The Joe Ingles Thread

[BlacJacMac]

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.

Ideally Ingles starts the season as a key reserve and we start sprinkling in Miller minutes at opportune times. Even more ideally Miller grows and proves he belongs and he starts eating more and more into Ingles minutes as the season goes on.

You can also replace Ingles with Conley and MIller with Dillingham in this answer.

(Hell, replace Ingles with NAW and Miller with Shannon as well...)

[Klomp]

I think the issue here is the assumption that Miller and Ingles would fill the same role on the court.

Look at what we lost in the offseason: Kyle Anderson, Monte Morris, Jordan McLaughlin. All three of them are ballhandlers. I don't expect that role to go entirely to Dillingham. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to just increase the load on Edwards, Conley, Alexander-Walker, etc.

Who do you think Chris Finch will (or should) trust more in a ballhandling role?
Miller: 66 assists to 49 turnovers in Iowa
Ingles: 203 assists to 67 turnovers in Orlando; 2,566 assists to 1,049 turnovers in NBA career

I get that you are all about player development, but who are the guys who are more important to develop? Did Denver make a mistake by prioritizing the development of Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokic over the development of Malik Beasley, Juancho Hernangomez, Jarred Vanderbilt?

[winforlose]

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.

Ideally Ingles starts the season as a key reserve and we start sprinkling in Miller minutes at opportune times. Even more ideally Miller grows and proves he belongs and he starts eating more and more into Ingles minutes as the season goes on.

You can also replace Ingles with Conley and MIller with Dillingham in this answer.

(Hell, replace Ingles with NAW and Miller with Shannon as well...)

Last season everyone kept saying that this was the best team by raw talent we were going to have in the window. That might be true, but I am hoping otherwise. The Summer league will be very important for the young guys. We need to see real growth and especially skill work (handle, shooting form, box out, ect…) to help gauge where they begin in the depth chart. But I think we can all agree that the training camp and preseason will set the tone for the season. Injuries and illness, garbage time opportunities, and practices will give the young’s guys chances, but the Summer league and preseason are their big opportunities. Let’s hope for some good signs.

[Note30]

I think the issue here is the assumption that Miller and Ingles would fill the same role on the court.

Look at what we lost in the offseason: Kyle Anderson, Monte Morris, Jordan McLaughlin. All three of them are ballhandlers. I don't expect that role to go entirely to Dillingham. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to just increase the load on Edwards, Conley, Alexander-Walker, etc.

Who do you think Chris Finch will (or should) trust more in a ballhandling role?
Miller: 66 assists to 49 turnovers in Iowa
Ingles: 203 assists to 67 turnovers in Orlando; 2,566 assists to 1,049 turnovers in NBA career

I get that you are all about player development, but who are the guys who are more important to develop? Did Denver make a mistake by prioritizing the development of Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokic over the development of Malik Beasley, Juancho Hernangomez, Jarred Vanderbilt?

Why are we even talking about it like this. Look at Miller's handles and decisions, look at Ingles - it's clear who's going to make better decisions and hold on to the ball better.

It's Ingles. Why would you even risk it with Miller. They guy is all motor, which is great but not ball handling or facilitating.

[gandlogo]

I think the issue here is the assumption that Miller and Ingles would fill the same role on the court.

Look at what we lost in the offseason: Kyle Anderson, Monte Morris, Jordan McLaughlin. All three of them are ballhandlers. I don't expect that role to go entirely to Dillingham. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to just increase the load on Edwards, Conley, Alexander-Walker, etc.

Who do you think Chris Finch will (or should) trust more in a ballhandling role?
Miller: 66 assists to 49 turnovers in Iowa
Ingles: 203 assists to 67 turnovers in Orlando; 2,566 assists to 1,049 turnovers in NBA career

I get that you are all about player development, but who are the guys who are more important to develop? Did Denver make a mistake by prioritizing the development of Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokic over the development of Malik Beasley, Juancho Hernangomez, Jarred Vanderbilt?

My very limited brain has a simplistic approach to this - Ingles roughly takes over Anderson's minutes. Especially if both Shifty and Shannon are on the court. Veteran leadership and the ability to take care of the ball will likely be critical. As for development, it happens in practice. Minutes that matter in a game are earned in practice. Garbage time minutes in games can be handed out, but that level of play seldom looks like a positive for player development. It turns into "you touch it, you shoot it" like at Lifetime. Get better in practice and earn your court time. Summer League may give us hope/excitement that a player is ready to take the next step, but battling it out in camp (and at practice every day) against actual NBA players is far more telling, but we're simply not privy to it.

[winforlose]

I think the issue here is the assumption that Miller and Ingles would fill the same role on the court.

Look at what we lost in the offseason: Kyle Anderson, Monte Morris, Jordan McLaughlin. All three of them are ballhandlers. I don't expect that role to go entirely to Dillingham. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to just increase the load on Edwards, Conley, Alexander-Walker, etc.

Who do you think Chris Finch will (or should) trust more in a ballhandling role?
Miller: 66 assists to 49 turnovers in Iowa
Ingles: 203 assists to 67 turnovers in Orlando; 2,566 assists to 1,049 turnovers in NBA career

I get that you are all about player development, but who are the guys who are more important to develop? Did Denver make a mistake by prioritizing the development of Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokic over the development of Malik Beasley, Juancho Hernangomez, Jarred Vanderbilt?

Why are we even talking about it like this. Look at Miller's handles and decisions, look at Ingles - it's clear who's going to make better decisions and hold on to the ball better.

It's Ingles. Why would you even risk it with Miller. They guy is all motor, which is great but not ball handling or facilitating.

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

[Klomp]

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

So who plays as lead ballhandler in minutes with the second unit? You put it all on that 19-year old you're so hesitant to give even 10 mpg to? You give it to NAW? Mike plays 48 minutes? SOMEONE has to play the role with that unit!

[KGdaBom]

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

So who plays as lead ballhandler in minutes with the second unit? You put it all on that 19-year old you're so hesitant to give even 10 mpg to? You give it to NAW? Mike plays 48 minutes? SOMEONE has to play the role with that unit!

Dilly. Bring it on.

[winforlose]

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

So who plays as lead ballhandler in minutes with the second unit? You put it all on that 19-year old you're so hesitant to give even 10 mpg to? You give it to NAW? Mike plays 48 minutes? SOMEONE has to play the role with that unit!

Whether I like it or not RD is our backup PG and is likely to play 25 minutes. Ant will be forced to play on ball whether he likes it or not (pissing off Ant is a great long term strategy, wouldn’t you agree.) NAW will also be on ball more than any of us like. Why is this true? Because TC decided PGs are overrated and 19 year olds who were good in college are automatically good in the NBA. Either way Ingles minutes are not ideal if they are not necessary. They are not necessary if Minott or Miller can properly fill them. We will know in time.

[Note30]

I think the issue here is the assumption that Miller and Ingles would fill the same role on the court.

Look at what we lost in the offseason: Kyle Anderson, Monte Morris, Jordan McLaughlin. All three of them are ballhandlers. I don't expect that role to go entirely to Dillingham. At the same time, I don't think it's fair to just increase the load on Edwards, Conley, Alexander-Walker, etc.

Who do you think Chris Finch will (or should) trust more in a ballhandling role?
Miller: 66 assists to 49 turnovers in Iowa
Ingles: 203 assists to 67 turnovers in Orlando; 2,566 assists to 1,049 turnovers in NBA career

I get that you are all about player development, but who are the guys who are more important to develop? Did Denver make a mistake by prioritizing the development of Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokic over the development of Malik Beasley, Juancho Hernangomez, Jarred Vanderbilt?

Why are we even talking about it like this. Look at Miller's handles and decisions, look at Ingles - it's clear who's going to make better decisions and hold on to the ball better.

It's Ingles. Why would you even risk it with Miller. They guy is all motor, which is great but not ball handling or facilitating.

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

We need ballhandlers

[winforlose]

Why are we even talking about it like this. Look at Miller's handles and decisions, look at Ingles - it's clear who's going to make better decisions and hold on to the ball better.

It's Ingles. Why would you even risk it with Miller. They guy is all motor, which is great but not ball handling or facilitating.

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

We need ballhandlers

True, but we need roster spots to get ball handlers, and unless we cut Dosier loose, or pay a massive tax bill for spot 15, we don’t have space for them. Thank you TC.

[KGdaBom]

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

We need ballhandlers

True, but we need roster spots to get ball handlers, and unless we cut Dosier loose, or pay a massive tax bill for spot 15, we don’t have space for them. Thank you TC.

We added Dilly and Jingles to ball handle. We didn't lose anything in that category. We gained IMO.

[winforlose]

We need ballhandlers

True, but we need roster spots to get ball handlers, and unless we cut Dosier loose, or pay a massive tax bill for spot 15, we don’t have space for them. Thank you TC.

We added Dilly and Jingles to ball handle. We didn't lose anything in that category. We gained IMO.

Dane talked about Jingles in Orlando. I barely saw him there. Apparently he had a high turnover rate (makes Kyle look like a world class PG,) and struggled when given on ball responsibilities. So by all means let’s take the weakest area of his offense and make it the thing we feature . In all honesty he should be tucked in his sweet spots and used as a spacer/catch and shoot threat.

[KGdaBom]

True, but we need roster spots to get ball handlers, and unless we cut Dosier loose, or pay a massive tax bill for spot 15, we don’t have space for them. Thank you TC.

We added Dilly and Jingles to ball handle. We didn't lose anything in that category. We gained IMO.

Dane talked about Jingles in Orlando. I barely saw him there. Apparently he had a high turnover rate (makes Kyle look like a world class PG,) and struggled when given on ball responsibilities. So by all means let’s take the weakest area of his offense and make it the thing we feature . In all honesty he should be tucked in his sweet spots and used as a spacer/catch and shoot threat.

I thought he had a good A/TO. Can somebody post his actual stats for that.

[winforlose]

We added Dilly and Jingles to ball handle. We didn't lose anything in that category. We gained IMO.

Dane talked about Jingles in Orlando. I barely saw him there. Apparently he had a high turnover rate (makes Kyle look like a world class PG,) and struggled when given on ball responsibilities. So by all means let’s take the weakest area of his offense and make it the thing we feature . In all honesty he should be tucked in his sweet spots and used as a spacer/catch and shoot threat.

I thought he had a good A/TO. Can somebody post his actual stats for that.

A/TO isn’t the issue. The issue is when he gets the ball and doesn’t shoot he turns it over at a higher percentage than Kyle. Basically it suggest he can swing the ball, but not run the offense, which Dane pretty much said repeatedly.

[KGdaBom]

Dane talked about Jingles in Orlando. I barely saw him there. Apparently he had a high turnover rate (makes Kyle look like a world class PG,) and struggled when given on ball responsibilities. So by all means let’s take the weakest area of his offense and make it the thing we feature . In all honesty he should be tucked in his sweet spots and used as a spacer/catch and shoot threat.

I thought he had a good A/TO. Can somebody post his actual stats for that.

A/TO isn’t the issue. The issue is when he gets the ball and doesn’t shoot he turns it over at a higher percentage than Kyle. Basically it suggest he can swing the ball, but not run the offense, which Dane pretty much said repeatedly.

I don't buy that. If he had a high TO rate his A/TO wouldn't be good.

[winforlose]

I thought he had a good A/TO. Can somebody post his actual stats for that.

A/TO isn’t the issue. The issue is when he gets the ball and doesn’t shoot he turns it over at a higher percentage than Kyle. Basically it suggest he can swing the ball, but not run the offense, which Dane pretty much said repeatedly.

I don't buy that. If he had a high TO rate his A/TO wouldn't be good.

Unless his usage was lower than you think. If all he does is catch and shoot/swing and he turns it over when he runs the offense, it makes perfect sense. A pass out can very easily turn into an assist without much actual assisting, (throughs it into PB who hits a contested shot. Or swing to the open man in the corner.)

[Colbinii]

Dane talked about Jingles in Orlando. I barely saw him there. Apparently he had a high turnover rate (makes Kyle look like a world class PG,) and struggled when given on ball responsibilities. So by all means let’s take the weakest area of his offense and make it the thing we feature . In all honesty he should be tucked in his sweet spots and used as a spacer/catch and shoot threat.

I thought he had a good A/TO. Can somebody post his actual stats for that.

A/TO isn’t the issue. The issue is when he gets the ball and doesn’t shoot he turns it over at a higher percentage than Kyle. Basically it suggest he can swing the ball, but not run the offense, which Dane pretty much said repeatedly.

That's not how this works or any of this works.

Steve Nash is one of the greatest floor generals ever and routinely had a TOV% around 20%.

The thing about TOV% is it is simply a measure of how much YOU turn the ball over for every 100 players you run. So, for Steve Nash who is typically around 20%, that's still fine since his teams were incredibly efficient offensively.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing--a player like Nash only having 20% TOV when he has the ball as much as he does and more importantly--takes the risks he does is fine.

I think Ingles Turnover Percentage is being overblown here for a few reasons.

1) The Orlando Magic didn't have a Point Guard.

Jalen Suggs, Cole Anthony, Anthony Black and Gary Harris played "Point Guard" minutes for Orlando last year. Most of their offense ran through Paolo Banchero and Franz Wagner. Meanwhile, Cole Anthony is the best of the aforementioned Point Guards and he is a putrid playmaker and passer. This resulted in Ingles being required to take on a larger playmaking role, and as a result, generated more turnovers.

2) Ingles is still a net-positive player.

Ingles has historically been a godfather of +/- ever since he joined the NBA. He makes the right play. He hits the right shots. He makes the right pass. He has had a positive +/- each of the past 8 seasons and the team he played on has been better with him on the court in 7 of the past 8 seasons.

3) We don't need Ingles to run the offense.

We have ANT, KAT, Conley and Dilly to all initiate the offense from different sets and looks. Ingles is the ultimate glue guy.

[Note30]

Because we don’t need Miller to play the Jingles role. End of the day if you use Miller instead of Jingles you mix the players they play with to better accommodate the change. It is called a rotation for a reason. It is not a square peg round hole scenario unless you make it one.

We need ballhandlers

True, but we need roster spots to get ball handlers, and unless we cut Dosier loose, or pay a massive tax bill for spot 15, we don’t have space for them. Thank you TC.

I mean the problem starts with this ridiculous timeline TC put us on.

[Note30]

I thought he had a good A/TO. Can somebody post his actual stats for that.

A/TO isn’t the issue. The issue is when he gets the ball and doesn’t shoot he turns it over at a higher percentage than Kyle. Basically it suggest he can swing the ball, but not run the offense, which Dane pretty much said repeatedly.

That's not how this works or any of this works.

Steve Nash is one of the greatest floor generals ever and routinely had a TOV% around 20%.

The thing about TOV% is it is simply a measure of how much YOU turn the ball over for every 100 players you run. So, for Steve Nash who is typically around 20%, that's still fine since his teams were incredibly efficient offensively.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing--a player like Nash only having 20% TOV when he has the ball as much as he does and more importantly--takes the risks he does is fine.

I think Ingles Turnover Percentage is being overblown here for a few reasons.

1) The Orlando Magic didn't have a Point Guard.

Jalen Suggs, Cole Anthony, Anthony Black and Gary Harris played "Point Guard" minutes for Orlando last year. Most of their offense ran through Paolo Banchero and Franz Wagner. Meanwhile, Cole Anthony is the best of the aforementioned Point Guards and he is a putrid playmaker and passer. This resulted in Ingles being required to take on a larger playmaking role, and as a result, generated more turnovers.

2) Ingles is still a net-positive player.

Ingles has historically been a godfather of +/- ever since he joined the NBA. He makes the right play. He hits the right shots. He makes the right pass. He has had a positive +/- each of the past 8 seasons and the team he played on has been better with him on the court in 7 of the past 8 seasons.

3) We don't need Ingles to run the offense.

We have ANT, KAT, Conley and Dilly to all initiate the offense from different sets and looks. Ingles is the ultimate glue guy.

I agree with what you're saying, I don't think Joe will fix our roster construction and he will be a net positive. I'm happy with the signing.

One huge issue though is our offense and how it runs. What you are saying makes sense in theory.

Except come playoff time our team runs everything through Ant or Conley. Someone who can hold the ball.

Unless you have Jokic who is a one of kind player you pretty much have to run your offense through a lead guard.

But that can't be solved with the peasant like resources this team now has and a lot of this is a huge bet on a 19 year old.