The Joe Ingles Thread

[minimus]

If this is true, then one or both of Minott or Miller is gonna ride the pine for much of the year. I get prioritizing winning over development at this stage of the franchise. But, if playing Jingles big minutes is how you do it, that is concerning.

Nah, if anything Minott and Miller wont get playing time because they are better suited as PF rather than wings. In other words, Towns and Reid playing big chunk of minutes at PF will leave only limited amount of opportunites for Minott and Miller. Watch Joe Ingles videos: he can slash, he can pass and he can shoot. Neither of Miller/Minott can do these things at NBA level. However, if Towns will miss games due to load management it open a HUGE opportunity for Miller/Minott.

Disagree on both. Minott has the wrong body type to be a stretch 4. If anything he is more 2/3 than a 3/4. He should be capable of backing up MCD for 10+ minutes by now. That is not to suggest on a bad team with low stakes games and a ton of playing time he could not be salvaged, but for our purposes if he hasn’t gotten there by year 3, he is unlikely to get there. Miller is more an undersized 5 than a PF.

In any case both Karl and Naz have proven they can play SF without issues. Any lineup including Minott or Miller with Karl and Naz should be fine. I wouldn’t pair Minott with Gobert, and I would be careful about pairing Miller with Gobert (again two non shooters is a problem,) but either should be fine so long as they are the worst shooter on the floor for us.

Bro, it is even easier than this. Gobert-Towns-McDaniels-Edwards-Conley start. Reid and NAW are first to come from the bench. Next Ingles-TSJ-Dillingham. Simply because starting five needs shooting and passing. Something that Miller and Minott cant provide

[winforlose]

Nah, if anything Minott and Miller wont get playing time because they are better suited as PF rather than wings. In other words, Towns and Reid playing big chunk of minutes at PF will leave only limited amount of opportunites for Minott and Miller. Watch Joe Ingles videos: he can slash, he can pass and he can shoot. Neither of Miller/Minott can do these things at NBA level. However, if Towns will miss games due to load management it open a HUGE opportunity for Miller/Minott.

Disagree on both. Minott has the wrong body type to be a stretch 4. If anything he is more 2/3 than a 3/4. He should be capable of backing up MCD for 10+ minutes by now. That is not to suggest on a bad team with low stakes games and a ton of playing time he could not be salvaged, but for our purposes if he hasn’t gotten there by year 3, he is unlikely to get there. Miller is more an undersized 5 than a PF.

In any case both Karl and Naz have proven they can play SF without issues. Any lineup including Minott or Miller with Karl and Naz should be fine. I wouldn’t pair Minott with Gobert, and I would be careful about pairing Miller with Gobert (again two non shooters is a problem,) but either should be fine so long as they are the worst shooter on the floor for us.

Bro, it is even easier than this. Gobert-Towns-McDaniels-Edwards-Conley start. Reid and NAW are first to come from the bench. Next Ingles-TSJ-Dillingham. Simply because starting five needs shooting and passing. Something that Miller and Minott cant provide

Every year Finch tinkers with/experiments with rotations early. He will try all kinds of pairings and examine the results. I think you are correct that the first out are KAT and Mike, but wrong about NAW coming in. So after first subs

RD/Ant/Jaden/Naz/Rudy. This lineup has in theory the same pieces that the starters do, just with less talent.

Ant probably plays the entire 1st again, (he probably shouldn’t but Finch likes the method,) which means when Jaden subs out NAW subs in. When Rudy is taken out KAT is back in. So second set of subs with about 2 minutes left in the first is RD/Ant/NAW/Naz/Karl.

To start the 2nd Ant is on the bench, so I suspect RD is pulled for Mike, Ant is replaced by TSJ, and the lineup is Conley/TSJ/NAW/Naz/Karl. A couple minutes later things get interesting. If Finch wants to use Jingles, Minott, or Miller, this is probably where it happens.

Presumably Naz sits down and X comes in. I also think NAW sits and Jaden returns. So around 3 minutes into the 2nd quarter, Conley/TSJ/MCD/X/Rudy. If Miller cannot hit the 3 or TSJ cannot hit the 3 then more changes could happen. For instance, TSJ could be replaced by RD and Finch uses the 2 PG lineup. If that happens Conley/RD/MCD/KAT/Rudy has plenty of size to contain the paint. I do expect some double PG and with KAT/Rudy pairing.

Everyone assumes Jingles is replacing Kyle, but that might not be true. Jingles might be more about locker room leadership and player coaching. It could be that Miller gets player X minutes as the 10th man. RD is your 8th, and TSJ is your 9th.

[minimus]

Disagree on both. Minott has the wrong body type to be a stretch 4. If anything he is more 2/3 than a 3/4. He should be capable of backing up MCD for 10+ minutes by now. That is not to suggest on a bad team with low stakes games and a ton of playing time he could not be salvaged, but for our purposes if he hasn’t gotten there by year 3, he is unlikely to get there. Miller is more an undersized 5 than a PF.

In any case both Karl and Naz have proven they can play SF without issues. Any lineup including Minott or Miller with Karl and Naz should be fine. I wouldn’t pair Minott with Gobert, and I would be careful about pairing Miller with Gobert (again two non shooters is a problem,) but either should be fine so long as they are the worst shooter on the floor for us.

Bro, it is even easier than this. Gobert-Towns-McDaniels-Edwards-Conley start. Reid and NAW are first to come from the bench. Next Ingles-TSJ-Dillingham. Simply because starting five needs shooting and passing. Something that Miller and Minott cant provide

Every year Finch tinkers with/experiments with rotations early. He will try all kinds of pairings and examine the results. I think you are correct that the first out are KAT and Mike, but wrong about NAW coming in.

NAW and Reid have contract years. Thats why I think that they are first sub in pecking order. Also NAW will be a pseudo starting PG when Conley sits games due to load management.

[Klomp]

Nah, if anything Minott and Miller wont get playing time because they are better suited as PF rather than wings. In other words, Towns and Reid playing big chunk of minutes at PF will leave only limited amount of opportunites for Minott and Miller. Watch Joe Ingles videos: he can slash, he can pass and he can shoot. Neither of Miller/Minott can do these things at NBA level. However, if Towns will miss games due to load management it open a HUGE opportunity for Miller/Minott.

This is where I have been standing the whole time. I know everyone is excited about Miller's and Minott's potential (and I am too!), but remember that they are still very young and inexperienced. I'm sorry, but the development track we saw for Ant and Jaden is not the norm, especially for a very good team with a rotation that is mostly established.

I know people probably think I am talking out of both sides of my mouth while talking about the high minutes load I expect Dillingham to get, but the differences are the opportunities in front of them (Rob doesn't have Towns, Gobert AND Reid) in front of him and the fact that Dillingham was targeted to fill a specific need while I view the other two as more of a second round value grab in their respective drafts.

Similarly, I think Ingles was signed to address a few needs we had both before and after we lost Anderson: corner 3s, shot creation, trustworthy veteran.

[KGdaBom]

Nah, if anything Minott and Miller wont get playing time because they are better suited as PF rather than wings. In other words, Towns and Reid playing big chunk of minutes at PF will leave only limited amount of opportunites for Minott and Miller. Watch Joe Ingles videos: he can slash, he can pass and he can shoot. Neither of Miller/Minott can do these things at NBA level. However, if Towns will miss games due to load management it open a HUGE opportunity for Miller/Minott.

Disagree on both. Minott has the wrong body type to be a stretch 4. If anything he is more 2/3 than a 3/4. He should be capable of backing up MCD for 10+ minutes by now. That is not to suggest on a bad team with low stakes games and a ton of playing time he could not be salvaged, but for our purposes if he hasn’t gotten there by year 3, he is unlikely to get there. Miller is more an undersized 5 than a PF.

In any case both Karl and Naz have proven they can play SF without issues. Any lineup including Minott or Miller with Karl and Naz should be fine. I wouldn’t pair Minott with Gobert, and I would be careful about pairing Miller with Gobert (again two non shooters is a problem,) but either should be fine so long as they are the worst shooter on the floor for us.

Bro, it is even easier than this. Gobert-Towns-McDaniels-Edwards-Conley start. Reid and NAW are first to come from the bench. Next Ingles-TSJ-Dillingham. Simply because starting five needs shooting and passing. Something that Miller and Minott cant provide

It's my understanding that Miller is a competent 3 point shooter. Am I wrong about this?

[Klomp]

It's my understanding that Miller is a competent 3 point shooter. Am I wrong about this?

He has potential to be pretty good.

Joe is ELITE.

Active career leaders in 3FG%, taller than 6'6"
Sam Hauser .4218
Michael Porter Jr. .4101
Joe Ingles .4099

[KGdaBom]

It's my understanding that Miller is a competent 3 point shooter. Am I wrong about this?

He has potential to be pretty good.

Joe is ELITE.

Active career leaders in 3FG%, taller than 6'6"
Sam Hauser .4218
Michael Porter Jr. .4101
Joe Ingles .4099

I'm not saying Jingles isn't better, but some posters on this board have been calling Miller a non-shooter and I was pretty sure that was wrong so thanks for your reply.

[Klomp]

I'm not saying Jingles isn't better, but some posters on this board have been calling Miller a non-shooter and I was pretty sure that was wrong so thanks for your reply.

I'm just pushing back against the general notion here (not from you) that Joe Ingles is washed up and no longer provides value on an NBA floor.

Over the last two seasons, he has attempted 364 3-pointers and made 153 (42%) of them. And now he'll be back in a bit of a comfortable setting where he can duck behind Gobert screens for more openings.

[BlacJacMac]

It's my understanding that Miller is a competent 3 point shooter. Am I wrong about this?

He shot 48/38/72 in 20 GLeague games last year.

55/33/79 in 24 games the year before.

Now we have to see if it transfers. Some guys it does, some it doesn't (Nowell, WMJ, even Luka so far (39/120, 33%.)

He did shoot 40% on 3s for us, but 2/5 is far too small of a sample to read anything at all.

[KGdaBom]

It's my understanding that Miller is a competent 3 point shooter. Am I wrong about this?

He shot 48/38/72 in 20 GLeague games last year.

55/33/79 in 24 games the year before.

Now we have to see if it transfers. Some guys it does, some it doesn't (Nowell, WMJ, even Luka so far (39/120, 33%.)

He did shoot 40% on 3s for us, but 2/5 is far too small of a sample to read anything at all.

Thanks. The evidence shows that as of now we can consider Miller a competent 3 point shooter. The G league line is the same distance as the NBA line so I will consider that his NBA 3 point shooting will be similar to his G league.

[winforlose]

I'm not saying Jingles isn't better, but some posters on this board have been calling Miller a non-shooter and I was pretty sure that was wrong so thanks for your reply.

I'm just pushing back against the general notion here (not from you) that Joe Ingles is washed up and no longer provides value on an NBA floor.

Over the last two seasons, he has attempted 364 3-pointers and made 153 (42%) of them. And now he'll be back in a bit of a comfortable setting where he can duck behind Gobert screens for more openings.

Again, last years sample size and volume matter. Go to basketball reference, go into the 23-24 while on Jingles page. You can see how many times he attempted each number game. Jingles can be a 75% 3 point shooter, but if he averages 4 points per game, something went wrong.

Miller is not necessarily a non shooter, nor is a shooter. He is a mystery until we see him play consistent minutes at the NBA level.

All things being equal a minute of a player in their early 20s is more valuable than a minute of a man at 37. Now of course in the NBA all things are not equal. The question is whether the complete player that Minott or Miller represents can compete for minutes against Jingles, on a contending team. If you need rationale for the statement, Jingles is unlikely to improve further beyond his existing role and peak, young players are more likely to advance both their overall game, and their competency in their role. You also might lose talent to salary, and developing young players is how you plan for that. See Denver playing guys like Braun and Watson instead of going more vet heavy. Of course this assumes they can at least play well enough not to disrupt either side of the ball.

[BlacJacMac]

It's my understanding that Miller is a competent 3 point shooter. Am I wrong about this?

He shot 48/38/72 in 20 GLeague games last year.

55/33/79 in 24 games the year before.

Now we have to see if it transfers. Some guys it does, some it doesn't (Nowell, WMJ, even Luka so far (39/120, 33%.)

He did shoot 40% on 3s for us, but 2/5 is far too small of a sample to read anything at all.

Thanks. The evidence shows that as of now we can consider Miller a competent 3 point shooter. The G league line is the same distance as the NBA line so I will consider that his NBA 3 point shooting will be similar to his G league.

You can, but I wouldn't. There is a huge volume of guys who light it up in the G-League from 3, but it doesn't translate to the Pros.

Some of that is way better defense at the NBA level, but some of it is role. Nowell was a very good G-League shooter because he was a rhythm player that needed to take a ton of shots to find his groove. In the NBA he wasn't good enough to warrant that kind of usage, so he was never able to find his stroke.

Miller averaged 17 FGAs last year, with 6 of them being 3s. And he had a 26.6 Usage. Can he duplicate his efficiency with a much lower usage - and likely a very different shot profile than had in Iowa?

He's a complete unknown at the NBA level. Its not safe to assume anything.

[BlacJacMac]

I'm not saying Jingles isn't better, but some posters on this board have been calling Miller a non-shooter and I was pretty sure that was wrong so thanks for your reply.

I'm just pushing back against the general notion here (not from you) that Joe Ingles is washed up and no longer provides value on an NBA floor.

Over the last two seasons, he has attempted 364 3-pointers and made 153 (42%) of them. And now he'll be back in a bit of a comfortable setting where he can duck behind Gobert screens for more openings.

Again, last years sample size and volume matter. Go to basketball reference, go into the 23-24 while on Jingles page. You can see how many times he attempted each number game. Jingles can be a 75% 3 point shooter, but if he averages 4 points per game, something went wrong.

Miller is not necessarily a non shooter, nor is a shooter. He is a mystery until we see him play consistent minutes at the NBA level.

All things being equal a minute of a player in their early 20s is more valuable than a minute of a man at 37. Now of course in the NBA all things are not equal. The question is whether the complete player that Minott or Miller represents can compete for minutes against Jingles, on a contending team. If you need rationale for the statement, Jingles is unlikely to improve further beyond his existing role and peak, young players are more likely to advance both their overall game, and their competency in their role. You also might lose talent to salary, and developing young players is how you plan for that. See Denver playing guys like Braun and Watson instead of going more vet heavy. Of course this assumes they can at least play well enough not to disrupt either side of the ball.

I don't agree with most of this point, but especially the bolded. If you're equating roleplayer PPGs with winning and losing, you're doing something very wrong.

To Mosley’s point, while Ingles’ individual numbers haven’t been overly impressive, the Magic have outscored opponents 12.3 points per 100 possessions this season with Ingles on the floor. Ingles has capably run the second unit offensively, freeing Cole Anthony to be more of a scorer off the bench, and helped communicate the realities of the NBA to a roster headlined by 21-year-old Paolo Banchero and 22-year-old Franz Wagner and an average age of 23.6 years old, outside of Ingles.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5056841/2023/11/14/joe-ingles-orlando-magic/

[KGdaBom]

He shot 48/38/72 in 20 GLeague games last year.

55/33/79 in 24 games the year before.

Now we have to see if it transfers. Some guys it does, some it doesn't (Nowell, WMJ, even Luka so far (39/120, 33%.)

He did shoot 40% on 3s for us, but 2/5 is far too small of a sample to read anything at all.

Thanks. The evidence shows that as of now we can consider Miller a competent 3 point shooter. The G league line is the same distance as the NBA line so I will consider that his NBA 3 point shooting will be similar to his G league.

You can, but I wouldn't. There is a huge volume of guys who light it up in the G-League from 3, but it doesn't translate to the Pros.

Some of that is way better defense at the NBA level, but some of it is role. Nowell was a very good G-League shooter because he was a rhythm player that needed to take a ton of shots to find his groove. In the NBA he wasn't good enough to warrant that kind of usage, so he was never able to find his stroke.

Miller averaged 17 FGAs last year, with 6 of them being 3s. And he had a 26.6 Usage. Can he duplicate his efficiency with a much lower usage - and likely a very different shot profile than had in Iowa?

He's a complete unknown at the NBA level. Its not safe to assume anything.

With that rationale we can't consider any player entering the NBA to be a good 3 point shooter. He's not a complete unknown shooting 3s. He's a better known than Dilly since the college 3 point line is shorter. It's reasonable to project Miller as an adequate 3 point shooter. If we find out he is phenomenal or terrible we adjust accordingly.

[BlacJacMac]

Thanks. The evidence shows that as of now we can consider Miller a competent 3 point shooter. The G league line is the same distance as the NBA line so I will consider that his NBA 3 point shooting will be similar to his G league.

You can, but I wouldn't. There is a huge volume of guys who light it up in the G-League from 3, but it doesn't translate to the Pros.

Some of that is way better defense at the NBA level, but some of it is role. Nowell was a very good G-League shooter because he was a rhythm player that needed to take a ton of shots to find his groove. In the NBA he wasn't good enough to warrant that kind of usage, so he was never able to find his stroke.

Miller averaged 17 FGAs last year, with 6 of them being 3s. And he had a 26.6 Usage. Can he duplicate his efficiency with a much lower usage - and likely a very different shot profile than had in Iowa?

He's a complete unknown at the NBA level. Its not safe to assume anything.

With that rationale we can't consider any player entering the NBA to be a good 3 point shooter. He's not a complete unknown shooting 3s. He's a better known than Dilly since the college 3 point line is shorter. It's reasonable to project Miller as an adequate 3 point shooter. If we find out he is phenomenal or terrible we adjust accordingly.

so I will consider that his NBA 3 point shooting will be similar to his G league.

It's reasonable to project Miller as an adequate 3 point shooter.

38% on 6/game is far more than "adequate".

[winforlose]

I'm just pushing back against the general notion here (not from you) that Joe Ingles is washed up and no longer provides value on an NBA floor.

Over the last two seasons, he has attempted 364 3-pointers and made 153 (42%) of them. And now he'll be back in a bit of a comfortable setting where he can duck behind Gobert screens for more openings.

Again, last years sample size and volume matter. Go to basketball reference, go into the 23-24 while on Jingles page. You can see how many times he attempted each number game. Jingles can be a 75% 3 point shooter, but if he averages 4 points per game, something went wrong.

Miller is not necessarily a non shooter, nor is a shooter. He is a mystery until we see him play consistent minutes at the NBA level.

All things being equal a minute of a player in their early 20s is more valuable than a minute of a man at 37. Now of course in the NBA all things are not equal. The question is whether the complete player that Minott or Miller represents can compete for minutes against Jingles, on a contending team. If you need rationale for the statement, Jingles is unlikely to improve further beyond his existing role and peak, young players are more likely to advance both their overall game, and their competency in their role. You also might lose talent to salary, and developing young players is how you plan for that. See Denver playing guys like Braun and Watson instead of going more vet heavy. Of course this assumes they can at least play well enough not to disrupt either side of the ball.

I don't agree with most of this point, but especially the bolded. If you're equating roleplayer PPGs with winning and losing, you're doing something very wrong.

To Mosley’s point, while Ingles’ individual numbers haven’t been overly impressive, the Magic have outscored opponents 12.3 points per 100 possessions this season with Ingles on the floor. Ingles has capably run the second unit offensively, freeing Cole Anthony to be more of a scorer off the bench, and helped communicate the realities of the NBA to a roster headlined by 21-year-old Paolo Banchero and 22-year-old Franz Wagner and an average age of 23.6 years old, outside of Ingles.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5056841/2023/11/14/joe-ingles-orlando-magic/

Do you agree that if Ingles and Miller are both worth a +5 in the same spot with the same other 4 players that Miller getting those minutes has inherently more value to the franchise?

[BlacJacMac]

Again, last years sample size and volume matter. Go to basketball reference, go into the 23-24 while on Jingles page. You can see how many times he attempted each number game. Jingles can be a 75% 3 point shooter, but if he averages 4 points per game, something went wrong.

Miller is not necessarily a non shooter, nor is a shooter. He is a mystery until we see him play consistent minutes at the NBA level.

All things being equal a minute of a player in their early 20s is more valuable than a minute of a man at 37. Now of course in the NBA all things are not equal. The question is whether the complete player that Minott or Miller represents can compete for minutes against Jingles, on a contending team. If you need rationale for the statement, Jingles is unlikely to improve further beyond his existing role and peak, young players are more likely to advance both their overall game, and their competency in their role. You also might lose talent to salary, and developing young players is how you plan for that. See Denver playing guys like Braun and Watson instead of going more vet heavy. Of course this assumes they can at least play well enough not to disrupt either side of the ball.

I don't agree with most of this point, but especially the bolded. If you're equating roleplayer PPGs with winning and losing, you're doing something very wrong.

To Mosley’s point, while Ingles’ individual numbers haven’t been overly impressive, the Magic have outscored opponents 12.3 points per 100 possessions this season with Ingles on the floor. Ingles has capably run the second unit offensively, freeing Cole Anthony to be more of a scorer off the bench, and helped communicate the realities of the NBA to a roster headlined by 21-year-old Paolo Banchero and 22-year-old Franz Wagner and an average age of 23.6 years old, outside of Ingles.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5056841/2023/11/14/joe-ingles-orlando-magic/

Do you agree that if Ingles and Miller are both worth a +5 in the same spot with the same other 4 players that Miller getting those minutes has inherently more value to the franchise?

Sure. And if that happens, I hope Miller takes the minutes.

But at this point, we know how much of an actual impact Ingles has on games - while Miller's contributions are completely theoretical.

[winforlose]

I don't agree with most of this point, but especially the bolded. If you're equating roleplayer PPGs with winning and losing, you're doing something very wrong.

To Mosley’s point, while Ingles’ individual numbers haven’t been overly impressive, the Magic have outscored opponents 12.3 points per 100 possessions this season with Ingles on the floor. Ingles has capably run the second unit offensively, freeing Cole Anthony to be more of a scorer off the bench, and helped communicate the realities of the NBA to a roster headlined by 21-year-old Paolo Banchero and 22-year-old Franz Wagner and an average age of 23.6 years old, outside of Ingles.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5056841/2023/11/14/joe-ingles-orlando-magic/

Do you agree that if Ingles and Miller are both worth a +5 in the same spot with the same other 4 players that Miller getting those minutes has inherently more value to the franchise?

Sure. And if that happens, I hope Miller takes the minutes.

But at this point, we know how much of an actual impact Ingles has on games - while Miller's contributions are completely theoretical.

Okay. Now let’s take it one step further. Let’s assume that Ingles is worth 3 more total points than Miller. Again this is not simply PPG but a simple hypothetical where your team is 3 points better with Jingles than Miller. Which do you value more, the growth of Miller or the 3 points Jingles provides?

[BlacJacMac]

Do you agree that if Ingles and Miller are both worth a +5 in the same spot with the same other 4 players that Miller getting those minutes has inherently more value to the franchise?

Sure. And if that happens, I hope Miller takes the minutes.

But at this point, we know how much of an actual impact Ingles has on games - while Miller's contributions are completely theoretical.

Okay. Now let’s take it one step further. Let’s assume that Ingles is worth 3 more total points than Miller. Again this is not simply PPG but a simple hypothetical where your team is 3 points better with Jingles than Miller. Which do you value more, the growth of Miller or the 3 points Jingles provides?

It depends. Are we actively losing games because of Miller? Or are we just winning by less?

I really hope Miller takes the massive leap required to be more impactful than Ingles. But I'm not betting the season on it happening.

[winforlose]

Sure. And if that happens, I hope Miller takes the minutes.

But at this point, we know how much of an actual impact Ingles has on games - while Miller's contributions are completely theoretical.

Okay. Now let’s take it one step further. Let’s assume that Ingles is worth 3 more total points than Miller. Again this is not simply PPG but a simple hypothetical where your team is 3 points better with Jingles than Miller. Which do you value more, the growth of Miller or the 3 points Jingles provides?

It depends. Are we actively losing games because of Miller? Or are we just winning by less?

I really hope Miller takes the massive leap required to be more impactful than Ingles. But I'm not betting the season on it happening.

You are asking the right question. In fact I love your answer. This is the key for Finch and the analytics team to figure out. Winning by 7 and winning by 10 still count the same. But winning by the bigger margin might mean more rest for your starters and that has its own value later. Obviously the picture is more complex than I have been describing.

The variable is the stuff we don’t see. The practice performances, the work with development coaches, the off season improvements, ect… If using Jingles is the best path to victory, I think we will use him. But the fact that we had to use him will speak poorly of Miller and will pretty much end Minott’s time in Minnesota. He might ride the bench next year if we don’t move him, but 3 years and not even being rotation worthy is a bad sign.