Official Brandon Ingram Thread

[Basketball_Jones]

I was more optimistic on Ingram than most. But he’s not as great as I thought he’d be. That being said, he’s still probably getting back into shape and we may not truly see peak version of him even this year. I really like his craftiness and manipulation of defenders, but ball handling and vision likely is what it is at this stage of his career. I can see why he has never hit that next level, though he’s had a few very good seasons in NOP.

[tsherkin]

I was more optimistic on Ingram than most. But he’s not as great as I thought he’d be. That being said, he’s still probably getting back into shape and we may not truly see peak version of him even this year. I really like his craftiness and manipulation of defenders, but ball handling and vision likely is what it is at this stage of his career. I can see why he has never hit that next level, though he’s had a few very good seasons in NOP.

We all knew we weren't getting a superstar on a bargain deal. This is just the reality of the player we knew we were getting. Everyone was loving him until he hit a shooting slump with RJ down, because they're reactionary fans being hasty, that's all.

He's good, but he is what he is, and that isn't a tier-1 (or 2) player. That's fine. When our team is healthy and our offense is clicking with good ball movement, he fits in nicely and helps unlock our other guys. When we start dicking with that methodology, it doesn't work as well, particularly when he's shooting too much and dead-legging it. That's all, it's very simple.

[HiJiNX]

All this to say that your stats don’t say what you think they say. We can just watch the games and see what’s happening. And again, as I always say on here, stats need to be applied with context. Furthermore, stats can’t measure the psychology of the game (ex. player confidence, rhythm and flow, momentum, etc.), which has a massive impact on what happens on the court.

There are other numbers which illustrate all of what you're saying, too. He's barely top 150 in passes made per game, but the Raptors as a team are 4th in the league in APG. He's 23rd in the league in iso possessions per game and 61st in PnR Handler possessions. 4 of his 17 shots per game are catch-and-shoot looks. 4.4 of them are from 0-7 seconds remaining on the clock. 6.4 of his FGA/g come after taking 3+ dribbles. 7.8 of them come with a defender 4+ feet from him, but only 1.9 with a defender more than 6 feet from him.

He sees loads of contested looks, he dribbles a lot, he takes 4.8 FGA/g out of 17 out of isos and PnR action (which feels a little like a low-ball number to me, and probably doesn't reflect the post-RJ trend) and he shoots quite a lot late in the clock. In 5 of the last 8 games, he's taken 20+ FGA/g (including a 30-shot game!), so he's really feeling the load above and beyond his normal usage. He had a single game of 20+ FGA prior to these past 8 games.

This is exactly what you're talking about.

Thanks for pulling the stats.

[manjusaka]

In the game against C’s, he was hitting a lot of tough shots, and he made it look easy. His teammates need to be aware that he will be double teamed, get into a position that BI can have a clear pass, instead of standing there and do nothing.

[tsherkin]

All this to say that your stats don’t say what you think they say. We can just watch the games and see what’s happening. And again, as I always say on here, stats need to be applied with context. Furthermore, stats can’t measure the psychology of the game (ex. player confidence, rhythm and flow, momentum, etc.), which has a massive impact on what happens on the court.

There are other numbers which illustrate all of what you're saying, too. He's barely top 150 in passes made per game, but the Raptors as a team are 4th in the league in APG. He's 23rd in the league in iso possessions per game and 61st in PnR Handler possessions. 4 of his 17 shots per game are catch-and-shoot looks. 4.4 of them are from 0-7 seconds remaining on the clock. 6.4 of his FGA/g come after taking 3+ dribbles. 7.8 of them come with a defender 4+ feet from him, but only 1.9 with a defender more than 6 feet from him.

He sees loads of contested looks, he dribbles a lot, he takes 4.8 FGA/g out of 17 out of isos and PnR action (which feels a little like a low-ball number to me, and probably doesn't reflect the post-RJ trend) and he shoots quite a lot late in the clock. In 5 of the last 8 games, he's taken 20+ FGA/g (including a 30-shot game!), so he's really feeling the load above and beyond his normal usage. He had a single game of 20+ FGA prior to these past 8 games.

This is exactly what you're talking about.

Thanks for pulling the stats.

Yeah, man. Fun times.

BI is very good for us, but we've moved away from using him (and everyone else) the way that was working prior to RJ going down, and we're really feeling it now.

[TimeForChange]

Read on Twitter

[tsherkin]

He's been dog-ass since RJ went down. Let's see how those numbers change now that RJ is back. He was doing a LOT better prior to Barrett's injury. Then he became a Paolo Banchero-level disaster.

[PushDaRock]

The streaky 3 point shooting is crazy. He's really increased his volume lately which overall is probably a positive but the percentages have just tanked. He's 1 for his last 21 from three and down to 33% on the year.

[mdenny]

The streaky 3 point shooting is crazy. He's really increased his volume lately which overall is probably a positive but the percentages have just tanked. He's 1 for his last 21 from three and down to 33% on the year.

I don't see the streakiness in 3s to be a big deal given his role. He'll get hold, he'll get cold. But it's not his role to shoot 3s anyways.

He's been playing great since RJ went down and we probably have 3 or 4 less wins without him. The view of looking at efficiency in a vacuum is misguided. You can't win games without hitting tough shots.....and the guys who's role is to hit tough shots aren't going to be as efficient as other roles such as catch and shoot guys, post-up guys, transition guys etc. It leads to ridiculous claims such as "Chet had a better finals than SGA" (yes this claim was made). I only bring up that example because it best illustrates how crazy it is to use efficiency as the primary measuring stick in player value or contribution to winning.

I first started noticing the misapplication of efficiency stats 3 or 4 years ago. It could also be called an over-emphasis or misallocated weight. But imo it's just a passing trend.

There is no offensive scheme or gameplan that can reliably and consistently produce easy buckets. You can try to maximize how many easy buckets the offense produces....but it will never be enough to WIN consistently. So those points that Ingram gets are not replaceable or interchangeable with other types of shot attempts. There are a certain number of points (i have no idea how many) in every game that HAVE to be gotten that way. And we saw last season what happens without those types of points.

Contrary to how the efficiency ppl think.....ingram can absolutely be the reason we won a game while he goes 8 for 20.

If you really wanted to boil down scoring performance to efficiency numbers....you'd need to categorize all shot shot attempts into various categories and then properly weight expected efficiency for each category of attempt. 3 categories off the top of my head would be distance, coverage, shot clock.

And once again....the player who's role is to bail out the offense on a failed possession....give him the ball with 5 seconds left in the shot clock to make something happen....those attempts are not equal to open layups in transition.

I suppose the thinking is that those things "even out". But they absolutely do NOT even out. Some guys are tasked with taking tough shots. Some guys are not. And comparing their performance primarily by efficiency is crazy.

[pingpongrac]

Ingram has had half a dozen or so games where his offence down the stretch has ultimately won us a game, but there have also been a few games where the ISO offence (mostly BI) has failed us while his overall numbers have just been pretty good (21/6/4 on 56 TS% which is almost what I expected, though slightly less scoring on marginally lower efficiency). He is clearly our best scoring option late and he is damn-near unstoppable in the midrange when he is feeling it, but he is getting less calls this season than at any point in his career (aside from his 18-game season last year) and it has affected his efficiency a bit. His defence has been mostly subpar, but he has had a handful of clutch defensive stops (block on Coward against the Grizzlies in early November, stole a pass from LaMelo then a few minutes later had a nasty block on Kalkbrenner to help seal the win late against the Hornets in mid-November, block on Black the other night, etc.).

I have been fine with his play overall. He has generally been good but not great, but he has been available every night thus far which has made up for the slightly lower than expected production. I think with RJ back now, we are going to see him be a bit more effective again.

[mtcan]

BI has been fine. His efficiency took a nosedive after RJ went down and that's largely because opponents were now able to key in on him being the only real creator in the starting 5. He was asked to take on an even larger role as the primary focus on offence and his isolation touches went way up. With RJ...the 0.5 Offence flows. Without RJ...it's back to iso ball and BI gets stuck with a lot more late clock hand grenades and that's going to tank efficiency.

[PushDaRock]

The streaky 3 point shooting is crazy. He's really increased his volume lately which overall is probably a positive but the percentages have just tanked. He's 1 for his last 21 from three and down to 33% on the year.

I don't see the streakiness in 3s to be a big deal given his role. He'll get hold, he'll get cold. But it's not his role to shoot 3s anyways.

He's been playing great since RJ went down and we probably have 3 or 4 less wins without him. The view of looking at efficiency in a vacuum is misguided. You can't win games without hitting tough shots.....and the guys who's role is to hit tough shots aren't going to be as efficient as other roles such as catch and shoot guys, post-up guys, transition guys etc. It leads to ridiculous claims such as "Chet had a better finals than SGA" (yes this claim was made). I only bring up that example because it best illustrates how crazy it is to use efficiency as the primary measuring stick in player value or contribution to winning.

I first started noticing the misapplication of efficiency stats 3 or 4 years ago. It could also be called an over-emphasis or misallocated weight. But imo it's just a passing trend.

There is no offensive scheme or gameplan that can reliably and consistently produce easy buckets. You can try to maximize how many easy buckets the offense produces....but it will never be enough to WIN consistently. So those points that Ingram gets are not replaceable or interchangeable with other types of shot attempts. There are a certain number of points (i have no idea how many) in every game that HAVE to be gotten that way. And we saw last season what happens without those types of points.

Contrary to how the efficiency ppl think.....ingram can absolutely be the reason we won a game while he goes 8 for 20.

If you really wanted to boil down scoring performance to efficiency numbers....you'd need to categorize all shot shot attempts into various categories and then properly weight expected efficiency for each category of attempt. 3 categories off the top of my head would be distance, coverage, shot clock.

And once again....the player who's role is to bail out the offense on a failed possession....give him the ball with 5 seconds left in the shot clock to make something happen....those attempts are not equal to open layups in transition.

I suppose the thinking is that those things "even out". But they absolutely do NOT even out. Some guys are tasked with taking tough shots. Some guys are not. And comparing their performance primarily by efficiency is crazy.

Well, it's also not a coincidence that the best players on the best teams in the league tend to be really efficient. They manage to be efficient even with taking the more difficult shots and being handed more grenades. There's a lot value in what Ingram is doing soaking up tough shots late clock but he still needs to be reasonably efficient for us to be good because we rely on him for volume scoring.

[tsherkin]

I don't see the streakiness in 3s to be a big deal given his role. He'll get hold, he'll get cold. But it's not his role to shoot 3s anyways.

This makes sense. Ultimately, a 37 or 38% shot is going to be very, very streaky. Particularly if you shoot it in volume.

He's been playing great since RJ went down

This is probably an overaggressive hyperbole. His defense has been a problem and his efficiency has been horrific. And given what proportion of our offense for which he is responsible, scoring at that level of brutal inefficiency is a significant problem for our offense. And is a large part of why our O has sucked lately.

Now, he has ALSO made some big, timely plays, and had some good games, of course. Both of these things can be true.

and we probably have 3 or 4 less wins without him. The view of looking at efficiency in a vacuum is misguided. You can't win games without hitting tough shots.....and the guys who's role is to hit tough shots aren't going to be as efficient as other roles such as catch and shoot guys, post-up guys, transition guys etc.

Sure, but if you compare him to other volume scorers, including when they labored under similar circumstances, it shows you where he stands relative to his peers in role. Things looked better for him in an ideal circumstance, but because he baselines as an acceptable but non-elite scorer ITO efficiency to begin with, it isn't surprising that he struggled when RJ went down.

He's been a 52.7% TS scorer over the past 18 games.

That's actually abysmal, properly awful. And given that he's been taking 19.6 FGA/g, that's been a very big problem for us. League-average TS% is 58.2%, so he's been 5.5% below league average, which makes Allen Iverson look efficient by comparison.

There is a threshold where you have to stop complaining about circumstances and understand that a guy has been playing poorly. We need him for certain sets, we need him for his shot creation... but at some point, he does need to make shots and score with a modicum of efficiency. When a guy is THAT inefficient, there's a lot more going on than merely some difficult circumstances.

So we know at this point that he was both in a shooting slump and a little overtasked in role during this stretch. And that Darko wasn't doing him any favors by calling ISO BI over and over and over again. There are several factors at play here.

But it's not the 60s, or the early 2000s when everyone was busily rejecting data which worked at odds with their preconceptions. BI's been rough, really rough, since RJ went down. More so than was expected, and to a degree which takes his play beyond the ability to excuse with just "oh no, he's been isolating, so it's okay that he's less efficient than Paolo Banchero."

We can accept that he's had a hand in some wins by making some timely plays, and we can also at the same time acknowledge that his overall level of scoring has been pretty bad for a while now. And we can hope that as we get a major piece back into the lineup in RJ, that BI will start to trend upward again. A little more passing support, a few less isos, a little more space to breathe and move with another significant threat around. A little extra value from Scottie out of the same variables, easing that defensive tension. We are a team built on having our 4 core guys doing their thing, and we definitely overextended BI while RJ was down.

I don't think this is really a good time to have the "people complain too much about efficiency" argument, especially associated with BI. Because this isn't a guy who's like, hovering around league-average and just struggling with too much usage and a tough environment. It's not picking at nits to look at BI's play with RJ down and to have critical things to say about it, so long as the individual factors are all appreciated. Including his starting point. Guy isn't a franchise player, and were he, then he'd not have been available for the price we paid, obviously. So we have to be realistic about what he can and cannot do, which is another part of this.