, 2018 - 10:21 PM

djcQy1YL5ubkBtsuq3ZtIMAqehyJNpEQTpku32Wl

 

This is Ingram in college vs. Ingram today. He looks to have gotten bigger, for sure, but needs to add significantly more upper body mass before he can attack the way he wants to. It's not going to happen in 1 or even 2 offseasons. That's okay, but he needs to adjust in the mean time, especially when playing alongside LeBron.



#6 MambaMentality

MambaMentality

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 822 posts
  • Location:SF
  • Fan Since:1994
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted July 20, 2018 - 10:30 PM

can you compare ingram to tmac at this point in their careers?



#7 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 5,561 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 20, 2018 - 10:36 PM

can you compare ingram to tmac at this point in their careers?

 

Two completely different players. And McGrady came out of HS. When McGrady was 21 (what Ingram will be next season), he put up nearly 27/8/5. I don't think even the biggest Ingram nuthugger would expect him to do that next season, with or without LeBron.

 

I'll leave the detailed comparison to someone else. I've looked at WAY too many numbers today. If someone wants to make the argument for or against it, please, the floor is yours.


  • GCMD likes this

#8 MambaMentality

MambaMentality

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 822 posts
  • Location:SF
  • Fan Since:1994
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted July 20, 2018 - 10:42 PM

what? tmac is a much more realistic comparison than paul pierce...

 

at this point in their careers (2nd season), ingram is outpacing tmac. of course, as you said, tmac balled out when he turned 21.

 

man, these second year mcgrady highlights really remind me of ingram: 

 

Two completely different players. And McGrady came out of HS. When McGrady was 21 (what Ingram will be next season), he put up nearly 27/8/5. I don't think even the biggest Ingram nuthugger would expect him to do that next season, with or without LeBron.

 

I'll leave the detailed comparison to someone else. I've looked at WAY too many numbers today. If someone wants to make the argument for or against it, please, the floor is yours.


Edited by MambaMentality, July 20, 2018 - 10:58 PM.


#9 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 5,561 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 20, 2018 - 11:05 PM

what? tmac is a much more realistic comparison than paul pierce...

 

at this point in their careers (2nd season), ingram is outpacing tmac. of course, as you said, tmac balled out when he turned 21.

 

man, these second year mcgrady highlights really remind me of ingram: 

 

I see hardly any parallels from the highlight video and how Ingram plays.


  • GCMD likes this

#10 KidRN

KidRN

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,599 posts
  • Fan Since:I was born
  • Fav. Laker:KB24 or 8

Posted July 20, 2018 - 11:18 PM

Didn't read the initial post but Ingram plays absolutely nothing like Tmac.
  • GCMD and bfc1125roy like this

#11 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 5,561 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 20, 2018 - 11:45 PM

Didn't read the initial post but Ingram plays absolutely nothing like Tmac.

 

Would encourage you to read the OP when you get a chance. I think you, GCMD, and Japago in particular will appreciate my analysis. 

 

Also would appreciate feedback from anyone, whether you agree or not.


Edited by bfc1125roy, July 20, 2018 - 11:45 PM.

  • GCMD and LACAS like this

#12 DLN

DLN

    Danish Laker Fan

  • Member
  • 9,531 posts
  • Fan Since:1998
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted July 21, 2018 - 05:40 AM

Generally i think you grossly underestimate the importance of age in your analysis.
  • Aykut Purde likes this

#13 EddieJones

EddieJones

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 422 posts
  • Fan Since:1985
  • Fav. Laker:Eddie, Cooper, Ariza

Posted July 21, 2018 - 06:34 AM

I read everything you wrote. The only thing I learned is that you are stupid.

You wasted my time by putting graphs and charts to make it seem like you have a clue. Let me ask you, what was the basis of your comparison to Paul George, Jordan Clarkson? Did you randomnly pick them? How about actually doing work on all NBA players who ever lived.

Your “CONCLUSION” was based on what? How the hell did muscle mass get into your point?

My god, you need to get a life.
  • Busty Bluth and 8RingKobe like this

#14 KidRN

KidRN

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,599 posts
  • Fan Since:I was born
  • Fav. Laker:KB24 or 8

Posted July 21, 2018 - 06:39 AM

I read everything you wrote. The only thing I learned is that you are stupid.
You wasted my time by putting graphs and charts to make it seem like you have a clue. Let me ask you, what was the basis of your comparison to Paul George, Jordan Clarkson? Did you randomnly pick them? How about actually doing work on all NBA players who ever lived.
Your “CONCLUSION” was based on what? How the hell did muscle mass get into your point?
My god, you need to get a life.

And people talk about my civility lol
  • GCMD, erfolk and LACAS like this

#15 Clutch Factor

Clutch Factor

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,994 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 21, 2018 - 06:40 AM

I read everything you wrote. The only thing I learned is that you are stupid.

 

There is no need for this. 


  • GCMD and LACAS like this

#16 EddieJones

EddieJones

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 422 posts
  • Fan Since:1985
  • Fav. Laker:Eddie, Cooper, Ariza

Posted July 21, 2018 - 06:42 AM

There is no need for this.


Agreed, but he is going to waste a lot of people’s time with an absolute dumb argument.

#17 Tensai

Tensai

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,343 posts

Posted July 21, 2018 - 06:55 AM

This type of thread is not unusual. We have had one of these every year, Randle and D'Angelo come to mind in recent years.

 

What is interesting to me is that the OP lists Paul Pierce's 2nd year as a comparison to Ingram, however, in his profile he mentions he is a Laker fan (and possibly a basketball watcher) since 2004. If I were him, I wouldn't put him to make my point because stats usually says very little to project a player, especially one as young as Ingram.

 

Go on with someone you actually witnessed at least. You are probably too late for T-Mac too btw.


Edited by Tensai, July 21, 2018 - 06:57 AM.

  • Busty Bluth likes this

fXlFKv8.gif

 


#18 Clutch Factor

Clutch Factor

    Hall Of Fame

  • Member
  • 9,994 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted July 21, 2018 - 07:00 AM

Agreed, but he is going to waste a lot of people’s time with an absolute dumb argument.

 

Well it's an individual's choice whether to read it or not.

 

And if you disagree with his argument, present your own argument. The point of this forum is to have peaceful discussions (we all need to work on this part...) where each member can learn from each other's viewpoints and experiences. 


  • GCMD and LACAS like this

#19 Artest37

Artest37

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 795 posts
  • Location:Socal
  • Fan Since:1980
  • Fav. Laker:LeBron James :)

Posted July 21, 2018 - 07:03 AM

Props for doing the research to back up your points. I too didn’t make it through the whole post, but I’d encourage the “agree to disagree” stance vs the “you’re stupid” response here. If you don’t like someone’s post, here’s an idea, don’t read it. We’re not strapping you to a chair and forcing posts down your throat.

In terms of Ingram and future potential, I’m more an eyeball test person, and so far he seems to be passing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • GCMD likes this

Twitter : @_PurpleReign_

Posted Image


#20 EddieJones

EddieJones

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 422 posts
  • Fan Since:1985
  • Fav. Laker:Eddie, Cooper, Ariza

Posted July 21, 2018 - 07:16 AM

If you don’t like someone’s post, here’s an idea, don’t read it.


Huh? I only saw it was dumb while I read it. EVERY WORD. Sometimes twice. How was I supposed to know not to read it?
  • Busty Bluth likes this




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users