Joe Ingles is a top 30 player this season

[lakerz12]

On tons of volume and low efficiency...

Prime Monta was horrifically inefficient. A volume chucker who couldn't shoot threes or get to the line. Tons of turnovers, and steals aside (gambler), awful defender.

Dude had a high of .89 WS/48, and 53.6% TS in his prime, which is TERRIBLE. Highest VORP was 2.2. Jingles had a 3.3 VORP last year. .141 WS/48, 62.3% TS.

This is no contest. Jingles has a way bigger positive impact on winning than Monta ever did.

Put Prime Monta on this Jazz team...

Put Joe Ingles on that Warriors team...

It's a whole lot easier playing next to Rubio, Mitchell, and Gobert.

If Ingles was first option and faced the other team's #1 defender and took 22 shots per game, his efficiency would take a hit too.

All of these "advanced" stats have to be taken within context. Your teammates drastically impact these stats.

The same goes for the normal, volume stats I posted too. But I'd still take Monta on a pure talent, eye test basis.

But please, don't throw out these "advanced" stats like you're proving something. As if you can measure Jingle's "positive impact on winning" on an apples to apples basis vs. Monta when one played on a crappy team and the other plays on a very good team.

You're not using common sense and reasoning if you think these "advanced" metrics can actually isolate an individual's contribution irregardless of his teammates. It's impossible.

Do you really think the prime Monta Warriors would win more games if Ingles replaced Monta??? No, they wouldn't. Ingles "positive impact on winning" is predicated on him being surrounded by 3 great players.

Lol, this is such nonsense. Yeah, those pesky advanced stats mean nothing compared to your "eye test." Monta also played on a playoff Dallas team, a playoff Pacers team, and the Bucks. Somehow, go figure, he was highly inefficient on all those teams. I don't care if Monta can chuck 22 shots on a bad team...he isn't helping his team win. Ingles is.

You say it's "nonsense" but don't explain why.

I never said the advanced stats "mean nothing compared to" my eye test.

The question was of prime Monta Ellis.

Prime Monta was not "highly inefficient". He had an 18.6 PER and .536 TS% in what most would consider his best year.

.493 eFG% and .536 TS% is not even close to being highly inefficient for an option 1 SG.

24 pts, 5.6 ast, 3.5 rebs, 2.1 stls on the above efficiency isn't helping his team win? Sorry, you're just dead wrong.

Even if you look at his career as a whole, this is a guy who started almost every game for 10 straight years in the NBA. He wasn't helping his team win? I guess his coaches should have all been fired for playing him? You should show them your advanced stats.

[HiRez]

Come on, Ingles is really good but doing player rankings for "this season" after 2 freakin' games is ridiculous. That's 2.4% of a season by the way.

[TheBonzaiEffect]

Put Prime Monta on this Jazz team...

Put Joe Ingles on that Warriors team...

It's a whole lot easier playing next to Rubio, Mitchell, and Gobert.

If Ingles was first option and faced the other team's #1 defender and took 22 shots per game, his efficiency would take a hit too.

All of these "advanced" stats have to be taken within context. Your teammates drastically impact these stats.

The same goes for the normal, volume stats I posted too. But I'd still take Monta on a pure talent, eye test basis.

But please, don't throw out these "advanced" stats like you're proving something. As if you can measure Jingle's "positive impact on winning" on an apples to apples basis vs. Monta when one played on a crappy team and the other plays on a very good team.

You're not using common sense and reasoning if you think these "advanced" metrics can actually isolate an individual's contribution irregardless of his teammates. It's impossible.

Do you really think the prime Monta Warriors would win more games if Ingles replaced Monta??? No, they wouldn't. Ingles "positive impact on winning" is predicated on him being surrounded by 3 great players.

Lol, this is such nonsense. Yeah, those pesky advanced stats mean nothing compared to your "eye test." Monta also played on a playoff Dallas team, a playoff Pacers team, and the Bucks. Somehow, go figure, he was highly inefficient on all those teams. I don't care if Monta can chuck 22 shots on a bad team...he isn't helping his team win. Ingles is.

You say it's "nonsense" but don't explain why.

I never said the advanced stats "mean nothing compared to" my eye test.

The question was of prime Monta Ellis.

Prime Monta was not "highly inefficient". He had an 18.6 PER and .536 TS% in what most would consider his best year.

.493 eFG% and .536 TS% is not even close to being highly inefficient for an option 1 SG.

24 pts, 5.6 ast, 3.5 rebs, 2.1 stls on the above efficiency isn't helping his team win? Sorry, you're just dead wrong.

Even if you look at his career as a whole, this is a guy who started almost every game for 10 straight years in the NBA. He wasn't helping his team win? I guess his coaches should have all been fired for playing him? You should show them your advanced stats.

If you think a .536% TS (his best ever in his prime) is efficient, then I don't know what to say. Yes, Monta was inefficient. His TS% throughout his career was abysmal. His career DRtg is 6 points worse than his ORtg. His career BPM is -.3. By any metric you want to use, Ellis was a net negative player who did not contribute to winning basketball.

[lakerz12]

Lol, this is such nonsense. Yeah, those pesky advanced stats mean nothing compared to your "eye test." Monta also played on a playoff Dallas team, a playoff Pacers team, and the Bucks. Somehow, go figure, he was highly inefficient on all those teams. I don't care if Monta can chuck 22 shots on a bad team...he isn't helping his team win. Ingles is.

You say it's "nonsense" but don't explain why.

I never said the advanced stats "mean nothing compared to" my eye test.

The question was of prime Monta Ellis.

Prime Monta was not "highly inefficient". He had an 18.6 PER and .536 TS% in what most would consider his best year.

.493 eFG% and .536 TS% is not even close to being highly inefficient for an option 1 SG.

24 pts, 5.6 ast, 3.5 rebs, 2.1 stls on the above efficiency isn't helping his team win? Sorry, you're just dead wrong.

Even if you look at his career as a whole, this is a guy who started almost every game for 10 straight years in the NBA. He wasn't helping his team win? I guess his coaches should have all been fired for playing him? You should show them your advanced stats.

If you think a .536% TS (his best ever in his prime) is efficient, then I don't know what to say. Yes, Monta was inefficient. His TS% throughout his career was abysmal. His career DRtg is 6 points worse than his ORtg. His career BPM is -.3. By any metric you want to use, Ellis was a net negative player who did not contribute to winning basketball.

.536 TS% is not "highly inefficient". That's all I said.

It depends how you define "efficient", but .536 TS% is average to slightly above average for a shooting guard who scores 24 PPG.

He was 41st out of 98 shooting guards that year in TS%. So yeah, I'm not going to say someone is inefficient or highly inefficient if he's in the top half for his position in TS% and scoring 24 ppg.

Why should we totally ignore volume? You'd rather have a SG who averages 10 PPG but has a "highly efficient" 60% TS? I sure hope not. The team with the most points wins. Scoring a high volume of points should count for something.

He was 6th in PER among shooting guards. And 8th in the entire NBA in PPG.

He was a starter on 6 different playoff teams. You must think his teammates really carried him for him to be a "net negative player who did not contribute to winning basketball".

I think you are making a clear mistake in thinking that "advanced stats" can definitively tell you whether a player contributes to winning basketball. But we can just agree to disagree.

[EmperorLocky]

I heard Joe is the son of God of war Ares and Goddess Aphrodite. His alpha mentality comes from his father symbolically representing destruction and slaughter. Among other symbols Ares also symbolised a vulture which shows Joe trashing the corpses of his opponents

[-G-]

Top 30? Dude is like a 6'8'' Nash out there.

[jmnvcavs]

Come on, Ingles is really good but doing player rankings for "this season" after 2 freakin' games is ridiculous. That's 2.4% of a season by the way.

This post is from last year. I thought that as well.

[mowcrowbar]

Top 30? stop hating. he's nothing short of top 1

[Dez]

Jingles is life.

[TheBonzaiEffect]

*wrong thread.

[Cappy_Smurf]

Come on, Ingles is really good but doing player rankings for "this season" after 2 freakin' games is ridiculous. That's 2.4% of a season by the way.

Might wanna check the OP before posting. This thread was posted last season.

[dukes_wild]

Come on, Ingles is really good but doing player rankings for "this season" after 2 freakin' games is ridiculous. That's 2.4% of a season by the way.

Might wanna check the OP before posting. This thread was posted last season.

[BudTugly]

I dunno how to rank players but I do know everybody but us wishes they had him

[dukes_wild]

smh people thinking I posted this after last game?

[Meeksology]

I looooove Joe Ingles. Had to pour out some liquor when I traded him from my fantasy team yesterday

I hope u got a good return, ingles is gonna be a problem this yr.

Sent from my SM-N950W using RealGM mobile app

[GlennQuagmire]

[lakerz12]

On tons of volume and low efficiency...

Prime Monta was horrifically inefficient. A volume chucker who couldn't shoot threes or get to the line. Tons of turnovers, and steals aside (gambler), awful defender.

Dude had a high of .89 WS/48, and 53.6% TS in his prime, which is TERRIBLE. Highest VORP was 2.2. Jingles had a 3.3 VORP last year. .141 WS/48, 62.3% TS.

This is no contest. Jingles has a way bigger positive impact on winning than Monta ever did.

Put Prime Monta on this Jazz team...

Put Joe Ingles on that Warriors team...

It's a whole lot easier playing next to Rubio, Mitchell, and Gobert.

If Ingles was first option and faced the other team's #1 defender and took 22 shots per game, his efficiency would take a hit too.

All of these "advanced" stats have to be taken within context. Your teammates drastically impact these stats.

The same goes for the normal, volume stats I posted too. But I'd still take Monta on a pure talent, eye test basis.

But please, don't throw out these "advanced" stats like you're proving something. As if you can measure Jingle's "positive impact on winning" on an apples to apples basis vs. Monta when one played on a crappy team and the other plays on a very good team.

You're not using common sense and reasoning if you think these "advanced" metrics can actually isolate an individual's contribution irregardless of his teammates. It's impossible.

Do you really think the prime Monta Warriors would win more games if Ingles replaced Monta??? No, they wouldn't. Ingles "positive impact on winning" is predicated on him being surrounded by 3 great players.

Rubio is a great player? Since when? Anyways, if you put Monta on the Jazz he'd be a horrible fit. Likewise with Ingles on those GSW teams. Ingles is the definition of an elite role player. Similar to Draymond (don't roast me for this but he is)

Ingles can only be an "elite role player" because he plays next to elite players, on a very good overall team.

Put him on the Suns and he would be unknown, like TJ Warren. There would be no threads about top 30 or even top 100.

People underestimate situation. There are a lot of guys who in the perfect situation would draw a lot of positive attention but are currently never discussed.

[TheBonzaiEffect]

Put Prime Monta on this Jazz team...

Put Joe Ingles on that Warriors team...

It's a whole lot easier playing next to Rubio, Mitchell, and Gobert.

If Ingles was first option and faced the other team's #1 defender and took 22 shots per game, his efficiency would take a hit too.

All of these "advanced" stats have to be taken within context. Your teammates drastically impact these stats.

The same goes for the normal, volume stats I posted too. But I'd still take Monta on a pure talent, eye test basis.

But please, don't throw out these "advanced" stats like you're proving something. As if you can measure Jingle's "positive impact on winning" on an apples to apples basis vs. Monta when one played on a crappy team and the other plays on a very good team.

You're not using common sense and reasoning if you think these "advanced" metrics can actually isolate an individual's contribution irregardless of his teammates. It's impossible.

Do you really think the prime Monta Warriors would win more games if Ingles replaced Monta??? No, they wouldn't. Ingles "positive impact on winning" is predicated on him being surrounded by 3 great players.

Rubio is a great player? Since when? Anyways, if you put Monta on the Jazz he'd be a horrible fit. Likewise with Ingles on those GSW teams. Ingles is the definition of an elite role player. Similar to Draymond (don't roast me for this but he is)

Ingles can only be an "elite role player" because he plays next to elite players, on a very good overall team.

Put him on the Suns and he would be unknown, like TJ Warren. There would be no threads about top 30 or even top 100.

People underestimate situation. There are a lot of guys who in the perfect situation would draw a lot of positive attention but are currently never discussed.

Except Ingles is an elite shooter and PnR player, and good defender, which are all portable skills...

[lakerz12]

Rubio is a great player? Since when? Anyways, if you put Monta on the Jazz he'd be a horrible fit. Likewise with Ingles on those GSW teams. Ingles is the definition of an elite role player. Similar to Draymond (don't roast me for this but he is)

Ingles can only be an "elite role player" because he plays next to elite players, on a very good overall team.

Put him on the Suns and he would be unknown, like TJ Warren. There would be no threads about top 30 or even top 100.

People underestimate situation. There are a lot of guys who in the perfect situation would draw a lot of positive attention but are currently never discussed.

Except Ingles is an elite shooter and PnR player, and good defender, which are all portable skills...

Okay? I didn't say he wouldn't be a good player or carry his skills with him. He was an "elite shooter" on 8.8 shot attempts

My point was there is no way in the world he'd be getting a "top 30 player" thread if he played for the Suns last year.

And it would be a lot more intelligent conversation if people considered situation when ranking players.

[Luigi]

Ingles can only be an "elite role player" because he plays next to elite players, on a very good overall team.

Put him on the Suns and he would be unknown, like TJ Warren. There would be no threads about top 30 or even top 100.

People underestimate situation. There are a lot of guys who in the perfect situation would draw a lot of positive attention but are currently never discussed.

Except Ingles is an elite shooter and PnR player, and good defender, which are all portable skills...

Okay? I didn't say he wouldn't be a good player or carry his skills with him. He was an "elite shooter" on 8.8 shot attempts

My point was there is no way in the world he'd be getting a "top 30 player" thread if he played for the Suns last year.

And it would be a lot more intelligent conversation if people considered situation when ranking players.