Official Brandon Ingram Thread

[Scase]

I love how you like to run your mouth I don’t see any stats just rankings


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's because the "stat" that I was asking for clarification on was just a ranking. It claimed that BO was the 8th most efficient shooter in the NBA. I was questioning how that's possible, given his rankings in individual shooting categories.

Overall shooting talent ≠ efficiency though. Ingram takes a lot of tough and highly contested shots (as evidenced by an earlier post in this thread where he is in the +90th percentile in various one-on-one metrics while being in the 0 percentile in mid-range shot quality) yet he's still an above average efficiency player. The combination of his shot diet/abilities and efficiency is what ranks him so high in that metric. It's why you don't see many three-point shooters on that list with the highest 3PAr coming from Mitchell (.497) and Wemby (.470) then the next highest being Brunson, JJJ, Durant and LeBron in the 31-32% range. This is a ranking of players that take tough shots but still produce at a high level – not a ranking of which players are the most efficient.

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

Overall shooting talent is a meaningless descriptor. What is shooting talent? Variety in shots? Overall efficiency? Efficiency when being covered tightly? A combination of a multitude of other definitions/stats?

If I see a list of players that includes Jokic, SGA, KD, Giannis, Lebron etc. I'm gonna see players like JJJ and BI as pretty big outliers, or I'm going to see that definition/list as largely worthless because you have multiple VERY different tiers of players in that list all over the place.

I think most people view shooting/scoring talent as largely efficiency based with a decent amount of weight given to variety (E.G. 3 level scorer vs 2 level), and while BI has some good variety, I wouldn't quite consider him a 3 level scorer, nor would I consider him to be very efficient. He's like above average in both, but definitely not top 10 in anything.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

That's because the "stat" that I was asking for clarification on was just a ranking. It claimed that BO was the 8th most efficient shooter in the NBA. I was questioning how that's possible, given his rankings in individual shooting categories.

Overall shooting talent ≠ efficiency though. Ingram takes a lot of tough and highly contested shots (as evidenced by an earlier post in this thread where he is in the +90th percentile in various one-on-one metrics while being in the 0 percentile in mid-range shot quality) yet he's still an above average efficiency player. The combination of his shot diet/abilities and efficiency is what ranks him so high in that metric. It's why you don't see many three-point shooters on that list with the highest 3PAr coming from Mitchell (.497) and Wemby (.470) then the next highest being Brunson, JJJ, Durant and LeBron in the 31-32% range. This is a ranking of players that take tough shots but still produce at a high level – not a ranking of which players are the most efficient.

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

Overall shooting talent is a meaningless descriptor. What is shooting talent? Variety in shots? Overall efficiency? Efficiency when being covered tightly? A combination of a multitude of other definitions/stats?

If I see a list of players that includes Jokic, SGA, KD, Giannis, Lebron etc. I'm gonna see players like JJJ and BI as pretty big outliers, or I'm going to see that definition/list as largely worthless because you have multiple VERY different tiers of players in that list all over the place.

I think most people view shooting/scoring talent as largely efficiency based with a decent amount of weight given to variety (E.G. 3 level scorer vs 2 level), and while BI has some good variety, I wouldn't quite consider him a 3 level scorer, nor would I consider him to be very efficient. He's like above average in both, but definitely not top 10 in anything.

The definition is VERY easily found on their website, lol

https://www.bball-index.com/the-evolution-of-shooting-stats/#:~:text=relative%20to%20expectation.-,It%20does%20this%20by%20looking%20at%20the%20difficulty%20of%20a,the%20way%20we%20analyze%20it.

Overall Shooting Talent: This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

The evolution of shooting stats is very much a story of standing on the shoulders of giants. These stats build on each other to better explain what is happening on the court. As the game evolves so does the way we analyze it.

[raptorforlife88]

Overall shooting talent ≠ efficiency though. Ingram takes a lot of tough and highly contested shots (as evidenced by an earlier post in this thread where he is in the +90th percentile in various one-on-one metrics while being in the 0 percentile in mid-range shot quality) yet he's still an above average efficiency player. The combination of his shot diet/abilities and efficiency is what ranks him so high in that metric. It's why you don't see many three-point shooters on that list with the highest 3PAr coming from Mitchell (.497) and Wemby (.470) then the next highest being Brunson, JJJ, Durant and LeBron in the 31-32% range. This is a ranking of players that take tough shots but still produce at a high level – not a ranking of which players are the most efficient.

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

Overall shooting talent is a meaningless descriptor. What is shooting talent? Variety in shots? Overall efficiency? Efficiency when being covered tightly? A combination of a multitude of other definitions/stats?

If I see a list of players that includes Jokic, SGA, KD, Giannis, Lebron etc. I'm gonna see players like JJJ and BI as pretty big outliers, or I'm going to see that definition/list as largely worthless because you have multiple VERY different tiers of players in that list all over the place.

I think most people view shooting/scoring talent as largely efficiency based with a decent amount of weight given to variety (E.G. 3 level scorer vs 2 level), and while BI has some good variety, I wouldn't quite consider him a 3 level scorer, nor would I consider him to be very efficient. He's like above average in both, but definitely not top 10 in anything.

The definition is VERY easily found on their website, lol

https://www.bball-index.com/the-evolution-of-shooting-stats/#:~:text=relative%20to%20expectation.-,It%20does%20this%20by%20looking%20at%20the%20difficulty%20of%20a,the%20way%20we%20analyze%20it.

Overall Shooting Talent: This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

The evolution of shooting stats is very much a story of standing on the shoulders of giants. These stats build on each other to better explain what is happening on the court. As the game evolves so does the way we analyze it.

That's interesting. It's a bit like expected hitting stats in baseball when it comes to creating an expected eFG% I guess, although I would imagine it's less accurate cause of the nature of hitting a baseball.

I appreciate the attempt to create a stat like that, it's definitely the next level of measuring player abilities. It could give you a good sense of a player who makes tons of difficult shots on a worse team and whether they might do better on a more talented team.

[Scase]

Overall shooting talent ≠ efficiency though. Ingram takes a lot of tough and highly contested shots (as evidenced by an earlier post in this thread where he is in the +90th percentile in various one-on-one metrics while being in the 0 percentile in mid-range shot quality) yet he's still an above average efficiency player. The combination of his shot diet/abilities and efficiency is what ranks him so high in that metric. It's why you don't see many three-point shooters on that list with the highest 3PAr coming from Mitchell (.497) and Wemby (.470) then the next highest being Brunson, JJJ, Durant and LeBron in the 31-32% range. This is a ranking of players that take tough shots but still produce at a high level – not a ranking of which players are the most efficient.

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

Overall shooting talent is a meaningless descriptor. What is shooting talent? Variety in shots? Overall efficiency? Efficiency when being covered tightly? A combination of a multitude of other definitions/stats?

If I see a list of players that includes Jokic, SGA, KD, Giannis, Lebron etc. I'm gonna see players like JJJ and BI as pretty big outliers, or I'm going to see that definition/list as largely worthless because you have multiple VERY different tiers of players in that list all over the place.

I think most people view shooting/scoring talent as largely efficiency based with a decent amount of weight given to variety (E.G. 3 level scorer vs 2 level), and while BI has some good variety, I wouldn't quite consider him a 3 level scorer, nor would I consider him to be very efficient. He's like above average in both, but definitely not top 10 in anything.

The definition is VERY easily found on their website, lol

https://www.bball-index.com/the-evolution-of-shooting-stats/#:~:text=relative%20to%20expectation.-,It%20does%20this%20by%20looking%20at%20the%20difficulty%20of%20a,the%20way%20we%20analyze%20it.

Overall Shooting Talent: This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

The evolution of shooting stats is very much a story of standing on the shoulders of giants. These stats build on each other to better explain what is happening on the court. As the game evolves so does the way we analyze it.

Ok but I cant be bothered to go to some random website for some random made up stat that isn't even remotely close to commonly used lol.

So the stat breaks down to a combination of other stats that they also made up, and are supposed to measure how a player over/under performs based on some random "expectation". It's a nonsense stat made up to try and make bball index relevant.

It's also being used off a 16 game sample size, so safe to say it's meaningless.

[RoteSchroder]

The TS% list with a usage > 20% includes: Serge Ibaka, Ben Simmons, Jordan Nwora, Udonis Haslem, Grant Riller, Montrezl Harrell, Jonas Valančiūnas, Chris Boucher, Frank Jackson, Kendrick Nunn, Khyri Thomas, etc. in the top 60

There are also several players (all-stars or superstars) close or ranked below him. Realistically, we’re looking at ~28th in the league among relevant players in 20-21, counting for games played, shooting volume and min/game. Would be slightly higher if you don’t count bigs.

This is exactly the issue with using a ranking for this question.

What is the issue?

BI had a TS of 58.4% that year, 1.2% above league average.

Nothing about that is elite, yet you keep saying he's an elite shooter. You keep dismissing the evidence to the contrary, without providing any evidence in support of your claim.

Not saying he’s elite at anything, just do a proper ranking.

You could further filter out players who don’t shoot like Giannis, Zion, etc. You can’t really say they’re better shooters than Ingram for example.

For the other rankings, not many players in the league take a high volume of 2’s anymore. Should also filter out by volume.

Can also consider shot type. Trae is a good catch and shoot player, for instance, but not good at off the dribble shots, damaging his 3 point %. His teammate Bogs, is considered an elite shooter, but he doesn’t take any off the dribble shots and his catch and shoot is comparable or worse than Trae’s. It’s likely Trae is a better shooter than Bogs, but has worse % due to taking on a tougher role.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

Overall shooting talent is a meaningless descriptor. What is shooting talent? Variety in shots? Overall efficiency? Efficiency when being covered tightly? A combination of a multitude of other definitions/stats?

If I see a list of players that includes Jokic, SGA, KD, Giannis, Lebron etc. I'm gonna see players like JJJ and BI as pretty big outliers, or I'm going to see that definition/list as largely worthless because you have multiple VERY different tiers of players in that list all over the place.

I think most people view shooting/scoring talent as largely efficiency based with a decent amount of weight given to variety (E.G. 3 level scorer vs 2 level), and while BI has some good variety, I wouldn't quite consider him a 3 level scorer, nor would I consider him to be very efficient. He's like above average in both, but definitely not top 10 in anything.

The definition is VERY easily found on their website, lol

https://www.bball-index.com/the-evolution-of-shooting-stats/#:~:text=relative%20to%20expectation.-,It%20does%20this%20by%20looking%20at%20the%20difficulty%20of%20a,the%20way%20we%20analyze%20it.

Overall Shooting Talent: This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

The evolution of shooting stats is very much a story of standing on the shoulders of giants. These stats build on each other to better explain what is happening on the court. As the game evolves so does the way we analyze it.

Ok but I cant be bothered to go to some random website for some random made up stat that isn't even remotely close to commonly used lol.

So the stat breaks down to a combination of other stats that they also made up, and are supposed to measure how a player over/under performs based on some random "expectation". It's a nonsense stat made up to try and make bball index relevant.

It's also being used off a 16 game sample size, so safe to say it's meaningless.

First off b-ball index is a widely referenced website. Second......Uhhhhh, the initial assessment of Ingram to say he was a crap shooter in this thread was based on the same sample size......

[dballislife]

you can look at stats all you want but just crushing his highlight videos recently, the kid can flat out ball he looks amazing...hes so long with nice moves, strong ball handling skills and passes the ball really well too, he can hit any type of shot and release from anywhere on the court...he just needs to stay on the court

[Scase]

The definition is VERY easily found on their website, lol

https://www.bball-index.com/the-evolution-of-shooting-stats/#:~:text=relative%20to%20expectation.-,It%20does%20this%20by%20looking%20at%20the%20difficulty%20of%20a,the%20way%20we%20analyze%20it.

Overall Shooting Talent: This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

The evolution of shooting stats is very much a story of standing on the shoulders of giants. These stats build on each other to better explain what is happening on the court. As the game evolves so does the way we analyze it.

Ok but I cant be bothered to go to some random website for some random made up stat that isn't even remotely close to commonly used lol.

So the stat breaks down to a combination of other stats that they also made up, and are supposed to measure how a player over/under performs based on some random "expectation". It's a nonsense stat made up to try and make bball index relevant.

It's also being used off a 16 game sample size, so safe to say it's meaningless.

First off b-ball index is a widely referenced website. Second......Uhhhhh, the initial assessment of Ingram to say he was a crap shooter in this thread was based on the same sample size......

I'm gonna need some examples, BI is objectively not a crap shooter, he's not lights out either, but he's markedly above average.

Also just because they are widely referenced doesnt mean they dont have stupid made up stats. They compile a lot of very surface level type top 10 lists for a random bunch of stuff. And again, they used a 16 games sample size for BI, kinda worthless don't you think?

[HumbleRen]

BI is one of the best tough shot makers in the league and the Raptors are one of the best teams generating easy looks for their players.

Don’t be shocked if BI has a 60+ TS% with us next year.

[RoteSchroder]

That's because the "stat" that I was asking for clarification on was just a ranking. It claimed that BO was the 8th most efficient shooter in the NBA. I was questioning how that's possible, given his rankings in individual shooting categories.

Overall shooting talent ≠ efficiency though. Ingram takes a lot of tough and highly contested shots (as evidenced by an earlier post in this thread where he is in the +90th percentile in various one-on-one metrics while being in the 0 percentile in mid-range shot quality) yet he's still an above average efficiency player. The combination of his shot diet/abilities and efficiency is what ranks him so high in that metric. It's why you don't see many three-point shooters on that list with the highest 3PAr coming from Mitchell (.497) and Wemby (.470) then the next highest being Brunson, JJJ, Durant and LeBron in the 31-32% range. This is a ranking of players that take tough shots but still produce at a high level – not a ranking of which players are the most efficient.

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

This is a good point regarding Raps in 4's ranking..where it includes G-league players who have only played 2 games or players with very low volume. Bam was at 100% for his catch and shoot 3's, for instance, but I'm not ranking him as the #1 catch and shoot player in history. Obviously, Raps in 4 did not take into account context.

But I wonder why you're so critical of a stat that has a bunch of elite scorers at the top, but then turn around and applaud a crap ranking that has G-league players I've never heard of up there. You really shouldn't let bias get in the way of simple logic.
Here are a few categories where he's up there in 20-21 after filtering out for low sample size/low volume:

Catch and shoot 3's: #11
Pull up 2's: #11
10-14 ft: #13
15-19 ft: #5
Shots with defenders within 2-4 feet: #7

So, obviously as previously indicated, his bread and butter is in contested long 2's, which is not great if you want to run a smart offense, but it's good for bail out or end of game situations. It's like getting Ace Bailey with dribbling and passing ability.

I'm not saying that the b-ball index ranking is a good ranking either. Disregarding stats, I'd say the following are above or close to him as overall shooters:

Kawhi
Harden
Norman Powell
Durant
Curry
Lebron
Jokic
Doncic
Tatum
Shai
Anthony Edwards
Jalen Brunson
Damian Lillard
KAT
Irving
Donovan Mitchell
Tyler Herro
Zach Lavine
McCollum
Trey Murphy
Siakam
Markkanen

A few questionable ones here, but overall Ingram should be at least top 20.

[Scase]

Overall shooting talent ≠ efficiency though. Ingram takes a lot of tough and highly contested shots (as evidenced by an earlier post in this thread where he is in the +90th percentile in various one-on-one metrics while being in the 0 percentile in mid-range shot quality) yet he's still an above average efficiency player. The combination of his shot diet/abilities and efficiency is what ranks him so high in that metric. It's why you don't see many three-point shooters on that list with the highest 3PAr coming from Mitchell (.497) and Wemby (.470) then the next highest being Brunson, JJJ, Durant and LeBron in the 31-32% range. This is a ranking of players that take tough shots but still produce at a high level – not a ranking of which players are the most efficient.

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

This is a good point regarding Raps in 4's ranking..where it includes G-league players who have only played 2 games or players with very low volume. Bam was at 100% for his catch and shoot 3's, for instance, but I'm not ranking him as the #1 catch and shoot player in history. Obviously, Raps in 4 did not take into account context.

But I wonder why you're so critical of a stat that has a bunch of elite scorers at the top, but then turn around and applaud a crap ranking that has G-league players I've never heard of up there. You really shouldn't let bias get in the way of simple logic.
Here are a few categories where he's up there in 20-21 after filtering out for low sample size/low volume:

Catch and shoot 3's: #11
Pull up 2's: #11
10-14 ft: #13
15-19 ft: #5
Shots with defenders within 2-4 feet: #7

So, obviously as previously indicated, his bread and butter is in contested long 2's, which is not great if you want to run a smart offense, but it's good for bail out or end of game situations. It's like getting Ace Bailey with dribbling and passing ability.

I'm not saying that the b-ball index ranking is a good ranking either. Disregarding stats, I'd say the following are above or close to him as overall shooters:

Kawhi
Harden
Norman Powell
Durant
Curry
Lebron
Jokic
Doncic
Tatum
Shai
Anthony Edwards
Jalen Brunson
Damian Lillard
KAT
Irving
Donovan Mitchell
Tyler Herro
Zach Lavine
McCollum
Trey Murphy
Siakam
Markkanen

A few questionable ones here, but overall Ingram should be at least top 20.

You lost me at the bolded, where is this list? He sorted by USG%, I would assume he had a GP minimum, but I'd need to see the actual list to know for sure. Also why are people picking a single year instead of his career.

All I'm saying is that any list that has players of that calibre (SGA, Jokic, etc.), followed up by players like BI/JJJ is either so meaningless to determine player impact, or so very cherry picked it's pretty much useless, and right up there with the classic Thad Young stat.

BI is not bad by any stretch, but he doesn't belong in any list with guys of that calibre based on the smell test alone. Lets see him rank up top with some more reputable stats that have a much better indication of player impact, then we'll talk.

[RoteSchroder]

Well this is the thing though, when someone makes up some random ranking, then provides zero context as to what that ranking means, you have this situation.

This is a good point regarding Raps in 4's ranking..where it includes G-league players who have only played 2 games or players with very low volume. Bam was at 100% for his catch and shoot 3's, for instance, but I'm not ranking him as the #1 catch and shoot player in history. Obviously, Raps in 4 did not take into account context.

But I wonder why you're so critical of a stat that has a bunch of elite scorers at the top, but then turn around and applaud a crap ranking that has G-league players I've never heard of up there. You really shouldn't let bias get in the way of simple logic.
Here are a few categories where he's up there in 20-21 after filtering out for low sample size/low volume:

Catch and shoot 3's: #11
Pull up 2's: #11
10-14 ft: #13
15-19 ft: #5
Shots with defenders within 2-4 feet: #7

So, obviously as previously indicated, his bread and butter is in contested long 2's, which is not great if you want to run a smart offense, but it's good for bail out or end of game situations. It's like getting Ace Bailey with dribbling and passing ability.

I'm not saying that the b-ball index ranking is a good ranking either. Disregarding stats, I'd say the following are above or close to him as overall shooters:

Kawhi
Harden
Norman Powell
Durant
Curry
Lebron
Jokic
Doncic
Tatum
Shai
Anthony Edwards
Jalen Brunson
Damian Lillard
KAT
Irving
Donovan Mitchell
Tyler Herro
Zach Lavine
McCollum
Trey Murphy
Siakam
Markkanen

A few questionable ones here, but overall Ingram should be at least top 20.

You lost me at the bolded, where is this list? He sorted by USG%, I would assume he had a GP minimum, but I'd need to see the actual list to know for sure. Also why are people picking a single year instead of his career.

If I'm able to check and do my due diligence before making a judgement on a ranking, then so can you. If I didn't check on it, I just wouldn't form an opinion on it. Same with the other ranking, given the context, it's not really an overall "shooting ability" ranking.

All I'm saying is that any list that has players of that calibre (SGA, Jokic, etc.), followed up by players like BI/JJJ is either so meaningless to determine player impact, or so very cherry picked it's pretty much useless, and right up there with the classic Thad Young stat.

JJJr is not a horrendous shooter, but considering it has Giannis up there, I think it takes into consideration 0-10 feet in addition to the amount of defensive pressure. The ranking is likely for "shot making", rather than shooting ability. Giannis NOT taking high volume shots from long mid-range or from 3 probably helps him here.

BI is not bad by any stretch, but he doesn't belong in any list with guys of that calibre based on the smell test alone. Lets see him rank up top with some more reputable stats that have a much better indication of player impact, then we'll talk.

NO's overall record with him is around 145-143 (0.503), without him is 43-59 (0.421). Not really a drastic difference, but at least it's not a Rudy Gay situation. Key is for him to play within our offense and step up in bail out situations.

[youngRAPZ]

This is a good point regarding Raps in 4's ranking..where it includes G-league players who have only played 2 games or players with very low volume. Bam was at 100% for his catch and shoot 3's, for instance, but I'm not ranking him as the #1 catch and shoot player in history. Obviously, Raps in 4 did not take into account context.

But I wonder why you're so critical of a stat that has a bunch of elite scorers at the top, but then turn around and applaud a crap ranking that has G-league players I've never heard of up there. You really shouldn't let bias get in the way of simple logic.
Here are a few categories where he's up there in 20-21 after filtering out for low sample size/low volume:

Catch and shoot 3's: #11
Pull up 2's: #11
10-14 ft: #13
15-19 ft: #5
Shots with defenders within 2-4 feet: #7

So, obviously as previously indicated, his bread and butter is in contested long 2's, which is not great if you want to run a smart offense, but it's good for bail out or end of game situations. It's like getting Ace Bailey with dribbling and passing ability.

I'm not saying that the b-ball index ranking is a good ranking either. Disregarding stats, I'd say the following are above or close to him as overall shooters:

Kawhi
Harden
Norman Powell
Durant
Curry
Lebron
Jokic
Doncic
Tatum
Shai
Anthony Edwards
Jalen Brunson
Damian Lillard
KAT
Irving
Donovan Mitchell
Tyler Herro
Zach Lavine
McCollum
Trey Murphy
Siakam
Markkanen

A few questionable ones here, but overall Ingram should be at least top 20.

You lost me at the bolded, where is this list? He sorted by USG%, I would assume he had a GP minimum, but I'd need to see the actual list to know for sure. Also why are people picking a single year instead of his career.

If I'm able to check and do my due diligence before making a judgement on a ranking, then so can you. If I didn't check on it, I just wouldn't form an opinion on it. Same with the other ranking, given the context, it's not really an overall "shooting ability" ranking.

All I'm saying is that any list that has players of that calibre (SGA, Jokic, etc.), followed up by players like BI/JJJ is either so meaningless to determine player impact, or so very cherry picked it's pretty much useless, and right up there with the classic Thad Young stat.

JJJr is not a horrendous shooter, but considering it has Giannis up there, I think it takes into consideration 0-10 feet in addition to the amount of defensive pressure. The ranking is likely for "shot making", rather than shooting ability. Giannis NOT taking high volume shots from long mid-range or from 3 probably helps him here.

BI is not bad by any stretch, but he doesn't belong in any list with guys of that calibre based on the smell test alone. Lets see him rank up top with some more reputable stats that have a much better indication of player impact, then we'll talk.

NO's overall record with him is around 145-143 (0.503), without him is 43-59 (0.421). Not really a drastic difference, but at least it's not a Rudy Gay situation. Key is for him to play within our offense and step up in bail out situations.

Trying to reason with Scase is asking for a headache. lol his take now is bball index is garbage and useless and they just make up stats. lol great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LBJKB24MJ23]

You lost me at the bolded, where is this list? He sorted by USG%, I would assume he had a GP minimum, but I'd need to see the actual list to know for sure. Also why are people picking a single year instead of his career.

If I'm able to check and do my due diligence before making a judgement on a ranking, then so can you. If I didn't check on it, I just wouldn't form an opinion on it. Same with the other ranking, given the context, it's not really an overall "shooting ability" ranking.

All I'm saying is that any list that has players of that calibre (SGA, Jokic, etc.), followed up by players like BI/JJJ is either so meaningless to determine player impact, or so very cherry picked it's pretty much useless, and right up there with the classic Thad Young stat.

JJJr is not a horrendous shooter, but considering it has Giannis up there, I think it takes into consideration 0-10 feet in addition to the amount of defensive pressure. The ranking is likely for "shot making", rather than shooting ability. Giannis NOT taking high volume shots from long mid-range or from 3 probably helps him here.

BI is not bad by any stretch, but he doesn't belong in any list with guys of that calibre based on the smell test alone. Lets see him rank up top with some more reputable stats that have a much better indication of player impact, then we'll talk.

NO's overall record with him is around 145-143 (0.503), without him is 43-59 (0.421). Not really a drastic difference, but at least it's not a Rudy Gay situation. Key is for him to play within our offense and step up in bail out situations.

Trying to reason with Scase is asking for a headache. lol his take now is bball index is garbage and useless and they just make up stats. lol great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

that seems to be the case. old man yelling at cloud moment.

[Scase]

This is a good point regarding Raps in 4's ranking..where it includes G-league players who have only played 2 games or players with very low volume. Bam was at 100% for his catch and shoot 3's, for instance, but I'm not ranking him as the #1 catch and shoot player in history. Obviously, Raps in 4 did not take into account context.

But I wonder why you're so critical of a stat that has a bunch of elite scorers at the top, but then turn around and applaud a crap ranking that has G-league players I've never heard of up there. You really shouldn't let bias get in the way of simple logic.
Here are a few categories where he's up there in 20-21 after filtering out for low sample size/low volume:

Catch and shoot 3's: #11
Pull up 2's: #11
10-14 ft: #13
15-19 ft: #5
Shots with defenders within 2-4 feet: #7

So, obviously as previously indicated, his bread and butter is in contested long 2's, which is not great if you want to run a smart offense, but it's good for bail out or end of game situations. It's like getting Ace Bailey with dribbling and passing ability.

I'm not saying that the b-ball index ranking is a good ranking either. Disregarding stats, I'd say the following are above or close to him as overall shooters:

Kawhi
Harden
Norman Powell
Durant
Curry
Lebron
Jokic
Doncic
Tatum
Shai
Anthony Edwards
Jalen Brunson
Damian Lillard
KAT
Irving
Donovan Mitchell
Tyler Herro
Zach Lavine
McCollum
Trey Murphy
Siakam
Markkanen

A few questionable ones here, but overall Ingram should be at least top 20.

You lost me at the bolded, where is this list? He sorted by USG%, I would assume he had a GP minimum, but I'd need to see the actual list to know for sure. Also why are people picking a single year instead of his career.

If I'm able to check and do my due diligence before making a judgement on a ranking, then so can you. If I didn't check on it, I just wouldn't form an opinion on it. Same with the other ranking, given the context, it's not really an overall "shooting ability" ranking.

All I'm saying is that any list that has players of that calibre (SGA, Jokic, etc.), followed up by players like BI/JJJ is either so meaningless to determine player impact, or so very cherry picked it's pretty much useless, and right up there with the classic Thad Young stat.

JJJr is not a horrendous shooter, but considering it has Giannis up there, I think it takes into consideration 0-10 feet in addition to the amount of defensive pressure. The ranking is likely for "shot making", rather than shooting ability. Giannis NOT taking high volume shots from long mid-range or from 3 probably helps him here.

BI is not bad by any stretch, but he doesn't belong in any list with guys of that calibre based on the smell test alone. Lets see him rank up top with some more reputable stats that have a much better indication of player impact, then we'll talk.

NO's overall record with him is around 145-143 (0.503), without him is 43-59 (0.421). Not really a drastic difference, but at least it's not a Rudy Gay situation. Key is for him to play within our offense and step up in bail out situations.

Fair, I could've verified his data.

As for what the stat apparently means

This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

Which is honestly a pretty big nothingburger of a stat, kinda my point from the get go. It's a stat that is based off another stat they made up, which is based off another stat they made up. It generates artificial data, and then uses that to justify if the player is good or not, it's pointless.

As I've stated before, I dont think BI is a bad player by any stretch, the team will be objectively better with him on it, I just tire of these ridiculous obscure made up stats to try and prop up players the second they become raptors. I've seen it countless times with Scottie, IQ, and RJ. It's just jumping through a bunch of hoops to feel like our players are super special.

[AkelaLoneWolf]

you can look at stats all you want but just crushing his highlight videos recently, the kid can flat out ball he looks amazing...hes so long with nice moves, strong ball handling skills and passes the ball really well too, he can hit any type of shot and release from anywhere on the court...he just needs to stay on the court

If he can stay healthy that contract is a bargain

[youngRAPZ]

You lost me at the bolded, where is this list? He sorted by USG%, I would assume he had a GP minimum, but I'd need to see the actual list to know for sure. Also why are people picking a single year instead of his career.

If I'm able to check and do my due diligence before making a judgement on a ranking, then so can you. If I didn't check on it, I just wouldn't form an opinion on it. Same with the other ranking, given the context, it's not really an overall "shooting ability" ranking.

All I'm saying is that any list that has players of that calibre (SGA, Jokic, etc.), followed up by players like BI/JJJ is either so meaningless to determine player impact, or so very cherry picked it's pretty much useless, and right up there with the classic Thad Young stat.

JJJr is not a horrendous shooter, but considering it has Giannis up there, I think it takes into consideration 0-10 feet in addition to the amount of defensive pressure. The ranking is likely for "shot making", rather than shooting ability. Giannis NOT taking high volume shots from long mid-range or from 3 probably helps him here.

BI is not bad by any stretch, but he doesn't belong in any list with guys of that calibre based on the smell test alone. Lets see him rank up top with some more reputable stats that have a much better indication of player impact, then we'll talk.

NO's overall record with him is around 145-143 (0.503), without him is 43-59 (0.421). Not really a drastic difference, but at least it's not a Rudy Gay situation. Key is for him to play within our offense and step up in bail out situations.

Fair, I could've verified his data.

As for what the stat apparently means

This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

Which is honestly a pretty big nothingburger of a stat, kinda my point from the get go. It's a stat that is based off another stat they made up, which is based off another stat they made up. It generates artificial data, and then uses that to justify if the player is good or not, it's pointless.

As I've stated before, I dont think BI is a bad player by any stretch, the team will be objectively better with him on it, I just tire of these ridiculous obscure made up stats to try and prop up players the second they become raptors. I've seen it countless times with Scottie, IQ, and RJ. It's just jumping through a bunch of hoops to feel like our players are super special.

Now he’s saying BBallIndex are raptors fans and they created this stat as soon as BI became a raptor. Brother if you don’t think the stat or ranking is relevant great but why try to make it seem like it’s raptors fans making it up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scase]

If I'm able to check and do my due diligence before making a judgement on a ranking, then so can you. If I didn't check on it, I just wouldn't form an opinion on it. Same with the other ranking, given the context, it's not really an overall "shooting ability" ranking.



JJJr is not a horrendous shooter, but considering it has Giannis up there, I think it takes into consideration 0-10 feet in addition to the amount of defensive pressure. The ranking is likely for "shot making", rather than shooting ability. Giannis NOT taking high volume shots from long mid-range or from 3 probably helps him here.



NO's overall record with him is around 145-143 (0.503), without him is 43-59 (0.421). Not really a drastic difference, but at least it's not a Rudy Gay situation. Key is for him to play within our offense and step up in bail out situations.

Fair, I could've verified his data.

As for what the stat apparently means

This metric works the same as Shot Making Efficiency measuring how much a player over or under-performs relative to expectation. It does this by looking at the difficulty of a shot, creating an expected eFG%, and then comparing it to the player’s actual eFG% on that shot. The difference is it also takes into account a players shooting volume per 100 possessions like Shot Making and gives additional weighting for self-created shots. This metric is also padded with a specific number of league average attempts to enable higher predictiveness by combating the problem of small sample sizes.

Which is honestly a pretty big nothingburger of a stat, kinda my point from the get go. It's a stat that is based off another stat they made up, which is based off another stat they made up. It generates artificial data, and then uses that to justify if the player is good or not, it's pointless.

As I've stated before, I dont think BI is a bad player by any stretch, the team will be objectively better with him on it, I just tire of these ridiculous obscure made up stats to try and prop up players the second they become raptors. I've seen it countless times with Scottie, IQ, and RJ. It's just jumping through a bunch of hoops to feel like our players are super special.

Now he’s saying BBallIndex are raptors fans and they created this stat as soon as BI became a raptor. Brother if you don’t think the stat or ranking is relevant great but why try to make it seem like it’s raptors fans making it up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your hate boner for me is impressive, I'll give you that. I wasn't suggesting they were created by raps fans, I was stating they are being used by raps fans, as in posting them in this thread.

Take a breath, and have a seat before you give yourself an aneurysm.

[youngRAPZ]

you can look at stats all you want but just crushing his highlight videos recently, the kid can flat out ball he looks amazing...hes so long with nice moves, strong ball handling skills and passes the ball really well too, he can hit any type of shot and release from anywhere on the court...he just needs to stay on the court

If he can stay healthy that contract is a bargain

Agreed if he stays healthy he seems willing to play the way the coaches want. He speaks about them wanting to “make” him an Allstar again suggesting that he’s open to fitting in. No one is expecting next year for us to “attack the championship” as Poeltl put it but if we can make the playoffs and possibly win a round that’s a step in the right direction and more tweaks will be made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YogurtProducer]

You lost me at the bolded, where is this list? He sorted by USG%, I would assume he had a GP minimum, but I'd need to see the actual list to know for sure. Also why are people picking a single year instead of his career.

If I'm able to check and do my due diligence before making a judgement on a ranking, then so can you. If I didn't check on it, I just wouldn't form an opinion on it. Same with the other ranking, given the context, it's not really an overall "shooting ability" ranking.

All I'm saying is that any list that has players of that calibre (SGA, Jokic, etc.), followed up by players like BI/JJJ is either so meaningless to determine player impact, or so very cherry picked it's pretty much useless, and right up there with the classic Thad Young stat.

JJJr is not a horrendous shooter, but considering it has Giannis up there, I think it takes into consideration 0-10 feet in addition to the amount of defensive pressure. The ranking is likely for "shot making", rather than shooting ability. Giannis NOT taking high volume shots from long mid-range or from 3 probably helps him here.

BI is not bad by any stretch, but he doesn't belong in any list with guys of that calibre based on the smell test alone. Lets see him rank up top with some more reputable stats that have a much better indication of player impact, then we'll talk.

NO's overall record with him is around 145-143 (0.503), without him is 43-59 (0.421). Not really a drastic difference, but at least it's not a Rudy Gay situation. Key is for him to play within our offense and step up in bail out situations.

Trying to reason with Scase is asking for a headache. lol his take now is bball index is garbage and useless and they just make up stats. lol great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the dude will argue anything. It’s insufferable