When can we start criticizing Ingram's offensive game?

[john248]

Doesn't seem like you do. PER is mainly a cumulative stat with some efficiency boost or penalty. If you look at it's formula, it basically just adds the box score stat line. I don't see it as an indicator if a player is good or bad. A defensive specialist like Tony Allen is a 12-13 PER as is an all-around player like Iguodala (GSW years). Ingram sucked his rookie year. No getting around that. Not my argument really.

It's not that complicated really. You brought up a "Defensive specialist" in Tony Allen being an outlier. Ok....Ingram is not a defensive specialist, is he? So the stat holds more weight. That wasn't hard, was it?

Not when you ignore when I listed Iguodala.

Really, using 1 stat to judge a player is ignorant. Especially when you can look at a number of stats and see how a player does per possession through turnover rate, how he shoots on the floor, and whether he gets to the line. Draymond Green's PER is 16-17 now. Do you really think as a player he's just 1 or 2 points better than league average of 15 especially given is value on both ends of the floor? Once you factor in that PER is really tied into usage, doesn't penalize volume scorers (at low %ages) much...well, it's easy to see it doesn't indicate much. You may get stuck with a good stats bad team type of player. This is a stat that Dean Oliver tore up more than 10 years ago in his book, and "advanced" stats have come a long way since then.

[danfantastk32]

Not when you ignore when I listed Iguodala.

The cute laughy face aside,I'm looking at a 8.54 PER from Ingram, and a 14.54 PER from Iggy. So that's why I probably ignored it. Because one is closing in on TWICE the PER. In other words....the two have no business being compared.

BTW.....you do know your trying to compare Ingram to a guy who's like 5th on the totem pole at best, and well past his 30's. And your best comparison was a guy who's damn near doubling his PER.

Where you going with this?

[john248]

.

[danfantastk32]

And now that I bother to look it up.....T-Allen is holding a 13.24 PER well over 1 and a half Ingrams. And he's a freakin 35-year old. So whatever point you were trying to prove....I think it sucked.

[john248]

And now that I bother to look it up.....T-Allen is holding a 13.24 PER well over 1 and a half Ingrams. And he's a freakin 35-year old. So whatever point you were trying to prove....I think it sucked.

It's because you don't understand the stat. You're trying to use it as a predictor when it is not. My point is simple. PER doesn't indicate much of anything. It undervalues players like Iguodala and Tony Allen. It also overvalues players who are high useage at mediocre efficiency. Saying that Ingram has a PER of 8 is fairly meaningless because you're using a meaningless stat.

You're the guy who's using PER to mean...out of position? taking bad shots? How the hell is this stat telling you that?

[danfantastk32]

Really, using 1 stat to judge a player is ignorant. Especially when you can look at a number of stats and see how a player does per possession through turnover rate, how he shoots on the floor, and whether he gets to the line. Draymond Green's PER is 16-17 now. Do you really think as a player he's just 1 or 2 points better than league average of 15 especially given is value on both ends of the floor? Once you factor in that PER is really tied into usage, doesn't penalize volume scorers (at low %ages) much...well, it's not much to indicate much. You may get stuck with a good stats bad team type of player. This is a stat that Dean Oliver tore up more than 10 years ago in his book, and "advanced" stats have come a long way since then.

Nobody's using "one stat to judge a player" give me a freakin break. Go read the multiple posts that I say the guy has grips of potential. But that said....PER is sort of an "over all value" of a player. Nobody said it was perfect....but when a guy is on the bottom 10%, there's fair reason to admit the guy didn't have the bang and pop rookie season you'd hope for, from the #2 pick.

Look...it's really not that complicated. Im not trashing the guy. But he had a pretty shyt rookie year. Just accept it. It doesnt mean we need to trade the guy. It just means LOOK AT HIS STATS! They arent very good...are they? Come on now......you can say it without your fan card being taken away. Jesus

[danfantastk32]

And now that I bother to look it up.....T-Allen is holding a 13.24 PER well over 1 and a half Ingrams. And he's a freakin 35-year old. So whatever point you were trying to prove....I think it sucked.

It's because you don't understand the stat. You're trying to use it as a predictor when it is not. My point is simple. PER doesn't indicate much of anything. It undervalues players like Iguodala and Tony Allen. It also overvalues players who are high useage at mediocre efficiency. Saying that Ingram has a PER of 8 is fairly meaningless because you're using a meaningless stat.

You're the guy who's using PER to mean...out of position? taking bad shots? How the hell is this stat telling you that?

No....YOUR the guy who clearly doesnt understand the stat if your trying to use examples of guys who absolutely DOMINATE him in that stat. Fact is....your not gonna find any good players rockin an 8.5 PER. Hence my point all along. Come on now.

[john248]

Really, using 1 stat to judge a player is ignorant. Especially when you can look at a number of stats and see how a player does per possession through turnover rate, how he shoots on the floor, and whether he gets to the line. Draymond Green's PER is 16-17 now. Do you really think as a player he's just 1 or 2 points better than league average of 15 especially given is value on both ends of the floor? Once you factor in that PER is really tied into usage, doesn't penalize volume scorers (at low %ages) much...well, it's not much to indicate much. You may get stuck with a good stats bad team type of player. This is a stat that Dean Oliver tore up more than 10 years ago in his book, and "advanced" stats have come a long way since then.

Nobody's using "one stat to judge a player" give me a freakin break. Go read the multiple posts that I say the guy has grips of potential. But that said....PER is sort of an "over all value" of a player. Nobody said it was perfect....but when a guy is on the bottom 10%, there's fair reason to admit the guy didn't have the bang and pop rookie season you'd hope for, from the #2 pick.

Look...it's really not that complicated. Im not trashing the guy. But he had a pretty shyt rookie year. Just accept it. It doesnt mean we need to trade the guy. It just means LOOK AT HIS STATS! They arent very good...are they? Come on now......you can say it without your fan card being taken away. Jesus

Well, you are. And I'm not talking about Ingram here; more talking about how you're using this stat. Ingram is a low useage player; his PER will be low. No where have I said Ingram didn't suck; he sucked his rookie year. That is you making up an argument. You're talking PER as if it's telling you something when it's not. Have you even seen its formula?

[john248]

And now that I bother to look it up.....T-Allen is holding a 13.24 PER well over 1 and a half Ingrams. And he's a freakin 35-year old. So whatever point you were trying to prove....I think it sucked.

It's because you don't understand the stat. You're trying to use it as a predictor when it is not. My point is simple. PER doesn't indicate much of anything. It undervalues players like Iguodala and Tony Allen. It also overvalues players who are high useage at mediocre efficiency. Saying that Ingram has a PER of 8 is fairly meaningless because you're using a meaningless stat.

You're the guy who's using PER to mean...out of position? taking bad shots? How the hell is this stat telling you that?

No....YOUR the guy who clearly doesnt understand the stat if your trying to use examples of guys who absolutely DOMINATE him in that stat. Fact is....your not gonna find any good players rockin an 8.5 PER. Hence my point all along. Come on now.

You need to read. I'm not comparing Ingram to any of Iguodala or Allen. All I said was the PER stat doesn't value players like them, defensive specialist and low useage 2 way player. Overvalues players like Detroit version of Jerry Stackhouse. PER of 15 is weighted to be league average.

Odd that you'd capitalize YOUR but misuse that too. lol

[danfantastk32]

Really, using 1 stat to judge a player is ignorant. Especially when you can look at a number of stats and see how a player does per possession through turnover rate, how he shoots on the floor, and whether he gets to the line. Draymond Green's PER is 16-17 now. Do you really think as a player he's just 1 or 2 points better than league average of 15 especially given is value on both ends of the floor? Once you factor in that PER is really tied into usage, doesn't penalize volume scorers (at low %ages) much...well, it's not much to indicate much. You may get stuck with a good stats bad team type of player. This is a stat that Dean Oliver tore up more than 10 years ago in his book, and "advanced" stats have come a long way since then.

Nobody's using "one stat to judge a player" give me a freakin break. Go read the multiple posts that I say the guy has grips of potential. But that said....PER is sort of an "over all value" of a player. Nobody said it was perfect....but when a guy is on the bottom 10%, there's fair reason to admit the guy didn't have the bang and pop rookie season you'd hope for, from the #2 pick.

Look...it's really not that complicated. Im not trashing the guy. But he had a pretty shyt rookie year. Just accept it. It doesnt mean we need to trade the guy. It just means LOOK AT HIS STATS! They arent very good...are they? Come on now......you can say it without your fan card being taken away. Jesus

Well, you are. And I'm not talking about Ingram here; more talking about how you're using this stat. Ingram is a low useage player; his PER will be low. No where have I said Ingram didn't suck; he sucked his rookie year. That is you making up an argument. You're talking PER as if it's telling you something when it's not. Have you even seen its formula?

All Im talking about is Ingram. And don't try that sad, tired, "muck up the argument" thing. It's boring. I'm using the stat toward Ingram. You know I am....I know I am. The poor PER a clear indicator of what a "underwhelming" year he's had. I'll stick with what I've posted all along. If you have a legit argument.....then by all means throw it out. But now your just wasting my time with BS. I used the stat just fine. He's in the bottom 95%. You threw out guys in another league PER-wise. Go figure it out, and come back when you know what it is you wanna say.

[john248]

Like talking to a brick wall

And I don't need PER to tell me Ingram was horribad.

[danfantastk32]

Good argument. That's what I thought.

[RingsDontLie]

PER means/indicates nothing in regards to Ingram. Case closed.

[AcecardZ]

All things being equal, no injuries, Ingram should be able to manage a 14-15 PER next year and 18-20 PER the following. I have high expectations for the kid.

[iamworthy]

Read on Twitter

[MAMBAEMD]

I think he'll continue to grow and get better and better.
He's shown he can be a slasher, which is great. He has a pretty quick first step and can get around his man efficiently.

He needs to work on his outside shot, including 3 point shooting in the summer.
If he adds that to his game, it will actually make him a threat on offense, that the defenses have to respect.

He should also be a better free throw shooter than he is right now. 62% is really bad for him.

[wco81]

I think he'll continue to grow and get better and better.
He's shown he can be a slasher, which is great. He has a pretty quick first step and can get around his man efficiently.

He needs to work on his outside shot, including 3 point shooting in the summer.
If he adds that to his game, it will actually make him a threat on offense, that the defenses have to respect.

He should also be a better free throw shooter than he is right now. 62% is really bad for him.

That's the number one thing for him isn't it? Those driving dunks are great on YouTube but he was picked #2 to be more than just a slasher with highlight dunks?

He's been compared to KD, who also shot very poorly in his rookie year.

Or look at a player like Marcus Smart, who's a key member of the rotation for the first-seed in the EC this year. He's a key contributor on defense but his shooting has not come around after 3 seasons. There are Celtics fans who love him to death but if his shooting doesn't come around by the time for an extension, do they keep a guy who's under 30% from 3 for his career? He was the #6 pick of his draft ...

[JohnVancouver]

The BI who finished the season looked like a pro baller and the difference between pre ASG and the last 10 or so games was profound. No reason not to believe he won't continue on this curve. Still growing into his body but he has the instincts and the talent. We've ssen enough to know that

[ALL HAIL]

The BI who finished the season looked like a pro baller and the difference between pre ASG and the last 10 or so games was profound. No reason not to believe he won't continue on this curve. Still growing into his body but he has the instincts and the talent. We've ssen enough to know that

. . . and, although he's a twig, he's tough.

He's not afraid of contact and often seeks it out.