Official Brandon Ingram Thread

[tsherkin]

He's put up 25+, like four times. Not worth what they gave him, probably. He produces though.

You're talking about Fox here? Yeah, he's put up an inefficient 25+ ppg a few teams, which means a lot less than it sounds.

I wish we had that problem.

I mean, the difference between the 22-24 that Ingram has generally averaged and what Fox has done isn't significant, except that Ingram is a better 3pt shooter. And it's not far different from what we had with DeRozan, either.

[Los_29]

I'd like for someone to disabuse me of this understanding of the rizz of Ingram:

My impression is is that he is a scorer closer to the level of Demar Derozan and Pascal than to the level of Kawhi.

What are the counter-arguments to this? And even if the above statement is true, do we still have the potential to be a competitive top 4 seed?

He’s DeRozan esque in that he operates in the mid range. He’s not at all like derozan in that he shoots over 40% on catch and shoot 3s.

Esfandar Baraheni’s most recent video for raptors republic suggested that only he, Steph and KD were 20+/5/5 on 47/37/85 over the last 3 years. Pretty elite company. Whether he gets/stays there is tbd, but his passing should play up. In that way, he’s similar to Demar. In terms of Pascal, aside from being in similar spots, I don’t really see the comparison, but haven’t dug into the stats to check.

I don't know where this Esfandar guy gets his numbers but a lot more cumulatively averaged at least 20/5/5 since 2022-23 season, like Dejounte Murray, LeMello Ball, Desmond Bane, Cade Cunningham, LeBron, Luka and Jokic, just to name a few. It's not common but also not that rare.

That said, I do agree that other than drawing FT's, BI has been the better scorer and overall the better player. However, you can't score if you don't play and DeRozan has been a workhorse playing at least 70 games for vast majority of his career vs. constantly injured Ingram.

20/5/5 on at least 47/37/85. Those guys put up the counting stats but didn’t deliver on all of those percentages. For example, Dejounte shot 30% from three last year. I think it’s quite a cherry picked stat just like that Thad infographic. Still impressive and shows what he’s capable of when healthy.

[ConSarnit]

He's much better 3pt shooter.....which makes all the difference when discussing Demar. So if he's Demar with a 3pt shot, then he is a superstar.

I think that his scoring totals, though, say that he's closer to Demar than Steph/KD. If he was capable of Steph/KD volume, it'd reflect in his ppg rizz.

Is there really a big difference between 24 and 27 ppg?

Yes. Especially when the 27ppg guys are doing it on 64-65% TS vs 58% TS.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

You're talking about Fox here? Yeah, he's put up an inefficient 25+ ppg a few teams, which means a lot less than it sounds.

I wish we had that problem.

I mean, the difference between the 22-24 that Ingram has generally averaged and what Fox has done isn't significant, except that Ingram is a better 3pt shooter. And it's not far different from what we had with DeRozan, either.

Traditionally, 25's a bit of a hallmark. Like, you can't inefficient your way to 25. It's rare air.

[tsherkin]

Traditionally, 25's a bit of a hallmark. Like, you can't inefficient your way to 25. It's rare air.

You 100% can inefficient your way to 25. It's daft as can be to suggest otherwise. We've seen inefficient volume chuckers press pass that for decades and decades, what on earth are you talking about?

Meantime, it's much less rare air in the contemporary environment given the rise of efficiency and the use of the 3 in today's game. It means far less than it used to in the 80s and 90s. And of course, that's even accounting for the difference in lower minutes per game for players.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

Traditionally, 25's a bit of a hallmark. Like, you can't inefficient your way to 25. It's rare air.

You 100% can inefficient your way to 25. It's daft as can be to suggest otherwise. We've seen inefficient volume chuckers press pass that for decades and decades, what on earth are you talking about?

Meantime, it's much less rare air in the contemporary environment given the rise of efficiency and the use of the 3 in today's game. It means far less than it used to in the 80s and 90s. And of course, that's even accounting for the difference in lower minutes per game for players.

He's got to do something insanely proficient though, right?

[Clay Davis]

Well, I think that a play-off push would motivate Scottie to work even harder in the off-season. I just feel like that's the person he is. That's my perception of his rizz.

Maybe. Probably not, minding that we DID make the playoffs in his rookie season, but who knows at this juncture? I don't ultimately think it'd matter that much, anyhow. Mostly, I"m hoping that we transition to BI as our focal point and help Scottie shoot less, but be supported more when he does.

I feel like on the scale between optimism and pessimism, Tsherkin, I lean towards being an optometrist rather than a penissimist.

I see what you did there xD

I actually think that Scottie's initial play-off run was pretty productive! Alas, he got injured quite early.

Personally I have it as an open question in my mind whether that increased intensity and knowing the difference between a player who's a contributor to a first-round exit versus a second-round exit would affect his self-image and his accountability. Or maybe not. Really, I think your opinion is more correct at this stage of his career.

That being said I'm confident if we get to the play-offs, no matter what team we face, he'll have one or two games (at least) where he's the best player on the court for either team. Who knows, he may have had those games in his first series! He was doing quite well before he got injured against Philly in that game 1. IIRC he had 18/4/6. Perhaps he'd have had a game or two where he had 20-24 points on decent percentages (and a few stinkers as well, to be sure lol).

[tsherkin]

He's got to do something insanely proficient though, right?

I'm not sure of the intent behind this statement. It seems sarcastic, but is too vague to be of any use in guiding conversation.

I actually think that Scottie's initial play-off run was pretty productive! Alas, he got injured quite early.

He had a very nice first game. Rebounded well throughout, looked very good in Game 5. And was then terrible in the close-out game, overshooting badly and looking awful. It's a nice encapsulation of him as a player: best on low/mid volume and focusing on things other than scoring. He brings a lot of value when he focuses more on defense, rebounding and hustle.

[Clay Davis]

He's much better 3pt shooter.....which makes all the difference when discussing Demar. So if he's Demar with a 3pt shot, then he is a superstar.

I think that his scoring totals, though, say that he's closer to Demar than Steph/KD. If he was capable of Steph/KD volume, it'd reflect in his ppg rizz.

Is there really a big difference between 24 and 27 ppg?

Yes, of course. Relatively to the 24 PPG scorer, the 27 PPG scorer scores 12.25% more points. That's quite a bit, especially when you consider statistical variance. A "bad" game for the 27 PPG scorer is an "average" game for the 24 PPG scorer. A "good" game for the 24 PPG scorer is an "average" game for the 27 PPG scorer. A "good" game for the 27 PPG scorer is a "great" game for the 24 PPG scorer. This is the rizzidual statistical.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

I'm not sure of the intent behind this statement. It seems sarcastic, but is too vague to be of any use in guiding conversation.

Not sarcastic at all. I'm just saying, if you're putting up 25+ it's because you do something extremely well. Like, Demar's thing was getting to the line.

[tsherkin]

I'm just saying, if you're putting up 25+ it's because you do something extremely well. Like, Demar's thing was getting to the line.

Mmmm, or you're just shooting a lot, and playing a decent number of minutes per game.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

I'm just saying, if you're putting up 25+ it's because you do something extremely well. Like, Demar's thing was getting to the line.

Mmmm, or you're just shooting a lot, and playing a decent number of minutes per game.

He's prolly going to average like 26per this year. I can live with some things.

[tsherkin]

He's prolly going to average like 26per this year. I can live with some things.

I mean, I"m looking forward to having Ingram on the Raptors. If you're still talking about Fox, it's going to be of only SO much use to their offense given their issues, as such players always present. If he plays 70+ games, he'll have helpful floor-raising value, but lacking efficiency (and struggling with both his size and his utility from 3), he has a ceiling to his value and isn't a major raiser once the team starts trying to contend. That's part of why we moved Demar, after all.

[ontnut]

He's prolly going to average like 26per this year. I can live with some things.

I mean, I"m looking forward to having Ingram on the Raptors. If you're still talking about Fox, it's going to be of only SO much use to their offense given their issues, as such players always present. If he plays 70+ games, he'll have helpful floor-raising value, but lacking efficiency (and struggling with both his size and his utility from 3), he has a ceiling to his value and isn't a major raiser once the team starts trying to contend. That's part of why we moved Demar, after all.

Fox is just a stopgap for now I guess, until Harper is ready. But even he's not really a great 3p threat....yet, anyway.
My guess is they will move on from Fox in 2 years when they're really ready to go for a chip. Or he'll be moved into a super bench role while they still have Harper on his rookie deal. I like Fox, but the extreme lack of shooting from the PG spot severely limits his upside to a contender.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

He's prolly going to average like 26per this year. I can live with some things.

I mean, I"m looking forward to having Ingram on the Raptors. If you're still talking about Fox, it's going to be of only SO much use to their offense given their issues, as such players always present. If he plays 70+ games, he'll have helpful floor-raising value, but lacking efficiency (and struggling with both his size and his utility from 3), he has a ceiling to his value and isn't a major raiser once the team starts trying to contend. That's part of why we moved Demar, after all.

Fox is just a stopgap for now I guess, until Harper is ready. But even he's not really a great 3p threat....yet, anyway.
My guess is they will move on from Fox in 2 years when they're really ready to go for a chip. Or he'll be moved into a super bench role while they still have Harper on his rookie deal. I like Fox, but the extreme lack of shooting from the PG spot severely limits his upside to a contender.

Wemby's durability is a question still. Fox makes for a nice safety net.

[ontnut]

I mean, I"m looking forward to having Ingram on the Raptors. If you're still talking about Fox, it's going to be of only SO much use to their offense given their issues, as such players always present. If he plays 70+ games, he'll have helpful floor-raising value, but lacking efficiency (and struggling with both his size and his utility from 3), he has a ceiling to his value and isn't a major raiser once the team starts trying to contend. That's part of why we moved Demar, after all.

Fox is just a stopgap for now I guess, until Harper is ready. But even he's not really a great 3p threat....yet, anyway.
My guess is they will move on from Fox in 2 years when they're really ready to go for a chip. Or he'll be moved into a super bench role while they still have Harper on his rookie deal. I like Fox, but the extreme lack of shooting from the PG spot severely limits his upside to a contender.

Wemby's durability is a question still. Fox makes for a nice safety net.

Yes, he will keep them afloat to an extent when Wemby gets hurt. But the end-game fit is not great. It's good for SA right now because they need playoff experience, and Fox will certainly help get the young core there.

[tsherkin]

Fox is just a stopgap for now I guess, until Harper is ready. But even he's not really a great 3p threat....yet, anyway.
My guess is they will move on from Fox in 2 years when they're really ready to go for a chip. Or he'll be moved into a super bench role while they still have Harper on his rookie deal. I like Fox, but the extreme lack of shooting from the PG spot severely limits his upside to a contender.

That's a lot of money for a guy who is basically a smaller DeRozan, whom they already had.

Wemby's durability is a question still. Fox makes for a nice safety net.

If Wemby is out, they are screwed. Fox won't change that.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

If Wemby is out, they are screwed. Fox won't change that.

He's got blood flow restrictions already. Enjoy the show while you can.

[tsherkin]

He's got blood flow restrictions already. Enjoy the show while you can.

Blood clots are serious business, no doubt. The Spurs are old-hand at load management, though, so we'll see what happens. And it wasn't in his legs, which is at least good. It was in his shoulder, on his dominant side, which isn't great if it becomes a repetitive problem, but we'll see how that all plays out.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

He's got blood flow restrictions already. Enjoy the show while you can.

Blood clots are serious business, no doubt. The Spurs are old-hand at load management, though, so we'll see what happens. And it wasn't in his legs, which is at least good. It was in his shoulder, on his dominant side, which isn't great if it becomes a repetitive problem, but we'll see how that all plays out.

It's not clots iirc, they gave it some weird name. He's supposedly still growing too. So, double whammy.